Re: Re: The Western Quays
Yup- that is exactly what I meant by ‘simple points scoring’. I’m glad you took the bait. Annoying, isn’t it?
Re your point of information: my Concise Oxford lists no such acceptable usage (though admittedly it’s only the 7th Edition), while my Chambers (1999) states specifically, with reference to ‘comprise’: “often, incorrectly, with of“. Dictionary.com states:
Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected.
And then there is also this: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002040.php Sadly I don’t have my Fowler to hand.
For the record, while things like this do bother me I tend generally to let them slide on a forum, but when punters get nit-picky, well I can’t resist.
Were I to be driving my point home about linguistic accuracy, I could dwell on your use of ‘argumentative accuracy’, but that would be just petty and it makes me smile as it is (in a nutshell, your sentence means that your accuracy is characterised by argument/is given to being quarrelsome).
To return to the thread:
It wasn’t your counter-arguments that I found unrelated to the thread (however much I might disagree with them), but your apparent belief that by disproving Graham’s claim about the predominance of Georgian architecture you were in some way disproving the right to protection of this building. In fact, this counter-argument actually strengthens in a small way the pro-retention case. You say that Georgians aren’t as numerous as others believe, which seems to me to add weight to the case for retention. If it was a ringfort on the quays we could bulldoze away at will, but as it’s a building of a type less ubiquitous than those forts, wouldn’t that make the case all the more compelling?
Further, your claim that “I am simply trying to keep the rather brief period of Georgian architecture in Ireland within its cultural and historical context,” misses the critical point in this debate that the cultural and historical context of Georgian architecture is the evolution of the very quays that are the subject of this thread, so the retention of this building would in fact reinforce your position.
I have a sneaking suspicion from your posts on other threads that the association of Georgian architecture with the period of British rule in Ireland undermines in some way the validity of its claim to heritage value. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
Anyway, I have made my position clear elsewhere and I fear that this hair-splitting is of only minimal interest to the other readers, so that’s probably my lot on this one, enjoyable and all as it has been.