Re: Je neco shnileho v tomto clanku

<okyn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5469b15d-c7ec-42c4-a122-2118002c0129@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Feb 20, 1:16 pm, Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>[...]
>
>Frank, be reasonable. I myself do not claim, that I fully agree with
>everything Karel Kriz writes. In fact I do not!
>In many aspects my own views are diametrically different than his.
>
>What I am saying is that putting quotation marks around one word does
>not necessarily mean that he pretended to qoute what you have actualy
>wrote.
>I think that I brought enough evidence, that putting quotation marks
>around one word does not necessarily mean attempt for direct
>quotation.
>I have also added additional excerpts showing that it is not
>necesarilly  "irony"  that quotation marks arround a single word
>indicate.
>And sure he has explicitely wrote, that he did not mean to directly
>qoute your statement. I think that I showed sufficiently that it is a
>legitimate part of English language to use qoutation marks in a way
>other than exact direct qouting. Does it mean that it leads to the
>ambiguous situation. Yes it does. But first it does not mean what you
>and Paul pretend and secondly it is really nothing very substantial.
>So why you do not keep just with really essential parts of his
>statement and forget the ambiguos  meanning of the word in qoutation
>marks?
>
>O.K.

It is actually quite im****tant to be able to tell with near 100%
certainty whether somebody is quoting text verbatim or not.
When you search a database for a quoted expression you
should be able to assume that you find all occurencies of it.

If people start using quotes willy-nilly, like greengrocers do
the apostrophe, we loose great part of this utility.

pjk