As the poster who spawned this whole discussion of proper grammar and word usage with my comments on Jamal’s quote, it is with great pride that I know I will able to consult this thread in the archive for years to come…like my child’s grown up into some worthless, trivial bastard.

bastard
1223, “illegitimate child,” from O.Fr., “child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife,” probably from fils de bast “packsaddle son,” meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling), with pejorative ending -art. Alternate possibly is that the word is from P.Gmc. *banstiz “barn,” equally suggestive of low origin. Not always regarded as a stigma.

Captain,

As you can see a child cannot grow into a bastard. Bastard are born that way. :-) So I think you used it incorrectly.

Ok…enough.

We moved on from English lessons to poetry. Did you not notice the first stanza of Shakespeare’s “Ode to ballin’ with JC?”

No disrespect to the OED, I’m sure it too recognizes the common use of the word moot, but the OED clearly has not researched the etymology of the word moot.

You’re kidding, right? Have you ever read an OED entry?

This thread is officially the low point of this blog.

That’s probably true.

No disrespect to the OED, I’m sure it too recognizes the common use of the word moot, but the OED clearly has not researched the etymology of the word moot. I agree that the English language is a living which is capable of change. Take for example the word fagot or the British fagott, often used as a slur against homosexuals, the word originaly-and still does-mean “a tightly bound bundle of sticks.” Yes, words can come to have a dual meanings. However, with respect to the word moot, it is clear that the common usage of the word has become the opposite of its original usage and meaning.

Now I dont know Ms. Abbie F. Salny personally. But I do know that her book could not use the word Mensa in its title unless a few scholars and etymologist looked over her work. Given that i have found several dictionarys that do recognize that the original meaning of the word moot is consistent with what I have offered, and with what Ms. Salny has researched. Maybe, just maybe the OED got it wrong, or has omitted the etymology of the word moot.

Now with respect to JC vs. WS. I think JC has the clear advantage. WS’s game will be much to predictable as he ould not abandon iambic pentameter during the 1 on 1.

“Look out Jamal, I’m driving to the hole.
Oh drat, it seems I’ve missed the shot again.
On my knees this game will take its toll.
I’m down too far to think that I shall win.”

Besides William can’t go to his left hand.

The English language is far far far more flexible than the highly specious “X means Y but – haha – most people think it means Z” argument.

In terms of a source, why not turn to The Oxford English Dictionary instead of to a shiny book with squiggles on it? Yes, I know: the OED has 20 volumes, it’s true; but if you plan to be didactic about people’s use of the language I would hope that you’d turn to the venerable OED rather than to the works of “Abbie F. Salny”. Or should William Shakespeare have been spoken down to for his terrible use of the English language?

Anyway, what the OED will show you is that someone in this thread is right and someone in this thread is very wrong.

And no, I’m not equating Jamal Crawford to William Shakespeare. Jamal would eat William’s lunch. I’d think that William would have had the up-and-under move and the tear drop in his arsenal though. He was crafty.

Oh, and PS – “Moot” according to the OED (with those tricky second senses)

“2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.
***Now the usual sense in North America.***

1807 Rep. U.S. Circuit Court: District Virginia (Lexis) 25 126 If a statute of the United States were to adopt a common law phrase, in the creation of an offence, no common law consequences would follow, because we have no common law. But this is a moot point. 1831 Rep. Supreme Court U.S. (Lexis) 30 41 Whether it is the emanation from the People or the States, is a moot question, having no bearing on the supremacy of that supreme law which from a proper source has rightfully been imposed on us by Sovereign Power. 1899 Atlantic Reporter 42 517/2 Because the plaintiff boarded the cars for the purpose of making a test case, this is a moot case, which the court will not entertain. 1946 Univ. Pennsylvania Law Rev. Jan. 126 A lawsuit which is, or has become, moot is neither a case nor a controversy in the constitutional sense and no federal court has the power to decide it. 1973 N.Y. Law Jrnl. 31 Aug. 18/4 Motion for an order dismissing this indictment for lack of prosecution is dismissed as moot. 2000 Time 20 Nov. 71/3 Media critics have long argued that networks should not call races until all polls have closed to avoid affecting turnout. It’s a moot argument: information will out.”

FWIW, I’m pretty sure Crawford used “monotony” correctly, or at least in a way that is generally acceptable in the American vernacular.Chandler looks light years ahead of Balkman.

Yeah well “FWIW”, this is the same American vernacular that uses the word moot incorrectly (it means worthy of debate, not beyond debate), can’t pronounce forte correctly (should be fort, not for-tay), and always uses the word careen when they should say career.

Actually, moot also means not applicable to the present reality – IOW, debating the point is meaningless (IstillOW, not worthy of debate, which has the same effect as being beyond debate), or, amazingly enough, pointless – something I picked up in moot court before I forwent (yes, that is a word) my careen in law to play the pianoforte (that’s FORtay) in the Bach Festival Orchestra (oh man, the groupies!) which (pianoforte), amazingly enough, means “soft loud.” (Oops, I misused careen.) (Do I get marked down for being too parenthetical?)
BTW, Craw used monotony correctly; the prepositional phrase was elided, a common practice in English.
Graves and Roberson are the two players I’d be interested in keeping an eye on. Know nothing re Wafer. Collins’ stats look good (5Asts, 1TO, that’s not Knick-like), but it’s just one game and just Summer League.

Step 1: buy this book.
Step 2: read this book.

he lost weight in the offseason and he looked good on offense, one three he hit in transition was especially impressive.

step 3: remember to add link for the book.