Liars, and the ambiguity of truth

Quote: "No. The word lighted is wrong. The past simple of 'she lights a cigarette' is 'she lit a cigarette', at least in normal English. American english is slightly different sometimes. There are others, but this was a very slight annoyance, nothing major."

Vertigo, the word lighted is not wrong. Look up the word lighted at www.dictonary.com
On that page it says this, "Usage Note: Lighted and lit are equally acceptable as past tense and past participle of light. Both forms are also well established as adjectives: a lighted (or lit) candle."

You can use a dictionary I take it ?
(^____________________^)

Post 21

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:27pm

Bernard, I believe you mean www.dictionary.com.

Sorry; couldn't resist.

Post 22

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:35pm

Bernard, I am not interested in American perversions of English, I am interested in how it appears in English, proper English. The word was always 'lit', just because people chose to use lighted instead, and with the advent of computers Americanised English is everywhere, doesn't mean it is as credible.

Quote: "Usage Note: Lighted and lit are equally acceptable as past tense and past participle of light."

I disagree. The word is 'lit'. Call me pedantic if you like. I am not this fussy over other changes like 'analog' and such, however some I am strict about, e.g. the American replacing 's' with 'z' in words like 'realise', the 'or' replacing 'our' in words like 'honour' and 'neighbour', and a few other cases. I am a stickler, just accept it. The point was those grammar errors annoyed me slightly. That the dictionary disagrees hardly matters. I don't change my yardstick at a whim. I don't see anything wrong with the word 'lit', and I don't see that changing it is justified, therefore I will remain adamant.

If you can justify why people must change the language, please do.

Post 23

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:08pm

Justified? What are you talking about?

Words and language of a culture evolve over time. In America it was a little different. I think it was Webster who changed the spelling of several English words in order to do his part in "breaking the ties with Britain." It seems rather impractical to me, but so what? No one is forcing me to speak any language in particular. I could speak gibberish if I chose to. I simply find it most advantageous to speak in modern American English, as it is the best tool I can use to communicate with those I associate with.

To answer your question: because they want to-- there's the justification. Must there be any other reason?

Post 24

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:11pm

Boys boys BOYS!
Play nice, Children!
There is absolutely NO reason to do this particular thread. "you say tomato, I say tomahto" is a REALLY silly thing to argue about -- especially on a philosophy board.
Vertigo: actually, it was ENGLAND which pedantically insisted on the use of "lighted". "lit" is a comparitively new, and VERY American term. In fact, if I would have used it at my school, they would have yelled at me.

Also, if you're going to be annoyed about anything, why not pick something GOOD to be annoyed about? Like for example that most nauseating abbreviation "L8r". They can't be bothered to spell out "later", so they do this cheesy, slovenly ripoff because it looks "kewl", and they can be part of the "eleet". Yeah, u 2 eleet boyz can just discuss it l8r.

What the hell am I talking about? :)

Post 25

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:00pm

"What the hell am I talking about?"

Here, take two syllogisms and call me in the morning.

Post 26

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 11:17pm

It's true, this conversation is painfully pointless. However, the occasional meaningless tangent can be fun too, right?

Post 27

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:12am

Good points Tommy,

To Vertigo:

Who said anything about it being Americanized? The term lit or lighted, may be used, as explained, and this is an English definition. For instance, go to the very english BBC page, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3149404.stm
and search for the term lighted.

"For about 10 seconds, the evening on Saturday got lighted up. I panicked and took my kids inside the house."

Then try the English site about Positron Emission Tomography Scanning, at: http://www.ebme.co.uk/arts/pet.htm

of concern are lighted up in a three-dimensional image for physicians to review.

I wonder, could these very english journalists and scientists be wrong?
(^____________^)

Post 28

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:17am

Do you know it took me all day to post that ?
Double merde! When I tried the first time, it said the thread had been shut off and locked by le admin guy, whatsisface. So I did what any hot blooded Frenchman would do, and I posted it in some other threads. Well, what else could I do ? If I could delete them, I would, but since wehn would this board allow that ? Eh ?

Anyway, back to the discussion. Okay, so I think by nwo you will av to admit that Rand did not make le mistake with 'lighted', no ?
(^_________________^)

Post 29

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:17pm

I grew up in the 80's, and the USA had sanctions against South Africa at that time, so we didn't have much American influence. Throughout that time, I only heard it said 'I lit a match', never 'I lighted a match'. Henry, if 'lit' is American, so be it.

Pursuant to this, I regarded 'lit' as the correct word. Many of modern English's changes are from the Americans, especially where spelling is concerned. I didn't exactly know where 'lit' and 'lighted' come from, but I consider 'lit' to be the more correct one.

Speaking of this, it seems that I myself speak a hodge-podge version of English, and many of the words I like the most it seems actually come from perversions, according to the dictionary.

Like 'proven'. It seems 'proved' is the English word, and 'proven' is from the American English. Lately I have noticed that I seem to use the past participle US form, and the 'past simple' English form.

For example, 'I prove', 'I proved', 'I have proven'. This seems to be similar to 'I choose', 'I chose', 'I have chosen'. However, 'move' strictly becomes 'moved', there is no word 'moven'.

The word 'mean', like 'I mean it' has no -ed form, 'meant' is both past simple and present participle. Same with 'lean', 'I leant against the pole', although it seams 'leaned' is acceptable, in the same manner as 'lighted' is (in other words, actually the correct one). 'clean' strictly becomes 'cleaned', but 'dream' becomes 'dreamt', at least officially, although 'dreamed' is accepted in modern English (maybe this is the proper way too). 'Steam', on the other hand, strictly becomes 'steamed', as in 'the kettle steamed'.

I thought 'learn' and 'burn' should take the -t ending solely. But then 'earn' and 'yearn' get -ed endings, becoming 'earned' and 'yearned', so 'burn' and 'learn' should probably take the -ed endings too. English is such a bogus language. 'I fight' becomes 'I fought', although 'light' becomes 'lit', at least to me. There is no such word as 'fighted', therefore I don't think there should be a word 'lighted'.

You can see here the morass that is English grammar. I don't know what is objectively the 'right', it seems many time the right way sounds crap. Therefore I choose to speak my hodge-podge variety. I choose to solely use 'lit'. Sue me.

So you want me to accept that I was wrong, that I jumped to a conclusion and got egg all over my face, that I now want to shrivel up and hide in the corner, that I now am too ashamed to show my face around here, that the nick 'vertigo' is forever shamed and I feel like a goddamn n00b who thought he was �ber1337 but got pwned beyond and who won't cul8r? I won't. I'm too stubborn. Sorry.

I am joking, by the way. I don't think all those things. Let's agree that I am wierd and will use strange words. It's easier that way.

Post 30

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:51pm

DAMN buddy! That was awesomely cool!
Vertigo, you're the bright spot in my day. You come up with good points, you're sincere, and you really have a good sense of humor (humour?) :)
Anyway, I didn't know you're south african. Interesting. How's the political and cultural situation over there?

Post 31

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:18am

Quote: "How's the political and cultural situation over there?"

South Africa's biggest problem is that people want to be politically correct. Nobody wil buck the trend. Our president is incredibly useless, but nobody is prepared to say it. A reporter called him a womaniser once and he tried to get a law passed that made it illegal to insult the president.

Of course, it never happened. However, nobody pointed out how blatantly wrong that is, they let it slide since he is the president. South Africa's attitude to Zimbabwe is the most horrifying of all.

South Africa has tried to be seen as being super caring to people in the world, like sending aid to Iraq, or expressing condolences at any perceived disaster in the world. Nevermind that our neighbour Zimbabwe is completely stuffed. Nothing gets said about that. They are still entertaining the idea that Mugabe's regime and the opposition should work together to help rebuild the country. Nobody has the guts to say Mugabe should be shot or relegated to a mental insitution forthwith.

Also South Africans are very petty. The best example I can give is from the World Cup Rugby, which I hope Americans would have some clue about even though it isn't your sport. The final was England vs. Australia. South Africa and Australia have been rivals in sport for ages, and no love is lost between them, but many people wanted England to lose the final, not because they played badly or anything, but because they beat South Africa in a previous round, because Blair suppports the war on Iraq, because England boycotted playing in Zimbabwe in the World Cup Cricket after threats from Mugabe to Blair, and other such irrelevant reasons. What any of this has to do with wanting a team to lose when they thoroughly deserved to win is completely beyond me.

Post 32

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:37pm

So, in other words, South Africa (like pretty much every other country) is a damned mess. (That sucks, Vertigo.)
Yeah, I'm familiar with rugby (used to watch a satelite feed from New Zealand, quite often, when I had access to satelite TV for a time. Really good sport, but bloody as all hell. (I dunno, call me old fashioned, but I like a sport where the players can die). :)

Sounds like your news media is a bunch of leftists jackasses, like over here in the USA. pathetic.

Post 33

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:36pm

I was going to post a reply to Bernie, but I noticed his posts were removed. I was going to reply to a couple of other posts, and they were also removed. What is it with this board? The admin can't get enough power in real life so he takes it out on posters? What a loser.

Post 34

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:32pm