If not only the Stanley Brothers but also Geoff Pullum think that "the reason is because" is a-ok, do I have any choice but to accept it? (Though really, what else would one expect from one of those permissive linguists?)
Fortunately Pullum's provided me with something else about which to twist my knickers: whence this claim that Americans prefer, or are starting to prefer, merely "d" as a suffix instead of "nd" or "rd" for numbers ending in 2 (but not 12) or 3. I can't decide whether I'd be more likely to read "3d" as "thd" or "three pence" (and that not out of misguided anglophilia, no, nor anglophilia guided right) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be mistaken in concluding its author a pervert.
I think I would read it as three-dimensional, no?
Posted by: heebie_geebie | January 04, 2007 at 09:55 AM
The claim apparently comes from one "Chris Lance" (which, if not a pornstar pseudonym, probably should be one).
Posted by: teofilo | January 04, 2007 at 04:47 PM
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be mistaken in concluding its author a pervert.
B/c why?
(I'll twist your knickers, baby.)
Posted by: bitchphd | January 04, 2007 at 07:19 PM
The legal influence is partly responsible for 3d. If only for that reason, it is an abomination.
"The reason is because" is also an abomination. If one wants to say it is a colloqialism, well then fine, and use it in that manner. But do not tell me incorrect is correct.
I am drunk. Is it a mistake to drunk-edit? Probably.
Posted by: text | January 04, 2007 at 07:51 PM
To a linguist, there is no "incorrect" and "correct." There is only language.
Posted by: teofilo | January 04, 2007 at 11:40 PM
far or forgot to me is near; shadow and sunlight are the same; double negatives to me appear;
and one to me are shame and fame.
Posted by: text | January 05, 2007 at 09:31 AM
Teo is correct.
Posted by: bitchphd | January 06, 2007 at 02:01 PM