Throwing in the towel?
If not only the Stanley Brothers but also Geoff Pullum think that "the reason is because" is a-ok, do I have any choice but to accept it? (Though really, what else would one expect from one of those permissive linguists?)
Fortunately Pullum's provided me with something else about which to twist my knickers: whence this claim that Americans prefer, or are starting to prefer, merely "d" as a suffix instead of "nd" or "rd" for numbers ending in 2 (but not 12) or 3. I can't decide whether I'd be more likely to read "3d" as "thd" or "three pence" (and that not out of misguided anglophilia, no, nor anglophilia guided right) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be mistaken in concluding its author a pervert.
Comments
on 2007-01-04 9:55:07.0, heebie_geebie commented:
I think I would read it as three-dimensional, no?
and, further, on 2007-01-04 16:47:50.0, teofilo commented:
The claim apparently comes from one "Chris Lance" (which, if not a pornstar pseudonym, probably should be one).
and, further, on 2007-01-04 19:19:04.0, bitchphd commented:
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be mistaken in concluding its author a pervert.
B/c why?
(I'll twist your knickers, baby.)
and, further, on 2007-01-04 19:51:24.0, text commented:
The legal influence is partly responsible for 3d. If only for that reason, it is an abomination.
"The reason is because" is also an abomination. If one wants to say it is a colloqialism, well then fine, and use it in that manner. But do not tell me incorrect is correct.
I am drunk. Is it a mistake to drunk-edit? Probably.
and, further, on 2007-01-04 23:40:42.0, teofilo commented:
To a linguist, there is no "incorrect" and "correct." There is only language.
and, further, on 2007-01-05 9:31:22.0, text commented:
far or forgot to me is near; shadow and sunlight are the same; double negatives to me appear; and one to me are shame and fame.
and, further, on 2007-01-06 14:01:07.0, bitchphd commented:
Teo is correct.