Case and Point V.S. Case in Point

[Dogar The Brave]

I am partial to the former. Granted, I know the idiom originated as the later, but I think both in spoken American English are nearly identical and as an expression I think it is subjective. I say this with vindication because there are examples of swapping and for in and in for and in many parts of english phrases:

Puss in Boots v.s. Puss and Boots

Day in Day Out v.s. Day and Day Out

Down in Dirty v.s. Down and Dirty

Language is constantly changing and this may too be a change as thee to you once was centuries ago.

[pichubro]

Is it weird that I say 'day in and day out'?

[God]

case in point, because it says what the phrase means.

"Case in point":
- I have made an argument, that is, a case. Here is an example that demonstrates that case I made. This example is only one point, but it goes to display and highly what my case is generally - it is a point of example which contains my point. Case in point.

"Case and point":
- I'm a dumb faggot who doesn't know how words work. I also write alot and should of.

[Dogar The Brave]

Is it weird that I say 'day in and day out'?

American English pronunciation of "in" and "and" are almost identical so I can see why you thought that was the "proper" idiom. Idioms are expressions that are passed on to people in a community with a unique meaning based on the culture and its vernacular language. As culture and language changes so too will the idioms. If anyone is an idiom Nazi they are both stupid and crazy.

[Dogar The Brave]

case in point, because it says what the phrase means.



"Case and point":
- I'm a dumb faggot who doesn't know how words work. I also write alot and should of.

The figurative meaning is comprehended in regard to a common use of the expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made. (Cite: Wiki)


Case AND Point

[God]

American English pronunciation of "in" and "and" are almost identical so I can see why you thought that was the "proper" idiom. Idioms are expressions that are passed on to people in a community with a unique meaning based on the culture and its vernacular language. As culture and language changes so too will the idioms. If anyone is an idiom Nazi they are both stupid and crazy.

say it however you want. write it however you want too, with the knowledge that if you write it the way idiots write it, people will think you're dumb.

[pichubro]

be a change as thee to you once was centuries ago.

Maybe you should take an English Language history course. These words existed at the same time and served different purposes.

"You" was formal, "Thee" was informal. As England moved closer to modernization, informal forms of pronouns were dropped.

[Dogar The Brave]

Maybe you should take an English Language history course. These words existed at the same time and served different purposes.

"You" was formal, "Thee" was informal. As England moved closer to modernization, informal forms of pronouns were dropped.

Yes Pichubro, just as I said, language changes, and before it changes there is a transition period, of which is the topic of this thread. Maybe you should take a reading course.

say it however you want. write it however you want too, with the knowledge that if you write it the way idiots write it, people will think you're dumb.

Oh contraire mon frere, I argue that idioms that use "in" and "and" will indeed be transforming in the next generation of written and spoken American English to a point where using both interchangeably will be expectable. (It actually is now.) Furthermore, this expounds onto another topic how generational idioms have changed in American history and this idiom transformation is far more common than you think. Embrace the change God, or forever be THAT GUY. Also, this plays so into your philosophy of truth and mine of no truth. Philosophy, always relating to everything.

[Kirby]

"Case and point":
- I'm a dumb faggot who doesn't know how words work. I also write alot and should of.

I go for case and point.

Also:
-Puss in Boots
-Day in day out
-Down in dirty usually... down and dirty for more sexual matters, I don't know why but that seems sexual in my head :/

[God]

Oh contraire mon frere,

au contraire

au = contraction of à and le = roughly 'to the' = 'to the contrary'

[pichubro]

But is it really a transition period if they both existed for roughly the same space of time and one was just dropped to simplify the language?

[Dogar The Brave]

au contraire

au = contraction of à and le = roughly 'to the' = 'to the contrary'

You know I have a foot to stand on in this linguistic argument and you lambast me with French semantics!!!!!

But is it really a transition period if they both existed for roughly the same space of time and one was just dropped to simplify the language?

Not a linguistic historian but rarely does anything every disappear in a culture without some sort of transition period. I am sure written texts would prove me right but I sure as hell am not doing the research for this right now.

[God]

Oh contraire mon frere, I argue that idioms that use "in" and "and" will indeed be transforming in the next generation of written and spoken American English to a point where using both interchangeably will be expectable. (It actually is now.) Furthermore, this expounds onto another topic how generational idioms have changed in American history and this idiom transformation is far more common than you think. Embrace the change God, or forever be THAT GUY. Also, this plays so into your philosophy of truth and mine of no truth. Philosophy, always relating to everything.

expected of the plebeians, certainly. i would expect no less! just as it is expectable of a dullard that they should write "should of," whereas it is expected of a man of any taste and erudition to make an effort to write phrases correctly.

of course we may communicate in any way that is mutually understandable. we may do away with any number of pronouns, grammatical particles, etc and still be basically understood by people around us. we don't do so because if we do we will look like morons, and looking like a moron may have adverse effects on your life. and of course there are sliding scales of how much slack you may give yourself in writing corresponding to how much of a moron you can tolerate looking like. frankly i have probably written "case and point" many times as it's not a phrase one uses or hears terribly often and thus one may not pay it much mind. but you can be sure i will type it correctly henceforth! perhaps i have a lower personal threshold of how much of a fool i desire to look as than you.

[Kirby]

I like how God isn't capitalizing anything while on his grammar rants.

[Dogar The Brave]

expected of the plebeians, certainly. i would expect no less! just as it is expectable of a dullard that they should write "should of," whereas it is expected of a man of any taste and erudition to make an effort to write phrases correctly.

of course we may communicate in any way that is mutually understandable. we may do away with any number of pronouns, grammatical particles, etc and still be basically understood by people around us. we don't do so because if we do we will look like morons, and looking like a moron may have adverse effects on your life. and of course there are sliding scales of how much slack you may give yourself in writing corresponding to how much of a moron you can tolerate looking like. frankly i have probably written "case and point" many times as it's not a phrase one uses or hears terribly often and thus one may not pay it much mind. but you can be sure i will type it correctly henceforth! perhaps i have a lower personal threshold of how much of a fool i desire to look as than you.

"Should of" is not really an idiom. Or, to but it another way, using "should of" as you did is not used as an expression but as a verb phrase. That being said indeed you are correct, it is wrong grammatically in standard American English if used as a verb phrase, which was the example you gave it under.

With that clarified, I am not arguing about verb phrases but rather idioms which are an entirely different matter. This being the case your rebuttals of higher language etiquette have been in vain because by the definition of the word idiom, there is no one "true" way of expressing one. Your vanity is your undoing, good sir.

I like how God isn't capitalizing anything while on his grammar rants.

lol burn

[Dogar The Brave]

To further make my point, I think you are getting hung up on the "proper" way an idiom is phrased. I suppose one could say that if the majority of a community says or even writes an idiom a certain way then indeed that is the "proper" form of the idiom in that community. I argue that because certain idioms like case and point are rarely written but instead more often said that the words "in" and "and" are being used interchangeably and thus becoming of no consequence to the meaning of the phrase in American society and thus in the next generation will both be acceptable in a writing format. I cite the many changes of idioms and words throughout history as my reference as to the evolution and change in language such as this.

[Dogar The Brave]

BTW, first intellectually stimulating conversation in the past, I don't know, 2 weeks for me.

[God]

give me an example of such a written evolution of an idiom

[Dogar The Brave]

Drop in the ocean V.S. drop in the bucket. Based on our culture this idiom has changed even though they were both of the English language.

[Dogar The Brave]

Honestly I should have just said that this thread was about how language changes and be done with it. I'm right about everything I said but saying that would have been easier haha.

[Hicky]

linguistics is silly

[Hicky]

i once told a linguistics student that the fact that 'atheist' meant 'without god' is relevant to its meaning, and he told me that that is a prescriptive approach to language and therefore wrong

[Kirby]

it is

[pichubro]

But... but how else would you define atheist? >_>

[Kirby]

But... but how else would you define atheist? >_>

Someone who rejects the claim that a God exists. This is in fact the stance of many official atheist organizations. Just because it is in the dictionary, does not make it right.

"The official" definition also leads to nowhere arguments that because 'an atheists believes that no gods exists, they are about as justified in their belief as a theist.' That entire argument falls flat because you are using a definition which does not apply to contemporary atheists.

Now if one was to claim that no Gods exist, then yes one could make that argument, but they are more than just an atheist then, they are in fact an anti-theist.