Messages

1

Use and Misuse / Re: Isn't the phrase "2,500 cringeworthy English" itself cringeworthy English?

« on: September 04, 2013, 06:47:59 PM »

Thank you for doing research on me, sir! I'm flattered.

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the acceptability of your use of "2,500 cringeworthy English" then.

I don't see a substantial difference between your phrase and the phrase "5 wrong English". I think both are clearly understandable in their contexts, and yet, I don't find either of them to be acceptable.

I've asked some of my peers, and they also think your usage was wrong, but you seem to be very convinced, so I'll just leave that at that. A suggestion -- Maybe you can ask your peers, too, just for confirmation purposes.

Anyway, there are many disagreements when it comes to allowed usage in the English language; maybe this is just one of them.

I wish you all the best in your quest for excellence in the use of the English language. Cheers!

2

Use and Misuse / Re: Isn't the phrase "2,500 cringeworthy English" itself cringeworthy English?

« on: September 04, 2013, 02:44:42 PM »

Haha! Cool it, Mr. Carillo! We're just talking about proper usage here.

I'm really just asking what makes "2,500 cringeworthy English" acceptable and my examples unacceptable.

Let's just stick to your phrase. Your explanation seems to imply that a teacher can correctly tell a student, "You have 5 wrong English in your essay."

Is that acceptable? I find that sentence cringeworthy.

3

Use and Misuse / Re: Isn’t the phrase "2,500 cringeworthy English" itself cringeworthy English?

« on: September 03, 2013, 07:57:49 PM »

Oh...

So in effect, you're saying that the following phrases are also acceptable because they're "ellipted or streamlined forms" of their longer counterparts:
 
- three air (for three air pockets )
- six oxygen (for six oxygen particles)
- seven Chinese (for seven Chinese characters)

and so on...