Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by Sammy, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    (or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nikon P&S cameras are made in China, Panasonics are made in Japan.
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    Political correctness tends to indicate woolly thinking or weasel words.

    As for grammatical niggles, how about "none of ... are ..."?
    GRRR :)
    Rob Morley, Jun 16, 2007
  4. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.

    It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    well-respected dictionary.
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
  5. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    So which specicif models do you consider to be Panasonic's
    "best pocket cameras" and how much do they actually cost? Or
    is this yet another case of avoiding facts?

    Of course if you are now claiming that the D40's plastic
    construction makes it intrinsically better than the un-named
    Panasonic (all their pocket cams are metal) then that's a
    good start to becoming cured of your fear of plastic. Keep
    it up.
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
  6. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which was
    the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once again.

    Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
    Main Entry: lens
    Variant: also lense /'lenz/
    Function: noun
    1 : a curved piece of glass or plastic used singly or combined in eyeglasses
    or an optical instrument (as a microscope) for forming an image
    2 : a device for directing or focusing radiation other than light (as sound
    waves, radio microwaves, or electrons)
    3 : a highly transparent biconvex lens-shaped or nearly spherical body in
    the eye that focuses light rays entering the eye typically onto the retina,
    lies immediately behind the pupil, is made up of slender curved rod-shaped
    ectodermal cells in concentric lamellae surrounded by a tenuous mesoblastic
    capsule, and alters its focal length by becoming more or less spherical in
    response to the action of the ciliary muscle on a peripheral suspensory
    ligament -lensed adjective -lens·less adjective

    Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

    Now that the group has dispensed with its weekly round of dueling
    dictionaries might I suggest a cessation of the pretentiousness and a return
    to the discussion of photography, which is itself a form of communication
    that transcends the limitations of written and/or spoken language?

    JoeT, Jun 16, 2007
  7. No, it's not acceptable here, with a handful of eccentrics or
    contrarians being exceptions.
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
  8. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    You think?
    A *medical* dictionary? Why on earth should I look up a
    common word in a specialised medical dictionary?

    I suggest you instead try the standard online
    Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
    and search for "lense".

    You won't find it.
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
  9. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    I'm online. Why on earth would I limit myself to any one dictionary when the
    internet is littered with options, all of which are accessable by simply
    typing a word into one of many search engines available from my browser? A
    dictionary was used to prove a point in each instance. The second merely a
    subcategory of the first. The existence of said reference removes the debate
    over this word from the realm of opinion and places it into that of fact.
    Lense has been found to be a variant of lens, preferred or not.

    Isn't the real question here whether or not the misspelling or variant use
    of this word in a Usenet post alters the intent of said post in such a
    manner as to render it incomprehensible? In my experience, never.

    To correct or otherwise berate a poster for such a slight is pretentious as
    well as presumptuous, especially in a community where there's neither reason
    to assume all participants speak English as their primary language nor any
    implied expectation of educational achievement such as the case with
    photography groups.

    Joe Taibi
    JoeT, Jun 16, 2007
  10. Do you know the background of the posters? History?

    What would you think of a third party barging in and pontificating? Or,
    if pontificating is too strong, just the insertion?
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
  11. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    Loser's argument. Any fool can find whatever he wants to
    find on the Internet; that you had to look in a *medical*
    dictionary to find it is proof enough. Medicine is full of
    specialised words and/or specialised uses of normal words -
    that's why M-W has a *separate* medical dictionary.
    No, the question here was whether "their" is valid when used
    with an singular pronoun, which I pointed out was fine
    according to M-W. I made absolutely no comment about "lense"
    until you challenged me by claiming that my dictionary
    source for the use of "their" also allowed the use of
    "lense". It doesn't.

    End of discussion.
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
  12. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    I didn't challenge your definition of their, it was correct, I merely used
    it as a pseudo corollary to point out that the word that was originally
    challenged in the thread you were participating in can be supported in the
    same manner, via link to a definition. You might try following the thread
    back say two or three messages before yours in order to gain a reasonable
    grasp of the thought process involved. Or not, it makes no difference to me.
    In any event a careful read of my response to your post shows no
    disagreement with your proof of the usage of their.
    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007

  13. That's the problem right there! You must stop using pseudo corollaries.
    And bone up on reasoning.
    John McWilliams, Jun 17, 2007
  14. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    Individual histories and backgrounds are irrelevant to the discussion of the
    spelling of a word in a public forum. The use of the terms barging in or
    third party implies exclusivity. Seeing as this is an un-moderated public
    forum, there really can be no such things. Only a choice to participate or

    As to pontification? The type of personality that looks down on others for
    misspelling a simple word isn't apt to respond to anything less. (In honesty
    not likely to be affected either way, hence the last sentence in this
    response) After all, pontificating is what they do!

    "Hey dude, it's just a word and you understood the question anyway didn't
    ya?" gets dismissed, out of hand.

    My only error in this instance was in failing to adhere to my usual policy
    of responding in order to get it out of my system, yet canceling the post
    rather than get involved. It happens. <grin>
    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007
  15. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    Aw, there ya go introducing reason and taking all the fun right out of it!

    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007
  16. Your dictionary citation says "their" is plural, so it should not be
    used the singular "person"
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 17, 2007
  17. Not the end of discussion. The dictionary you quote says "their" is
    plural. Can't be used correctly as object of a singular noun.
    THAT is the end of the discussion.
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 17, 2007
  18. Unless you have a bigger dictionary which knows about the proper
    singular use of "their".

    Anyone want sugar in their coffee?
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 17, 2007
  19. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    Read it again, especially the part that says "used with an
    indefinite third person singular antecedent <anyone in their
    senses -- W. H. Auden>"


    You can read?
    John Bean, Jun 17, 2007
  20. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    1. Learn to read.
    2. Read that dictionary definition again.

    Clue: the part that says "used with an indefinite third
    person singular antecedent <anyone in their senses -- W. H.
    John Bean, Jun 17, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.