Transitive verbs ruled not inherently argumentative

[Marc Velasco]

"... engage in useless nominalization."

Let all of our nominalization be of the kind to lead us in direct progress
towards the objects of our interests.


On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at ix.netcom.com>wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Benjamin Barrett <gogaku at IX.NETCOM.COM>
> Subject:      Transitive verbs ruled not inherently argumentative
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With a state amendment to be on the ballot in California this fall to
> prohibit same-sex marriage, supporters went before a judge claiming
> that "eliminate" in the title is "argumentative, misleading and
> prejudicial, because it was a negative, active transitive word..."
>
> Judge Frawley disagreed: "There is nothing inherently argumentative or
> prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to
> fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in
> useless nominalization."
>
> Judge upholds ballot summary for gay-marriage measure
> San Jose Mercury News by Mike Swift
> http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10140389?nclick_check=1
>
> BB
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org