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) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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. | 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 learn to accept this with good grace. | Any remaining doubters must learn to accept this with good grace. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Er, I didn't conflate them. I gave DUSK and DUSKY as two separate words to clarify why one has comparative adjectives and one does not. Not all adjectives are comparative, which you conveniently chose to ignore. I also don't think it's very 'graceful' to say that I am often wrong, but there we are. There is no such word as DUSKER or DUSKEST and I backed this up with evidence. If you choose to ignore that, or not look into it any further, that's your prerogative. --[[User:CountdownChloe|CountdownChloe]] ([[User talk:CountdownChloe|talk]]) 14:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:32, 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 learn to accept this with good grace.
Er, I didn't conflate them. I gave DUSK and DUSKY as two separate words to clarify why one has comparative adjectives and one does not. Not all adjectives are comparative, which you conveniently chose to ignore. I also don't think it's very 'graceful' to say that I am often wrong, but there we are. There is no such word as DUSKER or DUSKEST and I backed this up with evidence. If you choose to ignore that, or not look into it any further, that's your prerogative. --CountdownChloe (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
