Discussion History Characters / SandraOnTheRocks

What if instead of her UsefulNotes/IdEgoAndSuperego, Sandra was with [[GoodAngelBadAngel her Shoulder Devil and Angel.]]

The answer to your objection boils down to an awfully basic acknowledgement: \\\"canon\\\" is used exclusively as a noun in any given dictionary here in 2018. So, nope, until I - or anyone else - see a dictionary canonizing (ha-ha!) \\\"canon\\\" as a substitute of canonical, we still have a misuse on our hands. \\\"We don\\\'t need no education!\\\"... oh, wait.

But let\\\'s elaborate on your point. Language can and will change over time naturally, but common protocols and orthodoxy over the established uses of any given element of the accepted body of language comes from *above*, not *below* like you\\\'re indirectly suggesting. 8-year olds don\\\'t write grammar books.

And be honest, you might as well start to accept \\\"who\\\'s/whose\\\" \\\"it\\\'s/its\\\". I mean, lots and lots of people get this wrong on the internet as well... would it hurt if we made both alternatives correct?
As of today canon as an adjective is an incorrect form, that ought to be straightened, not willfully endorsed. Even if we want to play devil\\\'s advocate about it, there is no added value in eliminating the adjective \\\"canonical\\\" from dictionary (a simultaneous use as an adjective and noun only creates another layer of ambiguity).

Oh, and hey, personally speaking I\\\'d rather we started using \\\"LOL\\\" as en expression of bemusement. Now, wouldn\\\'t *that* be cool?

The answer to your objection boils down to an awfully basic acknowledgement: \\\"canon\\\" is used exclusively as a noun in any - huge stress on any - dictionary here in 2018. So, nope, until I - or anyone else - see a dictionary canonizing (ha-ha!) \\\"canon\\\" as a substitute of canonical, we still have a misuse on our hands. \\\"We don\\\'t need no education!\\\"... oh, wait.

But let\\\'s elaborate on your point. Language can and will change over time naturally, but common protocols and orthodoxy over the established uses of any given element of the accepted body of language comes from *above*, not *below* like you\\\'re indirectly suggesting. 8-year olds don\\\'t write grammar books.

And be honest, you might as well start to accept \\\"who\\\'s/whose\\\" \\\"it\\\'s/its\\\". I mean, a lot of people get this wrong on the internet as well... why not make them both correct?
As of today canon as an adjective is an incorrect form, that ought to be straightened, not willfully endorsed. Even if we want to be disingenous about it, there is no added value in eliminating the adjective \\\"canonical\\\" from dictionary (a simultaneous use as an adjective and noun only creates another layer of ambiguity).

Oh, hey, I\\\'d rather we started using \\\"LOL\\\" as en expression of bemusement personally. Now, wouldn\\\'t *that* be cool?

The answer to your objection boils down to an awfully basic acknowledgement: \\\"canon\\\" is used exclusively as a noun in any given dictionary here in 2018. So, nope, until I - or anyone else - see a dictionary canonizing (ha-ha!) \\\"canon\\\" as a substitute of canonical, we still have a misuse on our hands. \\\"We don\\\'t need no education!\\\"... oh, wait.

But let\\\'s elaborate on your point. Language can and will change over time naturally, but common protocols and orthodoxy over the established uses of any given element of the accepted body of language comes from *above*, not *below* like you\\\'re indirectly suggesting. 8-year olds don\\\'t write grammar books.

And be honest, with this mindset you might as well start to accept other widespread mistakes: \\\"who\\\'s/whose\\\" \\\"it\\\'s/its\\\". I mean, lots and lots of people get this wrong on the internet as well... what\\\'s the issue if I wanted to accept them, Chuck? We\\\'d still understand what they mean!

As of today canon as an adjective is an incorrect form, that ought to be straightened, not willfully endorsed. Even if we want to be disingenous about it, there is no added value in eliminating the adjective \\\"canonical\\\" from dictionary (a simultaneous use as an adjective and noun only creates another layer of ambiguity).

Oh, hey, I\\\'d rather we started using \\\"LOL\\\" as en expression of bemusement personally. Now, wouldn\\\'t *that* be cool?

The answer to your objection boils down to an awfully basic acknowledgement: \\\"canon\\\" is used exclusively as a noun in any given dictionary here in 2018. So, nope, until I - or anyone else - see a dictionary canonizing (ha-ha!) \\\"canon\\\" as a substitute of canonical, we still have a misuse on our hands. \\\"We don\\\'t need no education!\\\"... oh, wait.

But let\\\'s elaborate on your point. Language can and will change over time naturally, but common protocols and orthodoxy over the established uses of any given element of the accepted body of language comes from *above*, not *below* like you\\\'re indirectly suggesting. 8-year olds don\\\'t write grammar books, luckily for us.

And be honest, you might as well start to accept \\\"who\\\'s/whose\\\" \\\"it\\\'s/its\\\". I mean, a lot of people get this wrong on the internet as well... why not make them both correct?
As of today canon as an adjective is an incorrect form, that ought to be straightened, not willfully endorsed. Even if we want to be disingenous about it, there is no added value in eliminating the adjective \\\"canonical\\\" from dictionary (a simultaneous use as an adjective and noun only creates another layer of ambiguity).

Oh, hey, I\\\'d rather we started using \\\"LOL\\\" as en expression of bemusement personally. Now, wouldn\\\'t *that* be cool?