Nah it's bullshit...
Another distinction that is fast disappearing but that would be a shame as I think it's quite useful... as also forbear and forebear where it's clearer.
I understand that usage trumps all but it seems a pity when useful distinctions such as disinterested and uninterested - which are now used virtually interchangeably - are flattened out removing some of the subtlety and nuance from the language.
I really don't think it is. Even in the case of notoriously flexible rules of language which are subject to change, I think the thing about prepositions was more of an aesthetic suggestion than anything else, as far as I know it never graduated to the status of an actual full-blown rule.Yeah why is “I missed the meeting which I received no notice of” wrong where “I missed the meeting of which I received no notice” is right? In that case, I actually think the latter sounds better, but I’d hesitate the generalize that reasoning to all such cases.
One of daftest and dustiest old grammar myths is the unfounded rule against ending a sentence with a preposition. This fake proscription seems to have been invented by a Latin-loving John Dryden in 1672 and, like an indestructible demonic meme, continues to gnaw at people’s minds centuries later. Some even believe it.
Avoiding preposition-stranding (as it’s known) can have deliberately comical results, famously in not-Churchill’s ‘arrant nonsense up with which I will not put’.
What did you bring me the magazine I didn’t want to be read to out of about “‘Over Under Sideways Down’ up from Down Under” up around for?
Reminds me of an interview that I once read with Christian Bale, he described shadowing (which I suppose is a fancy word for "hanging about with") traders or hedge fund managers and so on in preparation to play Patrick Bateman, the part of it that stuck in my mind was when one of the guys insisted that Bale accompany him to the cashpoint while he withdrew some money cos "you simply won't believe the balance".
Interesting seeing the widespread ruthless jokes about the submersible on social sites.
Obviously these jokes have always done the round about the most tragic events (9/11 jokes the day after, if even that late, for example) but I get the feeling that this is less acceptable now at least in public, whereas this one is permitted to joke about because half the people onboard were mega rich.
I guess there's also the "Darwin award," aspect where they were asking for it, they volunteered to get on it, but I think the billionaire aspect is most important.
I wonder if the reason this got so much attention wasn't so much that they were rich and the world wanted to see them saved - it was because they were rich and the world wanted to see them die. (Whereas many are saying, probably justifiably, that a boatload of poor migrants dying didn't get coverage because nobody cares if poor people die. That's probably true, too, a different withdrawal of empathy.)
You mean we like to see the adventurous laid low?
There is a lot of pleasure taken in the consequences of hubris. Particularly when it is libertarian billionaires gloating about the very thing that will sink them.