Chris Croughton wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:36:43 +0000, Richard Polhill
> <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Richard Polhill wrote:
>>
>>> This is exactly the model for preferring 'partyer' to 'partier' as an
>>> adjective 'party' is implied by the second spelling. Imagine if you will
>>> as sentence involving the compound noun 'party wall' - close in meaning
>>> to the original French root 'partie': a share - perhaps it could become
>>> acceptable to describe a one wall as 'partier' than another. ;-) I know
>>> it sounds awful as there is no adjective 'party', but it would conform
>>> to normal English evolution to extend an existing usage this way.
>> No response to that? Not even a ROFL?
>
> Usenet is not a real-time medium (nor even a small), patricularly for
> low-traffic groups like this one and at the holiday season.
>
Normally get faster responses to the sort of drivel I spouted. ;-)
>> Pah! What are the newsgroups coming to? ;-)
>
> A sticky end, like a currant bun.
>
Which end is the end on a currant bun?
> BTW, I agree with you about the endings, and that neither spelling looks
> like a real word...
>
I think Mirriam-Websters have accepted party as a verb whereas Oxford,
Chambers, et al haven't.
And it *looks* wrong, damn it.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|