Thanks. Went over my head completely.

“Leonard” used the word ironically.

[Daphne – Leonard is his real name.]

All you experts have got me completely confused.

Obviously, I undermined that point with a couple of suitably doltish typos. Which is why newspaper (should) employ copy-editors. Does The Times even have any?

Hmmm, why do these kinds of ostensibly constructive comments always seem to bring out fallacious pedantry? “Native speakers” is what I meant; that is, as you may be aware, a stock expression. “Educate about” is absolutely fine. And I will disregard all solicitations on the split infinitive, which is a foolish and arbitrary stricture on usage.

But sure, if I make any errors that are so egregious that they make reading my comment difficult or make me appear like a dribbling dolt, then please go ahead and pick at it. As you know, however, I was talking about people that lack any basic understanding of how to use English effectively, and almost seem proud of the way they inarticulately deploy idioms. It is not that they write in haste; they just do not speak the English good. Which is fine, but they deserve to be ridiculed for the clowns that they are when they fail so miserably to compose an even half-coherent argument.

@Leonard: I agree that copy-editing readers’ comments would be quite pointless. What I meant to say was that the parts of the newspaper produced by the journalists could do with heavier scrutiny, since they do after all set the standard. There are a number of matters that need to be taken to task, but no so urgent as the use of false friends drawn from Italian. Almost every other I read seems to contain words that have been used in their Italian sense, and it drives me up the wall.

Too true… but weren’t you impressed with the use of ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘malapropism’?

It is clear, ABC, that you are not a native speaker of the English language. Peter used the words “native speakers” correctly. It is also typical of someone who is not a native speaker to find nit-picky fault with the use of the split infinitive. It can be employed quite acceptably as a literary device. Peter’s use of the word “blithely” is also perfectly acceptable, and the long-winded way in which you have edited it has removed certain nuances that Peter was conveying. To my knowledge, also, a “blooper” refers to a mistake in the audio/visual media, and not to one in the printed word. A nit-picker must expect his own nits to get picked.

Like Peter, I would be happier to have native speakers editing The Times. My rare contributions to the newspaper are invariably buggered up by ‘editing’. For example, when commenting on a columnist’s contribution I started off by saying “XY is a good read . . ” This was edited to “XY is well-read . .” Although XY is well-read, it is not what I was saying, and it sounds to me somewhat patronising and condescending to say so, a nuance created by the editor which I certainly did not intend. The editor eliminates intended nuances (rather as ABC has done), and creates new ones of his own making.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE57B4P320090812

Imagine if this happened in Malta and was reported in the Times online – the half-brains populating that site would have flipped.