Obama's king speaks Farsi.

Hillary's "Wishing he was a King or somehow related"  Sharpton speaks some sort of gibberish which Hillary does her best to imitate by screaming and barking.  You've all seen the vids.

I presume that your single link concludes your presentation and the definitive work on the subject.  That in Trumps case, he uses the same grammar in a business board meeting and he does on the campaign trail.

And that Hillary's maxes out at street talk when she is negotiating as Sec of State.

And though link itself targets a certain educational level of readership,  you've no level might be, but you seem to  be very comfortable with it.  Would you agree that the provided link targets a group with an intelligence less that Time?  Or do you think they have more?  Less?

All this put together and your take away this is how Trump is all the time, every where.  And you basing this on a single link.

One thing is clear to me, every day I understand more and more the meaning of "low info" voter is . . . is

Thankfully, Condie was not a literary critic in the not so distant past.  He would have dismissed Mark Twain as a county bumpkin or red neck,  Hemingway would be described as worthy of a 9th grader.

Rather pretentious of Condie to refer to the King's English.  Which king is that -- the last British king was George VI.  Or, does he elevate Obama to vaunted status?  Are we to spell words as the English do -- labour, colour, and wagon?  Or, refer to a car trunk as the boot, a wrench as a spanner, French fried as chips, and cookies as biscuits? 

What I expected. BTW, wagon was supposed to be spelled waggon as the English do.  Spell checker caught me.

His supporters understand him.

Talk about grasping for straws. 

This poster must be mental,or some child on it's Parents computer.

direstraits posted:

Rather pretentious of Condie to refer to the King's English.  Which king is that -- the last British king was George VI.  Or, does he elevate Obama to vaunted status?  Are we to spell words as the English do -- labour, colour, and wagon?  Or, refer to a car trunk as the boot, a wrench as a spanner, French fried as chips, and cookies as biscuits? 

______

Fret not, dire.  You can abandon any concern about revisions to the spelling forms you have become comfortable with.  No dust bins, lorries,  or perambulators for you.  Your arrogant, pedantic response was generated out of a deficiency in lexical expertise. Put more simply, you ignorantly--and I might add, PRETENTIOUSLY-- assumed a definition of "King's English" that is, in fact, considerably more narrow and limited than definitions given by actual authorities on the term "King's English," namely those who research and publish DICTIONARIES.  For your education and avoidance of future embarrassment, the following are graciously submitted:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/king's%20english

Beternnun can barely spell, what does he know.

Jack Flash posted:

 When working with a adolescence adolf mentality as conndy,

the extreme childish hypocrite that he is, there's no wonder. 

______

Jerk.

Take note of my reply to the glaring lexical deficiencies of dire and consider yourself similarly, and deservedly, admonished.

Contendahh posted:

Harald Weissberg posted:

Talk about grasping for straws. 

This poster must be mental,or some child on it's Parens computer.

Uh, Resident Hebrew Haranguer, take note of my reply to the glaring lexical deficiencies of the arrogant, pedantic, presumptuous dire and consider yourself similarly admonished. BTY, the plural possessive of parent is "parents',"not "parens".

direstraits posted:

What I expected. BTW, wagon was supposed to be spelled waggon as the English do.  Spell checker caught me.

Spell checker needs a spell checker. You have to watch it.

Bestworking posted:

Beternnun can barely spell, what does he know.

_____

Enough to know that a question should be followed by a QUESTION MARK (looks like this: ?), not a period.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Rather pretentious of Condie to refer to the King's English.  Which king is that -- the last British king was George VI.  Or, does he elevate Obama to vaunted status?  Are we to spell words as the English do -- labour, colour, and wagon?  Or, refer to a car trunk as the boot, a wrench as a spanner, French fried as chips, and cookies as biscuits? 

______

Fret not, dire.  You can abandon any concern about revisions to the spelling forms you have become comfortable with.  No dust bins, lorries,  or perambulators for you.  Your arrogant, pedantic response was generated out of a deficiency in lexical expertise. Put more simply, you ignorantly--and I might add, PRETENTIOUSLY-- assumed a definition of "King's English" that is, in fact, considerably more narrow and limited than definitions given by actual authorities on the term "King's English," namely those who research and publish DICTIONARIES.  For your education and avoidance of future embarrassment, the following are graciously submitted:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/king's%20english

King's English

noun

Popularity: Bottom 30% of words

Definition of King's English

1. :  standard, pure, or correct English speech or usage

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/king-s-english

__________________________________________________________________________________

king's English

 

• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

 

1.standard, educated, or correct English speech or usage, especially of England.

 

[Note, dire, that "especially" does not mean "exclusively," but admits of wider application.]

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/The+King's+English

 

Also found in: Wikipedia.

	correct or current language of good speakers; pure English. - Halliwell.

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines Queen's English as "standard English language as written and spoken by educated people in Britain. " 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/

One attempt to be correct when making references.  One may feel the Bern for the present Democrat running for president.  Others, felt the burn, after dealing with Bernie Madoff.

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

The thought of him teaching is scary.

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

______

Poor defeated dire.

YOU elected to dispute my use  of the term "King's English." By any standard of responsible discussion, I am entitled to reply. I showed you and this forum that YOU were WRONG.  You are still WRONG and your childish, irrelevant rejoinder, above, will not change that.  Of course, it is easy to see why you would resort to personal insult, since my documented reply left you totally defenseless as to the merits of the discussion.  No surprise there; that is by no means the first time you have resorted to such shameful shabbiness.  Best to quit now, lest you sustain further and deeper embarrassment.

giftedamateur posted:

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

The thought of him teaching is scary.

______

Well, gifted, it seems that I have taught dire something he did not know about "King's English."  Do you have any personal knowledge deficiencies I could help YOU with?

Contendahh posted:

Bestworking posted:

Beternnun can barely spell, what does he know.

_____

Enough to know that a question should be followed by a QUESTION MARK (looks like this: ?), not a period.

I took it as Best making a statement, not asking a question?

giftedamateur posted:

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

The thought of him teaching is scary.

The thought of being a student in a 9th grade English class, even more so.

9th graders are taught to proofread.

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

______

Poor defeated dire.

YOU elected to dispute my use  of the term "King's English." By any standard of responsible discussion, I am entitled to reply. I showed you and this forum that YOU were WRONG.  You are still WRONG and your childish, irrelevant rejoinder, above, will not change that.  Of course, it is easy to see why you would resort to personal insult, since my documented reply left you totally defenseless as to the merits of the discussion.  No surprise there; that is by no means the first time you have resorted to such shameful shabbiness.  Best to quit now, lest you sustain further and deeper embarrassment.

Originally, I pointed out the shabbiness of the term you cited. After your little harangue, I pointed out, once again, that your term was weak, using a definition from the Oxford Dictionary.    Neither, wrong, nor was my rejoinder irrelevant or childish.  Yours are indeterminate and oblique.

direstraits posted:

Contendahh posted:

direstraits posted:

Poor sad Condie, reduced to nitpicking from the confines of a home. Instead of haranguing 9th graders in his English class.

______

Poor defeated dire.

YOU elected to dispute my use  of the term "King's English." By any standard of responsible discussion, I am entitled to reply. I showed you and this forum that YOU were WRONG.  You are still WRONG and your childish, irrelevant rejoinder, above, will not change that.  Of course, it is easy to see why you would resort to personal insult, since my documented reply left you totally defenseless as to the merits of the discussion.  No surprise there; that is by no means the first time you have resorted to such shameful shabbiness.  Best to quit now, lest you sustain further and deeper embarrassment.

Originally, I pointed out the shabbiness of the term you cited. After your little harangue, I pointed out, once again, that your term was weak, using a definition from the Oxford Dictionary.    Neither, wrong, nor was my rejoinder irrelevant or childish.  Yours are indeterminate and oblique.

___

No weakness at all.  The term I used has long been applicable to English spoken both within and outside of English as spoken in England. The prevalence of definitions from respected sources confirms this.  The term I cited, is "King's English." Have you indeed found some "shabbiness" there? If so, where?

budsfarm posted:

Contendahh posted:

Bestworking posted:

Beternnun can barely spell, what does he know.

_____

Enough to know that a question should be followed by a QUESTION MARK (looks like this: ?), not a period.

I took it as Best making a statement, not asking a question?

 

Exactly. It was a statement. Poor professor DA, as usual you don't know "enough", or anything really.

Bestworking posted:

budsfarm posted:

Contendahh posted:

Bestworking posted:

Beternnun can barely spell, what does he know.

_____

Enough to know that a question should be followed by a QUESTION MARK (looks like this: ?), not a period.

I took it as Best making a statement, not asking a question?

 

Exactly. It was a statement. Poor professor DA, as usual you don't know "enough", or anything really.

Does a rhetorical question require a question mark, as no answer is expected?

F*** the bloody king, and queen, speak and write southern english.

jtdavis posted:

F*** the bloody king, and queen, speak and write southern english.

Strictly speaking, we of the South speak the English spoken by Shakespeare and the Elizabethans of that era.  The modern English accent we are familiar with was an upper class accent adopted by most of the Brits later.