ericpeets

dabigkahuna said:

ericpeets said:

There are two issues at play here: 1) whether the usage of 'fora' was wrong or not; 2) whether my correction had ill intent.

Many Latin words words were anglicized. During that process they then generally take the English "s" for plurals. "Forum" being one of the many anglicized words then naturally follow the English rules of grammar, hence "forums" rather than "fora".

As to you claims of "exclusive", "not wrong", etc. the following authors and their books would beg to differ....I chose only these books because they specifically refer to 'fora' vs 'forums' issue.

1. It was not wrong. You had ill intent as shown from your post on the other forum. If you think not, then try to explain how they were "insisting" that fora be used? Because if just by using the word themselves means they are "insisting", then you must be "insisting" people use virtually every word in your post. For example, you would be "insisting" people use "chose" rather than other options (like "select") or "generally" rather than, say, "usually".

Just to be clear, there's no one holding a gun to anyone's head saying NOT to do it. Certainly, no one's 'attacking' anyone, nor even triggering 'verbal violence.' There are many misuse between "it's" vs "its", "they're" vs "their" vs "there" which has gotten so bad nobody even bothers to 'correct' them. I mean, if you want to speak exclusively in gobbledygook, this is certainly the country to do it.

No authorities in the field nor dictionaries will demand "you must" do it a certain way. For example, The AP Styles Guide only 'recommends' putting 'the' in front of words like "reverend" and "United States", for example. There are many upon many such 'rules' in the guide. You may not like it, and again no one's putting a gun to their head. But you risk sounding ridiculous, stupid and yes, wrong, because in the end what is recommended is the proper way, the correct way.

2. Yep, many words are anglicized. I said that myself in post 58 - wasn't even a long post. How'd you miss that? And many words are not anglicized. And many words have both forms accepted (such as in this case).

It sounded to me like you didn't really understand the word 'anglicized'. Even Poisednoise spelled it out for you afterwards. If I was wrong, I stand 'corrected' -- but only if you acknowledge that I wasn't trying to 'attack' (or 'criticize' or attempting 'verbal violence') by using the word again.

3. Funny thing, but I followed your 3 links and search for "for" (so I would find either "fora" or "forums". Neither one showed up! But it wouldn't matter what they say. They can talk all they want about what THEY prefer. Or what most people do or what they think they should do. Yet their preference is not a rule. Besides, you particularly can't claim that because you already used a more recognized resource with the Oxford dictionary quote - which said how "fora" was CHIEFLY used. Thus not limited to that. So, to accept those 3, assuming they even say what you claim, you have to reject your prior source 

The reference to 'fora' vs 'forums' is in the books, NOT in the wiki page descriptions or on the site where you can buy those books. Perhaps since I was nice enough to link them, you could meet me halfway and buy them off Amazon by yourself?

And again, I repeat: No one (certainly not me) held a gun to Waytools for misusing the word, hence a 'correction'. If you can see that you'll see that OED definition as well as the definitions in the books I referenced align quite well, and clearly. And again, I repeat: My intent was not an 'attack' nor 'verbal violence' or even 'criticism'. If I had had ill intent, I could have ridiculed them to death -- not for being wrong -- but rather for sounding ridiculous/pompous/patronizing, but I refrained, hence I deemed it 'courtesy' or at least benign. As with the definition, majority of the English-speaking public will agree on that too.

Finally, my usage of the word 'insist' stems from the fact that they repeated 'fora' vs 'forums' but answering nothing else I had asked of them, meaning they focused only on that, and thus it was purposeful. I believe you did too, but I'm willing to stand 'corrected'.

arkorott said:

...
I am upset as the next one on not receiving mine for so long but don't think it is ok to attack them or to attack DBK or others.
They are all entitled to their opinion. If we all thought the same then we would all be sheep one way or the other.
...
As Rolanbek said, insulting people will never bring them to your side / perspective.

You're right. Though I try to provide balance to WT's many messages because they seemed one-sided, I'm guilty of insulting the messenger (Kahuna), because well... it's so tempting.

But their messages speak for themselves.

And I'd like to add (for people who don't understand), I think most people don't care about $99 after years of waiting. I think most would simply write that off. What they'd like is closure to the messed-up relationship that occurred in the ~4 years of waiting with Waytools. For many people still with orders still pending (and wasn't force-cancelled or anything), they'd like to get some official clarification from Waytools and/or delivery of the product -- anything that could absolve the angst and frustration of waiting and constant frustration from them.

Okay Kahuna, but this is really the last time I'm tired of entertaining your constant petulant cries: "I'm ignorant. Educate me, explain to me; otherwise, you're wrong." People are beholden to your apparent entitlement of education, especially when you fail at it over and over.

There are two issues at play here: 1) whether the usage of 'fora' was wrong or not; 2) whether my correction had ill intent. You keep mixing and matching them for your convenience, as well as lumping me with all "critics" over so many years (or vice versa)

Let's keep them separate for discussion sakes, shall we?

Same with the used of "fora". It is, as I have pointed out, a legitimate usage. I have also said that "forums" may be more common, but it still isn't exclusive.

The evolution of language Poisednoise referred to in your post, I think he probably meant anglicization to English. Many Latin words words were anglicized. During that process they then generally take the English "s" for plurals. "Forum" being one of the many anglicized words then naturally follow the English rules of grammar, hence "forums" rather than "fora".

As to you claims of "exclusive", "not wrong", etc. the following authors and their books would beg to differ.

1. "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" - H.W. Fowler
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Modern_English_Usage
   Fowler say that the only proper plural form of "forum" is "forums".
2. "Worst Words" - Don Watson
   https://www.readings.com.au/products/18130120/watsons-worst-words-a-compendium-of-management-gibberish
   Watson says "fora" is archaic.
3. "Garner's Modern American Usage" - Bryan Garner
   http://www.lawprose.org/bryan-garner/books-by-bryan-garner/garners-modern-american-usage-3d-edition-2009/
   Garner claims "fora" is only for the pedantic (i.e., if you mean a different nuance from the normal 'forums').

I chose only these books because they specifically refer to 'fora' vs 'forums' issue. There are of course many more, and I highly recommend reading more books, since you and Waytools are seriously undereducated on the matter. You can insist on your interpretation until you're blue in the face, but for me (and I suspect the majority of people) they'll prefer to leave that up to the authorities more schooled in the language, rather than some Internet Joe Blo going by the handle 'Dabigkahuna'.

Sure, it is a legitimate word, albeit in Latin. I mean, I didn't correct them for misspelling. Key is consistency. Let me ask you:

• Do you have more than one alba?
• Have you visited many asyla?
• Is there just one museum in your neighborhood or many musea?
• What about gymnasia, crematoria, premia?
• Do you go out to have one pizza or pizzi?

Again, both you and Waytools like to mix and match randomly both in words and argument as you see fit. The very reason why we have standards like the dictionary and style guides is not to restrict writing, but to reign in chaotic proliferation of word plays that leads to things like confusion, misunderstanding, etc. whether purposeful or not.

Note that nobody is going to stop you from using fallacious words, as nobody's going to stop you from claiming the sky is green or red. Nor are you restricted from bringing in (or anglicizing) new words into modern vernacular. But really, know that people may misunderstand what the heck you're talking about until it gains popular traction. Especially, if you're trying to preach, patronize or otherwise talk down to people.

As for the second part, where you insist there was malice in my correction. All I'll say is that it doesn't surprise me, since you (and your ilk) always use over-the-top words like 'attacks' and 'verbal violence' (for some dramatic effect I know not of) when most English-speaking world would find no such thing. After all, when I (and another) have to go to this length to explain 'fora' because you can't understand -- and you still don't get it, right -- it's not at all surprising.

I'll leave that for your homework assignment, because that problem is yours and yours alone, and you shouldn't try to use this thread and public forums to pander for your many, many, many problems. Seek outside help.

patientlywaiting said:

ericpeets said:

I don't know if anyone has read this far into the comments, but if they have I'd like to mention something that I should have done much earlier.

There was actually an article written in mid-2015 by James Kendrick of ZDNet, which is parent/sister company to the likes of Cnet, PC Magazine, various IT oriented magazines, etc. -- meaning it's a mainstream publication company, as opposed to boutique blogs. So, in between the first Macrumors coverage and this Apple Insider one, Kendrick wrote two articles for ZDNet.

1. https://www.zdnet.com/article/tiny-textblade-keyboard-still-not-shipping-after-five-months/
2. https://www.zdnet.com/article/textblade-update-i-cancelled-my-january-order/

I think this quote sums it up the best:

The company's behavior is unprofessional at best and borderline unethical at worst.

...

Now that I've cancelled the Textblade order, I'm watching my credit card account closely to see how long it takes them to give me my money. It's not like Waytools has given me reason to trust that they'll do it quickly.

Wow...how did I miss these articles when they came out? Thank you for pointing them out--they express my issues with Waytools far better than I could've put them myself.

You have to ask:

1. Was Kendrick's 'safety' ever threatened to end his coverage?
2. Was his integrity ever challenged that ultimately led to ending coverage?
3. Why wasn't he simply given/loaned a textblade? (WT had already broken their promise of giving to media after customers anyways)
4. Why did WT choose not to interact with w/ZDNet media and/or James Kendrick journalist? (Kendrick even announced his article on Waytools forums)

1 & 2 are resounding NO! Of course not. But it wouldn't surprise me if WT tried to spin it that way anyways.

For 3 and 4, it would have drawn additional inquiries from not just ZDNet, but CNET and other sibling publications, as well as competing publications on equal levels -- PC World, MacWorld, ExtremeTech, Tom's Hardware, AnandTech, Engadget, The Verge, Wired, etc. etc. The tech journalism industry is quite cut-throat competitive, always looking for an angle and that exclusive coverage -- all of which would have led to a media shower for Waytools. But those type of journalists would have taken the textblade apart into a million pieces, as well as go through Waytools HQ and their factories with a fine tooth comb, nailing anything they find questionable on the wall.

So, either Waytools missed a coverage of a lifetime (not very bright at all), or they simply wanted to avoid scrutiny (clever/sly but with too many skeletons?).

dabigkahuna said:

But what made it extra good (for me) was that you were simply wrong. Even if we take at face value your strongest argument - your definition that said merely said how it fora was "chiefly" used. NOT how it was only used.

Then, of course, you flat out ignore anything that contradicts your absolutist claim - such as how back in the 1880's, "forums" was almost never used, but fora was. And "forums" didn't overtake "fora" until the mid 1930s (and in Britain it wasn't until the 1970s). Plus the fact that both are still used today, regardless of which is used "most".

You even got it wrong (on that other site) by referring to speaking "Roman" when it is, in fact, Latin.

People in glass houses.

Conspiracy that malice was involved. If some sheep/shill doth protest there was, when there was none, who cares?

So has the 'fora' vs 'forums' devolved into 'chiefly' vs 'always' vs 'only' vs ??? or something? I didn't have the time to sift through you bleets.

I see that you and Waytools don't use 'fora' anymore, whereas I keep using 'forums'. Who thinks who's wrong again?

George Bush sayings people in Mexico speak Mexican..., "When in Rome...",  it's all called humor. Maybe Waytools was trying to be humorous. Sure made me laugh, as do you now.