3 ms·

I changed it now. But wow, that was quite the reaction. Your interpretation is correct and at least in my cultural circle, quotes around nouns serve as a way to

I changed it now. But wow, that was quite the reaction. Your interpretation is correct and at least in my cultural circle, quotes around nouns serve as a way to express the lacking quality of the thing. Ie. this is a rant pretending to be a news piece. But that's just my opinion. Equally IMO, the actual source is more important than an opinion on the source.

sho 9y ago
The use of quotes to question the authenticity or true nature of something is accepted in English. You could have said "journalism" and I wouldn't have jumped on you. On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word. Example: > The "food" from that restaurant was awful Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning that what you received was food at all. > The food from that "restaurant" was awful Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is a restaurant (ie, a place that dispenses food, with no consideration of quality implied). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.
- cjrp 9y ago
  Isn't something being food (edible, contains sustenance) also a fact?
  - sho 9y ago
    Yes, but the fact is that there is that alternate state (inedible, not-food) that it can at least be compared to, and humorously categorised as. An article is an article is an article. What is it if it's not an article? Imaginary? It just doesn't work.
- irishsultan 9y ago
  Food is food, with no consideration of quality implied, so that doesn't quite work as an explanation of why it would be right around food, but not around restaurant.
- rando444 9y ago
  Example: > The "food" from that restaurant was awful Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is food (ie, something that can be digested as a source of nutrition). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided. > The food from that "restaurant" was awful Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning if the establishment you visited qualifies as a restaurant.
  - talmand 9y ago
    Based on your explanation I would say both of those are valid, depending upon one's own personal definition of "restaurant" is. If one thinks of a restaurant as a business that accepts money to serve you food then the comparison is the same. No matter what you thought of the restaurant, the fact is they took your money and served you food.
  - sho 9y ago
    Don't know how to respond other than to say that your version of English doesn't match up to mine. I would personally never use the first usage as it's kind of lazy and déclassé. But it is at least valid. The second usage is invalid. If you think otherwise be aware you are speaking non-standard English and others, like me, will notice it.

sho 9y ago

The use of quotes to question the authenticity or true nature of something is accepted in English. You could have said "journalism" and I wouldn't have jumped on you. On "article" though it's inappropriate. The other comment notwithstanding, an article is an article, no matter if it's written by a journalist, an amateur, or a monkey banging its head on a keyboard. There is zero credibility implied by the word. Example: > The "food" from that restaurant was awful Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning that what you received was food at all. > The food from that "restaurant" was awful Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is a restaurant (ie, a place that dispenses food, with no consideration of quality implied). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided.

cjrp 9y ago
Isn't something being food (edible, contains sustenance) also a fact?
- sho 9y ago
  Yes, but the fact is that there is that alternate state (inedible, not-food) that it can at least be compared to, and humorously categorised as. An article is an article is an article. What is it if it's not an article? Imaginary? It just doesn't work.
irishsultan 9y ago
Food is food, with no consideration of quality implied, so that doesn't quite work as an explanation of why it would be right around food, but not around restaurant.
rando444 9y ago
Example: > The "food" from that restaurant was awful Incorrect. No matter what you thought of the food, the fact is that it is food (ie, something that can be digested as a source of nutrition). This usage betrays a lack of sophistication and should be avoided. > The food from that "restaurant" was awful Correct usage. You are (humorously, snarkily) questioning if the establishment you visited qualifies as a restaurant.
- talmand 9y ago
  Based on your explanation I would say both of those are valid, depending upon one's own personal definition of "restaurant" is. If one thinks of a restaurant as a business that accepts money to serve you food then the comparison is the same. No matter what you thought of the restaurant, the fact is they took your money and served you food.
- sho 9y ago
  Don't know how to respond other than to say that your version of English doesn't match up to mine. I would personally never use the first usage as it's kind of lazy and déclassé. But it is at least valid. The second usage is invalid. If you think otherwise be aware you are speaking non-standard English and others, like me, will notice it.