Re: Proper Names - Definition

But wait a minute, haven't I already retracted?




Not as I understand the term. How can the statement "I think all this discussion ... tending to imply that you actually *have* used bad grammar as opposed to *advocating* it is really 'red herrings'" be read as a retraction? On the contrary, I read it not as a retraction but as an attempt to sidestep the whole issue by labelling it a red herring.

Incidentally, I still fail to see the connection between my accidental
bad spelling on this forum and the deliberate use of incorrect grammar
in a finished work of art.




Your decision not to use the spell checker or a dictionary or to proofread your posts is deliberate, is it not? In any case, I mentioned your misspelling of "farce" to illustrate that context is relevant when considering whether readers may be confused by incorrect grammar.

You are trying to counter my argument about boundaries i.e. going too
far, by stating that I am therefore advocating strictness to the rules.




No, in fact I said the exact opposite. It's obvious that you've completely misunderstood my comments in that regard, so I'll have a go at rephrasing them and I hope you get it this time. You are not advocating that people follow the rules and norms of English grammar, you are advocating that people follow *your* rules. And your rules amount to "what Richard Archer-Jones likes the look of is is fine and what Richard Archer-Jones doesn't like the look of isn't". The problem is that you are trying to rely on the rules of grammar to condemn what you don't like but you're prepared to ditch those same rules when you do like something. And that, to me, is the problem - I don't believe that you can selectively call on grammar to suit your aesthetic preferences. If you really do value grammar, then you should be advocating it even where you personally like the look of transgressions (eg, "iPod"). Either that or be honest and say that the look of the thing is your primary motivation here, not grammar.