RM
>> The cited wikipedia page is an exercise in academic
>> pedantry and / or formal correctness.

> I'm afraid it's a bit unethical to issue such an accusation in public
> without giving the wikipedia article's author an opportunity to defend
> him/her here.

Your fear does not turn your opinion into fact.
I assume you meant "IMO, it's a but unethical ..."

Note that the construct "and/or" allows either option or both together.
When this is used it usually suggests that the reader can decide which
option if any is applicable.
It's hard (for me :-) ) to see that a comment that something is "an exercise
in formal correctness" is something that cannot be said without informing
the author.

If examination of ethics is of interest you may find more value (and
ethicality?*) in quoting the whole related paragraph, as in isolation it may
give an incorrect impression. Viz:

        "The cited wikipedia page is an exercise in academic pedantry and /
or
formal correctness. Fine as a guide but hardly the standard that speakers
are expected to
be held to in everyday use. It rules on  linguistic correctness and
incorrectness without
reference to eg the points you made about implied subject, which, as you
also note, is understood by all "skilled in the art"

ie it made pronouncements re the construct being a linguistic error, without
allowing that there may be circumstances where this may not be the case OR
where the "incorrectness" is formal and considered of no importance by most
speakers in most cases - even by those who are well aware of the
"incorrectness".

Re ethics of criticism - if the standard you suggest were applied across the
net then it would be a far far quieter place. And this list would be bliss
indeed :-).


                    R

* 141,000 Gargoyle hits.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist