(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] robert-jones.livejournal.com at 12:29am on 15/06/2011
I mostly agree with this, save that I don't think 'Really' can stand as a sentence on its own. Aside from not being English, I can only understand it as meaning, "I affirm that what I previously wrote is true," which is redundant, because you wouldn't have written it otherwise.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] ptc24.livejournal.com at 08:15am on 15/06/2011
Not necessarily. If one distinguishes between different levels of belief, then "Really." serves the useful purpose of bumping things up a level or two. No redundancy at all.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] juggzy.livejournal.com at 11:04am on 15/06/2011
Is there a law that says that for something to make sense it must consist of sentences that are complete according to grammatical rules?

Really?
[link] [parent] [reply]
ext_20852: (Default)

Digression

posted by [identity profile] alitalf.livejournal.com at 08:20pm on 15/06/2011
Quite right! Excessive pedantry is something up with which I will not put.

However, when I was young and at school, we were taught that a sentence not only started with a capital letter and ended with a full stop, but also contained meaning which could, at least to a limited degree, stand on its own.

I'd prefer it if people did not split sentences at the word "which", like:

He ate lunch at twelve. Which was the right time for lunch.

Yes, indeed, which was the right time for lunch? Why was there not a question mark at the end of a sentence beginning with the word "Which"?

Come to that, why do signs in some shop's have apostrophe's in plural's?

But we digress...
[link] [parent] [reply]

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
1
26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31