Well for me I feel that the purpose of language is to convey meaning/intention/explanation. So if what someone writes conveys their meaning/intention then they have used their language successfully. Minor deviations from the most popular current usage practices are nothing to trifle over.

For example, in my most recent post I used "your" instead of "you're" and also included the shunned word "gotten" and some of the sentences maybe a bit confusing but I expect that most could understand what I was trying to say.

By-the-way: You seem to have a very Latin biased view of English. You do realize that linguists typical classify English as a West Germanic language and not a Romance one.

"So if what someone writes conveys their meaning/intention then they have used their language successfully".

Only if your reader actually understands what you have written.

Only if your reader actually understands what you have written.
ttbn,
you reckon that's 'doable' ?

individual,

Not always 'doable'. Some people need pictures. And, as you posted somewhere else recently, some people don't actually read what others write; they are interested only in what they want to say.

I'm happy to flaunt my general superiority without flouting any law or conventions.

Regrettably, some posters dribble when they write drivel whereas I consciously try to avoid doing so, and conscientiously check my work before posting.

Alternatively, I write without hyperbowl or even hyperbole at all, but alternately I'm excited and depressed about the misuse of the language, and growing disuse of proper grammar.

Joe

Joe

Dribble for drivel is one of my pet hates. I don't mind being advised that I'm talking drivel, but being accused of dribbling is a bit much.

Ttbn,

In the roll of OLO posters, we each play our role

I am married into a family of teachers. Imagine the fun they have with me! Mind you some of them are so naive they believe the gw fantasy so its hard to take them serious.

Re petard. In the olden windjammer days seaman normally had long hair.
This could be dangerous with blocks and lines being everywhere,
So they tied their hair into a single tail like rope hanging down past
their collar. However if it got caught in some tackle he could be
"hoist by his own petard".

Just remembered more detail.
The end of the petard was made into a ball of hair and it looked like
a small bomb used in those days known as a petard.
So it was called a petard.

Schooling was pretty much a total waste of time for most kids in my grouping.
And wasn't helped by a teacher who's escape from Hungry came with a hatred of mankind.
But in his own way was a tragic figure, which even us morons managed to respect him all the more for, in his lonely existence, that we sometimes crossed in the cinema, and other odd public places. But always alone.

As he scrawled his incomprehensible attempt at English across the blackboard, his message was not contained in those words.
It took years to learn what his message really was.

Dan

Re Blocks and lines. Lines could be held taut by being chocked (wedges) on blocks (pulleys). Hence the old naval saying ‘chock a block’. Nowadays the term means something else.

And of course it could mean full. Which when I was a boy the term ‘he’s full was shortened from ‘he’s as full as a bull’ ... or drunk.

So imagine a full as a bull seamen with plaited hair, while becoming entangled in his chock and block inadvertently blows up his own explosive device.

imajulianutter

And on the example from the sea; how about this play on words:

You can always tell a sailor by the semen (seaman sic) in his pants!

Dan