Assume v. Presume

gomezz said:
It is shorthand for Either A Or (Either B Or C) with implied left to right precedence.
Click to expand...
Says who? You? Or did you just make it up?
Why not just use "one of" if that's what you mean, instead of trying to misuse something else that is (or at least was) well defined.
 
Trev said:
OD Here says otherwise
Click to expand...
It gives no examples of anything more than two. A vague reference to "occasionally more" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
My Chambers dictionary says "the one or the other; one of two; each of two".
So your usual vehemence is once again miss placed.
Click to expand...
As is your spelling. It is "misplaced". Or do you want to argue that as well?
 
gomezz said:
Alternative?

As in: The alternatives are:

A;

B;

C.
Click to expand...
Clumsy, innit? As pointed out above, there is nothing wrong with introducing a series of alternatives with the word "either", it's just that certain people with a prescriptive notion find it difficult to accept. Language is about getting your meaning across, and while I take issue that words have subtleties of meaning so that (particularly in written English where no clarification can be sought) a reader may not take the meaning that a writer intended, there can be no confusion in an either.. or.. or construction - only a dislike of it.

In a list of two, the former is "the former" and the latter is "the latter". I guess that can still be applied to a list of three, but how does one describe the middle?
 
This whole thread is irrelevant then, seeing as you just seem to make it up as you go along, when you see fit. Classic moving the goalposts.
Who gives a f**k about assume or presume. Use whatever word you like. Nothing matters. It might get "a" message across, but maybe not "the" message you intended.
 
When did I define any goal posts?

My opinions are mine, yours are yours. The topic is about airing them (and getting a great deal of amusement in the process).
 
Black Hole said:
In a list of two, the former is "the former" and the latter is "the latter". I guess that can still be applied to a list of three, but how does one describe the middle?
Click to expand...
I would use first and last rather than former and latter in that case.
 
Did you know, that contrary to popular, pedantic belief there is nothing wrong with "Ten items or less"? To insist that it should be "Ten items or fewer" is apparently an example of hypercorrection according to the Oxford dictionary.
 
prpr will immediately pounce on me for being contrary, but I will continue to use "fewer" as the more correct of the two.
 
Black Hole said:
prpr will immediately pounce on me for being contrary, but I will continue to use "fewer" as the more correct of the two.
Click to expand...
No I won't. "Fewer" is correct and "less" isn't. I have scant regard for a lot of what the Oxford says. Chambers is and always has been (in my time anyway) a much better reference.

"fewer" - smaller in number.
"less" - smaller in quantity.

In essence, if something is countable, use "fewer". If it's uncountable, use "less". e.g. fewer bags of sugar; less sugar
 
fowlsign.jpg


... and why do children get preferential treatment? Unless there's some concern they might get mistaken for a bird :rolleyes:
 
Hell's teeth, I can't believe how the standard of spelling has deteriorated in the last 25 years. Conversely I suppose I can really, as spelling tests were abandoned when our daughter was at primary school and we had to step in and create our own spelling curriculum.
This abandonment of basics was created to make the slower learners not feel inferior to the brighter sparks.

I've been reading a recent Lynda La Plante book where 'you're' is replaced by 'your' in most instances. The proof reader must be useless too. :speechless:
 
Same time as hard working became hardworking. It's all Call me Dave's fault with his bloody hardworking.
prpr said:
"few" - smaller in number.
Click to expand...
No. Few means not many. Fewer means smaller in number. Can't you remember the rules on comparative and superlative adjectives? Check that one out in your Chamber's Dictionary.
I assume that 'fewest' must refer to the smallest of three or more piles of things that you can count. And why can't you count sugar?
 
Trev said:
Few means not many. Fewer means smaller in number.
Click to expand...
I think it's obvious that's what I meant from the rest of the post.
Can't you remember the rules on comparative and superlative adjectives?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what superlatives have got to do with this particular discussion and I'm not really interested. Yes, I know the difference between "few", "fewer" and "fewest" if that's what you were asking.
I assume that 'fewest' must refer to the smallest of three or more piles of things that you can count.
Click to expand...
Is that not obvious?
And why can't you count sugar?
Click to expand...
You can't count a mass of anything. OK, "flour" or "mud" if you prefer.
Have you picked enough nits yet?
 
Me picking nits????? That's a bit of pot, kettle, black isn't it?
Oh, and I notice that you cared enough to edit your original few to fewer just to make my post look silly.
 
Trev said:
Oh, and I notice that you cared enough to edit your original few to fewer just to make my post look silly.
Click to expand...
It was clearly an error, so I changed it. Obviously I can't change your quote showing how it used to be, so there is no argument and no silliness to be had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top