so, ya know….its hard out here for a p…oet
…i need more of your feedback. And i realize this is my fault – i should be sparking more debate here…..well not necessarily debate, but intellectual stimulation…which surely should lead to debate….so, uh…yeah… i stand by my words
you know what i mean …
THA PEOPLE NEED SOME GUIDANCE !!! …we need to learn from and guide each other, folks…
So I saw a comment on Facebook from a professional acquaintance, drawing attention to a perennial (pun intended) debate between scholars and layman, alike, and event-organizers nationwide….
Her comment contended that tha combined term ”FIRST ANNUAL” is senseless, until at least a second “annual” event has formally taken place. Again, this is a semantics debate heard regularly, and yet understandably, likely to be of no profound interest to many potential readers. lol. I can see that… However, here is my take on tha issue, precisely as written in response to her:
“annual” doesn’t refer to regular repetition or recurrence AT ALL… this is the common misconception. So…having a second one doesn’t make tha first any more “annual” than it already was. “Annual” only means “occurring no more or no lesss than once in a year’s time” ; it does not mean once ‘per’ rhythmic year. There is a word for this, however, and it is “circannual” [or "circannular"]. Furthermore, consider the terminology regarding flowers: “annuals” bloom once in a year and then die, they do not come back “annually.” Again, tha term “annual” alone does not denote recurrence. Therefore, there is nothing redundant or incorrect about thee usage of “First Annual” ; the word “first” is the only word truly helping to imply ‘intent to repeat’ – furthermore/however, even if there was never a second or a third and so on, or if there were years in btwn events, tha first one was still “annual” – if it happened only once that year…
Having said all of this, i lean towards Orwellian principle here- and he said to avoid “ugly” or easily misinterpreted language at all cost. I would not use “First Annual” today unless i wanted to spark debate; as it is actually quite tha hot button discussion amongst many leading semantics scholars. The AP Style book has come out strongly against the usage, but that should tell you all you need to know. Language is truly more divided around STYLE than it is by rules – and “style” is merely a matter of preference, not intelligence… i would nvr dismiss anyone as lacking intelligence because they “prefer” one usage over another. Despite our grammar books’ displeasure, we sometimes translate thoughts differently…
therefore, i KNOW, there will be plenty of disagreement with my logic. That is understood….and acceptable.
So, c’mon….give me your two sense on this.. I mean, you’re not gonna change MY mind or anything, lol… Nah, who knows, you might enlighten us all with your wisdom…so SPEAK UP !
mtp
