Due to persistent vandalism, account creation has been suspended. If you would like an account, please contact Charlie Reams on Apterous.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Episode 7834"
(→DUSKER is valid: new section) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== DUSKER == | == DUSKER == | ||
Sorry but I disagree that DUSKER is allowable. Not all adjectives are comparative, the fact they are monosyllabic does not change this principle. Correct examples of comparative and superlative would be DUSKY, DUSKIER, DUSKIEST. Monosyllabic or not, Oxford Dictionaries Premium almost always specifes adjectives in both comparative and superlative forms, but DUSKER is not specified. The historical OED also contains no examples of DUSKER in any of its records, which date back to 1225. In short, I do not believe there is such a word as DUSKER and Dent's decision was correct. --[[User:CountdownChloe|CountdownChloe]] ([[User talk:CountdownChloe|talk]]) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC) | Sorry but I disagree that DUSKER is allowable. Not all adjectives are comparative, the fact they are monosyllabic does not change this principle. Correct examples of comparative and superlative would be DUSKY, DUSKIER, DUSKIEST. Monosyllabic or not, Oxford Dictionaries Premium almost always specifes adjectives in both comparative and superlative forms, but DUSKER is not specified. The historical OED also contains no examples of DUSKER in any of its records, which date back to 1225. In short, I do not believe there is such a word as DUSKER and Dent's decision was correct. --[[User:CountdownChloe|CountdownChloe]] ([[User talk:CountdownChloe|talk]]) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == DUSKER is valid == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Chloe, as is often the case, you are incorrect in your assertion. | ||
| + | DUSKY is an adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKIER and DUSKIEST respectively. | ||
| + | DUSK is a separate adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKER and DUSKEST respectively. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Understandable that Susie got this wrong, given how easy it is to conflate DUSK and DUSKY. That's probably how the error arose, just as your doubling down on her error arises from the same confusion. But the simple fact here is that Dent's call was wrong. | ||
| + | Any remaining doubters must simply learn to accept this with good grace. | ||
Revision as of 00:27, 27 August 2022
DUSKER
Sorry but I disagree that DUSKER is allowable. Not all adjectives are comparative, the fact they are monosyllabic does not change this principle. Correct examples of comparative and superlative would be DUSKY, DUSKIER, DUSKIEST. Monosyllabic or not, Oxford Dictionaries Premium almost always specifes adjectives in both comparative and superlative forms, but DUSKER is not specified. The historical OED also contains no examples of DUSKER in any of its records, which date back to 1225. In short, I do not believe there is such a word as DUSKER and Dent's decision was correct. --CountdownChloe (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
DUSKER is valid
Chloe, as is often the case, you are incorrect in your assertion. DUSKY is an adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKIER and DUSKIEST respectively. DUSK is a separate adjective. Its comparative and superlative forms are DUSKER and DUSKEST respectively.
Understandable that Susie got this wrong, given how easy it is to conflate DUSK and DUSKY. That's probably how the error arose, just as your doubling down on her error arises from the same confusion. But the simple fact here is that Dent's call was wrong. Any remaining doubters must simply learn to accept this with good grace.
