OK, but is it a <Fun Fact> as well?

Of course it's a <fun fact>.

What could possibly be funner than Constitutional Law?

I remind you:

<Well tings is pretty bad dere, but there does seem some hope of a Constitutional Settlement>

The editing work actually is terrifying because I'm being paid well and it has to be done properly and I have to meet the deadline or my old Prof's reputation in Montreal will be mud if the work's not done on time.

I'll be scarce till Thursday night or maybe Friday.

Bloody public policy. What is this "public" they speak of?

The <Hoi Polloi>? <the Great Unwashed>? The <Wretched of the Earth>?

You make the call.

In Canada the public is mainly asleep or watching TV. So the "policy demands" are minimal, in point of fact.

But there's plenty of "busy work" that politicians seem to think is important.

The TV ratings for the "Parliamentary Channel" (all Parliamentary proceedings in the House are publicly televised) are, I believe, 0.0.

One of the reasons the House is now always on live TV is the big honking stink that happended when <Trudeau> told the leader of the opposition to <F___ Off>, and claimed that he had said <Fuddle Duddle> instead.

Heh.

Ok if today's fun fact wasn't fun enough for you, a <papparazi> snapped a picture of <Trudeau's Wife> at a <Rolling Stones Party> that showed her "naughty bits" and the picture immediately appeared in every Canadian Porno magazine.

Is that fun enough?

I see that you've already composed 162 pages. Cong-rats!

So what? Do you want a cookie? A little trophy? What?

"Unprovoked". You do love that word.

<You could have done the same, but once again you preferred to incite fresh new hostilities.>

Oooh, aren't I horrible? If only I would stop doing that.

I don't see why you won't proceed in an orderly fashion. For someone that boasts about his philosophical rigor and sophistication, you sure don't seem inclined to follow the "clear and rigorous" mantra with any notable dedication. You do realize, of course, that proceeding in a logical order does not concede a single thing to me. It merely focuses the argument so that progress can be made.

However, as you are unwilling to break the problem down into manageable chunks, I'm forced to outline my argument in full.

1) "Seductivity" is mentioned in scholarly journals.

2) "Seductivity" is not mentioned in dictionaries.

3) Scholarly journals and dictionaries are not consistent with each other (1, 2)

4) Therefore, inclusion in scholarly journals and inclusion in dictionaries cannot both be necessary and sufficient conditions for word legitimacy. (3)

5) Dictionaries determine word legitimacy iff publishing companies have authority over linguistic normativity.

6) Dictionaries determine word legitimacy iff the criteria for dictionary inclusion is consistent and objective, and such process determines all legitimate words and no non-words.

7) Major dictionaries include and exclude different words ("aggressivity" being one such case).

8) Major dictionaries are not consistent with each other in determining word legitimacy. (7)

9) If dictionaries consistently and objectively determine legitimate words and exclude non-words, then there would be no disagreement between different dictionaries.

10) It is not intuitively appealing to think that publishing companies govern normativity in language.

11) Therefore, dictionaries do not determine word legitimacy. (6, 8, 9; 5, 10)

13) The criteria for community consensus necessarily include: a) frequency of use, b) morphological coherence, c) syntactically coherence, d) semantic uniqueness and distinctness.

14) "Passivity" is frequently used (it yields 2,450,000 matches on google). It is more than twice as common as "shoelace".

15) "Passivity" is morphologically and syntactically coherent.

16) "Passivity" is semantically unique. To contrast with "passiveness", passivity denotes a state, whereas "passiveness" denotes a property of some thing. This is similar to the distinction between "aggression" and "aggressiveness".

17) Therefore, "passivity" is a word (12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

18) "Ain" is not a word.

19) "Ain't" is not morphologically coherent. (18)

20) "Ain't" is supposed to replace "is not", "am not", "are not", "do not", and "does not", without being homophonous. It is not semantically distinct.

21) "Ain't" fails at least one criterion for being a legitimate word, but I've given two (13, 19, 20)

22) Therefore, "ain't" is not a word. (12, 13, 21)

22) "Aggressivity" is infrequently used. A google search shows gets 1/15 the number of matches as "passivity". This is 40,000 fewer matches than Lewis Carroll's "brillig" from "Jabberwocky".

23) "Aggressivity" is not semantically unique. "Aggressiveness" or "aggression" must be equivalent, and they are far better established words ("Aggressiveness gets almost 3.5 million matches).

24) Aggressivity is not a word (22, 23)

25) "To Spell" is to form a word with letters.

26) "To Misspell" is to fail to form a word with letters. (25)

27) To form a string of letters, which is not a word, is a failure to form a word. (26)

28) Any string of letters, which is not a word, is the result of misspelling (13, 14, 27)

29) "Aggressivity" and "Ain't" are misspellings (13, 22, 24, 28)

<Bill> has generously offered the <SeeSee> forum if you gentlemen wish to continue the debate.

Ok but I cant resist-

<c) syntactically coherence,>

Mistake! Finally.

Remember when you said to me <I love how you misspell <paradox> but spell <apodeictically> correctly>.

Heh.

TIE!

But seriously, it's time for the <SeeSee> forum for the <great debate> OK?

If "ain't" is misspelled, why is it included in all dictionaries under that exact spelling? If they're going to misspell it anyway, why don't some spell it "ayn't" and others "aent" or still others "aioefjpoaiewfaoij" for that matter, since it's not a word anyway? Is it a coincidence?

Just because ain't is a nonstandard word doesn't mean it's not a word. You should replace "not legitimate" with "not standard." Standard English dictionaries contain words. More than that, they contain the correct spelling of those words. That's one of the functions of a dictionary, capisce? They give spellings to standard words as well as nonstandard words. Are nonstandard words still words? Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be used in dictionaries (as well as plenty of other sources).

Suppose that "ain't" is misspelled. However, "ain't" is a word -- a non-standard one but a word which that is often used in literature, for example. But if it is misspelled, then how should it be spelled? Would "aynt" be better? No, "aynt" is a misspelling. Why is "ain't" in ALL standard english dictionaries (as a slang word) and spelled exactly the same way?

If "ain't" is a misspelling, what word is being misspelled? No word, you would answer, because you don't accept what all dictionaries tell you, that it IS a word, just not a standard one. Would you contend that there is no difference between "aeawoajpewifjapwoijepfwaioj" and "ain't"? I hope not. One is not a word and the other is. One is not included in dictionaries and the other is. One has no definition in dictionaries and is not comprehensible when used in language, while the opposite is true for the other.

One who writes "ain't" does not fail to form a word with letters. He simply forms a nonstandard word with letters, and spells it in the correct way. What you seem incapable of admitting is that even nonstandard words have correct and incorrect spellings. There is plenty more to be said but it's clear that no matter how many times or how many different ways it's explained to you, your ego prevents you from admitting an obvious fact.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone who would accept <danielpi>'s conclusion that "ain't" is misspelled? It's understandable that people don't want to get involved in such a ridiculous "debate"... but I'm just curious. Anyone?

See my post to <daniel> there just above yours.

<Bill> has offered the <SeeSee> forum, for you guys to argue in, so please take your argument there, OK?

Good morn' <Jess>

I have this beautiful song and will email it to you soon!

It's very interesting for at least three reasons:

1. <Bill> bought 3 Preemy memberships, two of them <sockpuppet> personae, one of whom is named <SeeSee>. Then he staged arguments between them on his own forum.

Then he gave <SeeSee> his own forum.

2. I was the first visitor, and since <SeeSee> was known for insulting people, I insulted him. (remember that <SeeSee> is actually <Bill>.

So then a bunch of us started putting in "insult jokes," and CG.com promptly deleted at least half of them, including my original insult which I forget what it was even.

3. You'll notice that <danielPi> and <Plato> had a 14 hour argument in my forum, with my permission.

They rested, and on the 7th day they created the Firmament..

no wait that's God.

On the second day they rested, and you can see above there that they just resumed today, and i asked them to move their argument to the <SeeSee> forum.

<bill> very generously offered the <SeeSee> forum to the scrapping lads, but they have yet to take him up on the offer.

Who knows what will happen next?

Btw, have you moved yet? My other opponents have all moved, but I can't remember if you've replied to my STUNNING non-novelty <Be2> yet.

<Bill> is <User: WBP>

He's an excellent chess player, hysterically funny, and a great guy.

You should drop by his forum and check it out, well worth it.

Remember, in his forum there are actually three versions of him arguing with, I suppose, HIMSLEF!!

heh.

Anyhoo, he also noticed that I had misquoted your

<What the Hell is GMNS?> in my Profile.

I had written <What the Hell is a <GMNS>, and he pointed out..

A. I had misquoted you

B. Your original quote was much funnier cuz it kind of sounds like <What the Hell is VD> or something, as if <Mr. Nigel> were a kind of "disease" or "unfortunate condition".

Take care and I hope you'll finish your editing job in time!

I've decided to believe there is only on time zone.

Jessica time. Oddly, it conforms exactly to Pacific Standard Time.

So from now on I beilieve that it is 3:27 PM everywhere on earth.