>by which
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
>by which
>ergo
>>
as such
>per se
quod erat demonstrandum
>meam pointer
>betwixt
>whilst
>gotten
>oftentimes
>contra
>crescendo
>perhaps
>je ne se quoi
>adieu
>hitherto
>erstwhile
>henceforth
>felicitous
What's the joke?
That we should rein in our vocabulary for plebs?
They should step up, I'm not stepping down.
>>8194269
>apropos
>>8194377
>Peter Hitchens
>Not a pleb
>>8194269
American detected. You probably have the same aversion to "to which", "for which", and "with which", pleb.
>>8194395
I like both Hitchens brothers, but they're both quite obviously a pair of contrarian hacks.
Doesn't disprove my point, though.
>>8194397
>aversion
>>8194395
Peter Hitchens is the last moral man on earth.
>>8194409
learn from faulkner
>Ah, me! Alas!
>>8194409
>Terse, concise prose is beautiful.
You can be both without dumbing yourself, and your vocabulary down.
Hemmingway did both. More to the point, there's no obligation to do either of those things; some of us have enough brain cells to appreciate that which is neither terse nor concise.
>>8194418
>some of us have enough brain cells to appreciate that which is neither terse nor concise.
>>8194422
>>8194418
>some of us
>us
Learn to speak for yourself.
>>8194429
I realize that I am not the only /lit/erati patrician on Earth.
>>8194404
>Doesn't disprove my point, though.
Your point was merely an assertion. A private class function, nothing more.
>>8194441
>merely
>assertion
>function
>nothing more
>>8194444
>tackling the man and not the ball
All that dedication, yet you've still not provided a reason why others are required to disprove your opinions.
>I am of the opinion
>Thus
>x qua x
>>8194433
>au contraire
>>8194448
>dedication
>required
>disprove
>>8194308
>se
>>8194449
>i opine
>epistemology
>teleology
>exegesis
>verisimilitude
>>8194269
>ought
>supercilious
>taxonomy
>thou shalt
>frightened
>substance of a text
>pseudo
if you hate this thread you're most likely an insecure autist who can't handle a bit of banter
>ad nauseam
>vox populi
>we must
>we need to
>you need to
>one has to
>it is one's duty to
>>8195693
speaking of which
>using the word one in the place of you or I
poo poo
>>8194269
>quelle horreur!
>the
>also
>and
>to
if you use these words you are a pleb
>eloquently
>Whilst
>Thereby
>Hitherto
![Screen-Shot-2014-11-10-at-1.52.27-PM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/P3Rl6FI.png "Screen-Shot-2014-11-10-at-1.52.27-PM[1].png")
>verily
>a new literary movement which would espouse something like the New Sincerity ethos:[1]"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal”. To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows
>w/r/t
>Mother died today.
>mutatis mutandis
>[...]—[...]—[...]
>>8197083
>Gilbert Translation
>author uses contractions
There's absolutely literally nothing wrong with any of these.
>>8198653
>absolutely literally
>trilby
>myriad
>>8194410
>>8198653
>absolutely literally
HOLY SHIT
>>8194294
wtf this is common in the uk. like really common. since when did this because a fedora archaic word?
>>8198922
>listening to burgers
You should stop.
>>8197363
>Maman died today
why didn't they just put Momma or Mama
>>8198963
so whilst is considered spergy in america? shit i use that all the time online.
>>8198976
I'm not American. I don't know. But outside of the US it is common and usually grammatically correct. But your typical burger would scoff at another burger for using a word like "whom", so I wouldn't take them too seriously.
>>8198974
They didn't give it too much thought.
>>8194410
exactly
>>8194418
>some of us have enough brain cells to appreciate that which is neither terse nor concise
If you need to hide or present your ideas in a purposely roundabout way, you either had nothing important to say in the first place or you're a pretentious faggot. Or you're both and you're Foucault.
>>8198843
>Fallout: New Vegas on console
>>8194429
He said "some of us" you nitwit.
>>8198974
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translation-what-the-first-line-of-the-stranger-should-be
The amount of le fedora replies and images in this thread...
WHO PUT THE BY IN THE WHICH ELM
![c343780d9f9835d876daa587ee8e5778[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OOjhbOO.jpg "c343780d9f9835d876daa587ee8e5778[1].jpg")
>>8199085
>Implying there's an "us" and "them".
There's only (You) and me.
>>8199135
4chan is just (You), me, and a guy samefagging really hard.
>>8197081
stfu lad I use this all the time i/t/o my prose work
LOL AT THIS THREAD
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT
ARE MOCKING GEORGE RR MARTIN FOR
WRITING """""BAD""""" PROSE
ONCE AGAIN THIS THREAD PROVES THAT /LIT/ ONLY HATES GRRM BECAUSE
HE IS POPULAR
>>8194377
>rein
>>8199493
>irony
>>8194269
>>8194274
>>8194276
>>8194281
>>8194285
>>8194291
>>8194294
>>8194300
>>8194303
>>8194308
>>8194314
>>8194353
>>8194368
>>8194384
>>8194395
>>8194408
>>8194416
>>8194418
>>8194422
>>8194429
>>8194441
>>8194444 (nice)
>>8194448
>>8194449
>>8194452
>>8194454
>>8194455
>>8194456
>>8194457
>>8194458
>>8194468
>>8194477
>>8194510
>>8194514
>>8195632
>>8195693
>>8195712
>>8195738
>>8195743
>>8195936
>>8197055
>>8197061
>>8197077
>>8197081
>>8197083
>>8197112
>>8197253
>>8197363
>>8198637
>>8198668
>>8198671
>>8198706
>>8198843
>>8198963
>>8198974
>>8199043
>>8199050
>>8199119
>>8199135
>>8199522
>>8199940
Whom are you quoting?
