Maximum Fit Magazine

2. Who in the United States is the source for most of the pre_script_ive grammars on English?  For example, in Russia the Russian Academy of Sciences puts out the Academy Grammar every ten to twenty years: is there something like that in the U.S. for American English? When a native speaker of English needs a definitive answer to a usage question, the most natural recourse is to turn to a published work that alleges to provide the answer. Most bookstores offer a reference section that contains dictionaries, _style_ guides, sample templates, and so on, in addition to word-builder texts for education and, occasionally, popular works on etymology. It is generally clear that a thin paperback published by, say, Ballantine Press, will offer guidance on a less authoritative level than a massive tome published by Merriam-Webster. The buyer can, to a limited extent, gauge the authority of such books at a glance by judging the combination of their size, cost, and source. It is noteworthy that many texts contain the word Webster's in their _title_s, but only those published by Merriam-Webster are officially Webster's. The name Webster thus is widely thought of as an imprimatur of quality and authority, and this applies as well to the name Roget's in connection with a thesaurus. Lastly, there are nationally recognized writers and editors of authority whose opinions outrank most others on questions of usage, such as Johnson, Mencken, Buckley, or Safire, but these will be argued on a case-by-case basis in regard to the writer's era, political affiliation, scholarly credentials, etc. DLS

When you say the world is composed of nothing but value, what are you talking about? - RMP 'RMP'?  Robert M. Parsons?

This, then, is an impolite sign at best. If the word is an imperative I might be inclined to drive all the faster; if the powers that be want my car to be slow I'd want to show them it was fast.      What do you do when you see a sign that says KEEP RIGHT, YIELD, or (heaven forbid) STOP ?      Ananda Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I'm not sure if you mean to imply that Standard English (US) uses /O/ in dog . Do you think it does? If by Standard English (US) you (and Iskandar) mean the particular widely used, middle-class, cosmopolitan _style_ of pronunciation generally thought of as unaccented , devoid of marked regional features, then yes, I believe that it uses /O/ in dog , and distinguishes pairs like don and dawn .  If this is too strong a statement, it is nonetheless the case that many, maybe most, speakers of this standard national pronunciation _style_ do use /O/ in dog .      Hmm ... really? From my perspective, [dOg] is rarely used outside of some regional varieties in the northeast. I would say just the opposite of what you said, that the widely used, middle-class, cosmopolitan _style_ of pronunciation generally thought of as unaccented, devoid of marked regional features, does _not_ use [O] in dog, and does _not_ distinguish pairs like don and dawn and that most speakers of this standard national pronunciation _style_ do _not_ use [O] in dog.      Ananda Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

I'm not sure if you mean to imply that Standard English (US) uses /O/ in dog . Do you think it does? If by Standard English (US) you (and Iskandar) mean the particular widely used, middle-class, cosmopolitan _style_ of pronunciation generally thought of as unaccented , devoid of marked regional features, then yes, I believe that it uses /O/ in dog , and distinguishes pairs like don and dawn .  If this is too strong a statement, it is nonetheless the case that many, maybe most, speakers of this standard national pronunciation _style_ do use /O/ in dog .      Hmm ... really? From my perspective, [dOg] is rarely used outside of some regional varieties in the northeast. I would say just the opposite of what you said, that the widely used, middle-class, cosmopolitan _style_ of pronunciation generally thought of as unaccented, devoid of marked regional features, does _not_ use [O] in dog, and does _not_ distinguish pairs like don and dawn and that most speakers of this standard national pronunciation _style_ do _not_ use [O] in dog. Let's assume we mean the same thing by [O].  For me, most -og words are pronounced with /Ag/ , but dog is an exception.   Now I speak with what I'm calling the national accent, and I make a distinction between don and dawn .  Most people who hear my accent, whether or not they have a similar accent, perhaps especially if they don't

I am under no illusions that the authorities wish me to drive slowly ,  but why paint 11 small characters on a sign,  when 4 larger, more visible ones will suffice (indeed,  being easier to read,  be more effective!!)? I agree, except I think they actually want us to drive slow, so the four large letters are only replacing nine small ones. //P. Schultz