Astrisks and quotes, side by side... *very* "nice". *Quite* "flashy".

<This coming from the person who doesn't even know how to identify a misspelled word.>

"To spell" is to form words out of letters. To misspell is to fail to form words out of letters. Since "aggressiveness" is the noun form of "aggressive", that would make "aggressivity" a non-word, and hence, a misspelling. Ah, but you *insist* to the contrary, hence I am refuted.

"Aggressivity" is a word found in numerous dictionaries and myriad scholarly articles. At best it was the wrong word choice, but it was not a misspelling, like you claimed -- I spelled it exactly the same way that it's spelled in dictionaries like Merriam Webster.

You tried to equate it with "ain't" and other such words. Even if it was slang or a non-standard word like that, it still wouldn't be misspelled, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise. Take it to the people who work for Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin and dictionary.com and all those scholars, too. Tell them that they are misspelling the word because you say so!

I've given examples of non-words appearing in scholarly articles (e.g. "seductivity") as well as a mainstream dictionary that gives no mention of "aggressivity" (i.e. OED). You've also been provided with a good historical explanation of dictionaries and their reliability in this regard.

Wow, you're really in top form, aren't you.

Think for a moment. What's the opposite of aggressive? How about "passive." Let's see, "passive" has a noun form which is "passiveness," so that must mean that -- by your impeccable logic -- "passivity" is a non-word and hence a misspelling.

As for the "history" of how words come to be, it's totally irrelevant. Once a word comes into the English dictionary, it is not a misspelling to use it the way it is spelled in the dictionary and used elsewhere. "Agresivity" would be a misspelling. "Aggressivity" is not.

So, by that miracle of deduction, since "stupid" is the opposite of "smart", and "stupidity" is the noun form of "stupid", it must follow that the noun form of "smart" is "smartity", right?>

As usual, you've missed the point, or rather pretended to miss it. You implied -- quite embarrassingly -- that just because a word has one noun form that any other noun form is automatically a non-word and misspelled. I gave you an example of a word that has two legitimate noun forms. So your "logic" was a bit lacking. Get it now?

Read carefully. I said "history of dictionaries", not the "history of words". When dictionaries were first being compiled, practically anything could be submitted as a "word". Mere inclusion in a particular publisher's dictionary does not guarantee legitimacy.

You can dispute this, but you've simply neglected address it, claiming that it doesn't affect your "evidence", when in fact, it would rather severely affect the normative power you attribute to dictionaries (and since when did a particular publisher or subset of publishers own the right to govern the English language, anyway?).

<By the way, your "seductivity" analogy falls flat because it is NOT included in the vast majority of standard dictionaries, if any.>

Oh this is going to be juicy. The whole point of my "seductivity" example is that it doesn't appear in dictionaries. Reread what I wrote, and please explicitly confirm or deny whether you failed to grasp the rather simple argument:

Your argument rests upon the premises: 1) that scholarly articles always use words and never use non-words; 2) that dictionaries list all words and no non-words.

You use both of these premises, because if (1) fails, then inclusion in a scholarly article becomes irrelevant. If (2) fails, then either a) it becomes impossible to prove conclusively that anything is not a word, or b) it's possible that the dictionaries including "aggressivity" are wrong.

<You implied -- quite embarrassingly -- that just because a word has one noun form that any other noun form is automatically a non-word and misspelled.>

<Since "ain't" isn't a word, it's a misspelling. Happy?>

and end with these:

<Ergo, you are intellectually dishonest.>

Horror of horrors! Even OED includes "ain't," so it seems like ALL the major dictionaries misspelled that word. You should really let them know that they have misspelled words among their listing.

<Your argument rests upon the premises: 1) that scholarly articles always use words and never use non-words; 2) that dictionaries list all words and no non-words.>

When a word is included in major dictionaries and scholarly articles, the burden of proof is on *you* to explain why it isn't a word. You can't just find analogies and say "therefore your word isn't a word either." And in fact, you haven't produced any relevant analogies anyway. I've already explained why "seductivity" is very different.

There are two possibilities, and in both cases you'd be mistaken in your claim that it was misspelled. If it is a legitimate word then it was not misspelled. If it is a marginalized or slang word, it still has a correct spelling and an incorrect spelling, just like "ain't."

Oh no! This is so horrible! Please, mercy, mercy! I can't take it any more. Your crushing "logic of grammatical opposites" is too powerful for me! What will you do next? Summon the ghost of Derrida? You're probably a big fan of that continental junk.

<And after this debate ends and you leave for about a month, only to return to once again insult me out of the blue for the fourth time in a row, using someone's nice comment about me as justification for ridiculing me behind me back, I'll know that you're eager to resume where we left off.>

<danielpi: I never said or implied any such thing.>

And you have the nerve to call me intellectually dishonest! Let's look at what you said:

<danielpi: Since "aggressiveness" is the noun form of "aggressive", that would make "aggressivity" a non-word, and hence, a misspelling.>

You must be cognitively deficient, fella.

Question 1: Does "seductivity" appear in scholarly work? Question 2: Does "seductivity" appear in dictionaries?

Hence, dictionaries and scholarly articles disagree about what is and isn't a word. Therefore, you need to drop one of them as an article of evidence, since they are inconsistent.

What is so difficult to understand about this? You can't use both as evidence, since they clearly contradict each other in certain cases- I provided an example, which is "seductivity". Now the onus is upon you to drop one of your pieces of evidence.

Keep calling these blatant facts a matter of "perspective." If you honestly think that anyone here has any doubt that you were the one who restarted the hostilities with your unprovoked insults, well, that says something about the sincerity of your "perspective."

To "offend" might be a beter word here..

Nice going guys - very intelligent stuff..

Yeah- to reiterate, I don't like the terms of your truce, and though I surely fear your mighty rhetorical skills, I'm not particularly inclined to accept your offer anyhow. Go figure.

<Keep calling these blatant facts a matter of "perspective." If you honestly think that anyone here has any doubt that you were the one who restarted the hostilities with your unprovoked insults, well, that says something about the sincerity of your "perspective.">

And even there, "seductivity" is rather a case of poor grammar instead of misspelling.

<Now the onus is upon you to drop one of your pieces of evidence.>

None! None! None! "Seductivity" does not appear in a single dictionary. None! That is the point!!! How many times to I have to explain this very rudimentary procedure of arguing by counterexample? The whole entire point is that "seductivity" DOESN'T appear in any dictionaries and that it DOES appear in scholarly articles. How daft can you be!?

<And even there, "seductivity" is rather a case of poor grammar instead of misspelling.>

Of course not, because the terms of my truce involved neither of us insulting the other anymore and that was too much for you to deal with. You *thrive* on insulting people you don't like, even long after they've moved on. So it was essential for you to retain that "privilege."

<your belief that I "started" it. Remind me again, what difference does that make?>

Very well, that's what I thought. So like I said, it was a terrible analogy. How daft can I be, you ask? How daft can *you* be to repeat such a worthless analogy over and over again? Can you really do no better than that?

"Aggressivity," in contrast to "seductivity," appears in the majority of dictionaries, including many standard ones. Just like "ain't," which you have also claimed is misspelled!! (Try to find scholars or dictionaries to support you on that one...)

I offered the same privilege to you.

< Months have passed and I have been able to move on and post elsewhere and just not relate to you, while you have been unable to do the same.>

How very generous of you, I almost forgot. But unlike you, I haven't felt the desire to malign people months after the debate ends. The "privilege" is an ugly and juvenile one, and serves no other purpose than to extend the hostilities indefinitely.

<And I didn't bring you up in conversation after returning. I responded to mention of you, and you're the one who came and addressed me.>

Oh, yes, it is a terrible analogy. Too bad I never said it was an "analogy". It's a counterexample- the point of which is to show a case, where academic articles say it's a word, but dictionaries say it's not a word.

Let me make this simple for you, in the form of a short play:

Scholarly Article: Hello, Dictionary, I think that "seductivity" is a word.

Dictionary: No, it's not a word.

Scholarly Article: Yes it is.

Dictionary: No it isn't.

As you can see, Scholarly Article and Dictionary disagree in at least one case. And so you can't use both of them as evidence, since they are not consistent with each other.

So you have a choice:

Choice A: Admit that scholarly journals sometimes use non-words.

Choice B: Admit that dictionaries are an inadequate authority for word-legitimacy.