3 ms·
Am I the only one irritated by the writer's use of "millenniums"?
by jackgavigan 9y ago
Am I the only one irritated by the writer's use of "millenniums"?
- Tyrannosaur 9y agoOh come now. You can't expect writers and editors for a company like The New York Times to know and use proper spelling and grammar, can you? Seriously though. So annoying.
- ghaff 9y agoHow dare they use an accepted form from Merriam Webster. (Personally I use millennia but if millenniums is accepted use in MW, that puts it well into the range of standard US usage.)
- rojondo 9y agoWhy irritated? It's one of two correct plural forms of "millenium." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/millennium https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/millennium
- dkarl 9y agoThat's literally[1] the worst argument ever. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- dkarl 9y agoAll right, to spell it out: Merriam-Webster is not a dictionary of "correct" forms. The usage of "literally" in my post is documented in Merriam-Webster as "used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." It would be inappropriate to use "literally" in that way in a science article in the New York Times, because the standards for writing in the New York Times are different from the standards for inclusion in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.