Of course not, DM.

And I would just like to say that this is fun. I like the pedantic aspect and find great pleasure in being pedantic without others taking offense. Thank you, coldsoup, for such a great thread.

So, how is "_well-defined_" grammatically correct?

I stand with Draugnar on the issue of fragments. There is nothing impeding the use of a fragment if the meaning is clear. Like this.

Also, Ghug, I challenge your attempt to unseat me. You said, "You neglected to use the future subjunctive in your contrafactual conditional."

I say to you that the use of the subjunctive is now grammatically optional as is the avoidance of sentences ending with prepositions.

Split infinitives are another good example. It may have been considered bad form at one time, but that time is over. I'm a descriptivist. Indeed, if the world were ruled by prescriptivists, I wouldn't be allowed to use these contractions!

Fragments are a well accepted component of written English. I am confused as to how so many of you are still living in 1935, grammar-wise.

I disagree about fragments. They are simply wrong.

I also disagree about the subjunctive. It is not analogous to split infinitives or prepositions at the end of a sentence. It changes the meaning of the sentence -- the sentence doesn't say what it's supposed to without it.

Er... Thucydides, you are out. "Ghug" is spelled "ghug" per the rule clarification early in the thread.

Yes, fragments are wrong. Wrong. Wrong? That's odd. For whatever reason, I'm not getting green underlines on those two sentences. Those two sentences right there.

Where did you get it in your heads that the only acceptable sentence is one with a subject and a verb?

What about this?

Question: "Do you prefer sitting or standing?"
Answer: "Sitting."
Nazi: "You are wrong! You have responded with a fragment! This is improper grammar!"
Descriptivist: "Relax. People have been communicating like this in both written and unwritten forms for thousands of years. It's not wrong."

If I am out for capitalizing proper names then you are out for using non-standard onomatopoeia. Also, I didn't see this rule.

Again, I must ask for a clarification on the rules regarding those who have been eliminated. DiploMerlin, semck83, Thucydudes, and Draugnar have all posted since their respective eliminations.

As for the subjunctive, I must continue to agree with semck83. Unlike split infinitives and sentence-ending prepositions, it continues to serve a purpose. The fact that some don't use it in their speech does not mean it is no longer proper English.

See Spot run. See Dick and Jane chase Spot. See Jane trip and fall. See Spot dick Jane.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think laughter is either grammatically incorrect or correct, so how do you judge that last statement?

Let me quote, Thucydides:

"ulytau (675 )
10:21 PM
Classic Draugnar is classic. Also, I vouch for DiploMerlin's stay in the game. He committed his errors when he was under the impression that he was out.

From now on, everyone should capitalize the nicknames correctly. It's DiploMerlin and ulytau, not Diplomerlin and Ulytau."

You may disagree with this clarification but it would be better if you voiced your concern aforehand. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Sorry, I didn't notice rule 3. Although, as Draug points out, it would be hard to enforce. What can we do, lose again?

ulytau said: "Ignorance is not an excuse."

I personally disagree with this precept both politically and philosophically, so I submit my protest for consideration.

However this does appear to be a prescriptivist grammar thread and therefore not fun at all, so I will leave you boys to it.

Thucidides, those points are flawed. First, would you care to tell me what browser you're using? I wasn't aware that grammar checkers were common practice in browsers. If you were to put that into Microsoft Word or a similar text-editing program, you would be met with several warnings.

As for your example, there are two issues. First, there is no rule stating that a question must be answered in a complete sentence. Second, calling one who takes offense at incorrect grammar is an unjustified ad hominem attack.

Incidentally, Thucy, yes, I get it, descriptivism is great, blah blah blah. People have been speaking all KINDS of ways for thousands of years, and every great writer breaks rules all the time. But the point is that THIS thread is to test knowledge OF THE RULES, which has to mean the usual, agreed-on rules of formal English writing. That doesn't mean anybody here is a prescriptivist, or is saying you have to use them every day, it just means it's testing knowledge of the rules.

Actually, the fact that the question could have been answered in a full sentence means you must either allow fragments or consider the answer to be a disqualifying statement.

As for the ad hominem attacks, nothing in the rules says there can't be logical or factual errors. It's just spelling and grammatical errors that are at question here.

Thucydides, the essence of this game is to correct posts of others. You cannot do that properly without actually reading them. Ergo, ignorance is not an excuse, nor a valid strategy for playing this game.

Draugnar thinks to himslef "Ergo... Wasn't that what the Architect kept saying in 'Matrix Reloaded?'"

Draugnar thinks again "Himself! Damn you stupid typo fingers!"

I invite Draug, Thucy, and DiploFool to my loser's thread, here:

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=861924

I would like to say that I should get some sort of royalties every time someone posts in the "loser's thread" as I labeled the thread in the first place.
Moreover, I don't know how many points I have in this thread and I would like to know if I post statements that are inane to the thread that only half of my points would be used. Furthermore, if I happen to NMR or CD over the next few hours, will I lose my points permanently or if some other fool, like PE, takes over, then my points will be returned to me via GR.

Please let me know.
I don't know how I can go on playing this game without knowing more about the rules.

Wow! You just posted one massive run-on sentence, zultar. I think the point is moot after that posting.

Does my "Wow!" exclamation qualify as a fragment?

Ulytau, you began your sentence with "ergo." That is incorrect.

Note that I capitalized "ulytau" due to its being at the beginning of a sentence. If the rules would have me do otherwise, please clarify.

I don't know, Draugnar, I never saw it in English.

You should rather lose in dignity and learn from your mistakes than create separate threads, semck83. In fact, all you native speakers should be ashamed that someone with less than ten years of formal schooling in English under his belt managed to outlast you in this game. I will now cease my foolish boasting that doesn't come from the heart anyway and join you in your losers' thread, losers.

I win. I nerd sniped all of you.

No, Draug, that's an interjection. You're fine.

Screw you, ulytau.

"Banned by a moderator: European hypocrite"

Enough said.

You need 20 to win, coldsoup. It's a good thing your rules don't eliminate you for factual errors or you would be out right now.