GREETINGS, SALUTATIONS AND WELCOME BROTHERS AND SISTERS
I bid you all a warm introduction to the Loquacious Society of Verbose and Meaningless Debates; a scholarly circle dedicated to the propagation of empty thoughts and full language to all corners of this cherished and much browsed realm.
Indeed, the primary function of this learned organ is the lexical edification of the entire board -- starting, humbly, with this first post.
To wit: debates on all manner of topics will be held, and the participants therewithin will bring their best words to the battle of the mouths. Inspired by their curiosity and passion, posters will be forced to look up words they do not know, thereby expanding their rhetorical toolkit in the form of new nouns, verbs, adjectives, phrases, and all manner of euphemisms.
The first topic of heated and impassioned discussion: the correct spelling of the round confection we all enjoy:
Is it a doughnut? Or a dohnut? Or perhaps a donut?
It is with the gravest and most elegiac of hearts that I must inform you of your sub-par diction. Indeed, the very thrust of the initial post seems to have been lost, and I must say that it saddens and embitters me to think that the godly virtue of reading comprehension has been lost in these hollowed lands.
Truly, these are dark times.
Nonetheless, I can not pretend to a seat of comfort while the verbal deprivation of these forums continue.
So, I must begin with all soberness by saying that it is clear, as the unjust and haughty nose on your face, that the correct and just spelling of this term is 'donut.' If a word may be expressed in a simpler form, why should it not be done? It expedites what would have been a laborious process and with all due haste allows the writer to focus the full breadth of his thought to the substance of the subject at hand, rather than to its spelling.
The former, I should say, is the primary focus of any literary struggle, while the latter is naught but technical chicanery. We need vaster vocabularies, true, but they should be made up of the most common sense of spellings and constructions.
It is with the gravest and most elegiac of hearts that I must inform you of your sub-par diction. Indeed, the very thrust of the initial post seems to have been lost, and I must say that it saddens and embitters me to think that the godly virtue of reading comprehension has been lost in these hollowed lands.
Truly, these are dark times.
Nonetheless, I can not pretend to a seat of comfort while the verbal deprivation of these forums continue.
So, I must begin with all soberness by saying that it is clear, as the unjust and haughty nose on your face, that the correct and just spelling of this term is 'donut.' If a word may be expressed in a simpler form, why should it not be done? It expedites what would have been a laborious process and with all due haste allows the writer to focus the full breadth of his thought to a subject, rather than to its spelling. The former, I should say, is the primary focus of any literary struggle, while the latter is naught but technical chicanery meant to gum the works of artists brain.
Truly a most elegant exposition on the state of this most dire concern. By far the most salubrious method through which to undertake the task, neigh, obligation, of spelling a word as prominent as donut is it's most simple form; to dictate any contradiction to this would be injurious to every well meaning party presently involved.
Truly a most elegant exposition on the state of this most dire concern. By far the most salubrious method through which to undertake the task, neigh, obligation, of spelling a word as prominent as donut is it's most simple form; to dictate any contradiction to this would be injurious to every well meaning party presently involved.
I thank you dearly, not only for the laurels bestowed upon me, but for easing an otherwise solicitous conscience.
Indeed, I was afraid my harangue would be the death knell of an otherwise noble and magnanimous thread, heretofore given over to the best intentions, but now it seems to be the opposite -- especially now that you have joined in this learned and scholarly discussion.
So, from the depths of my being, accept this invocation of my thanks with the warmness you have already shown me.
It is apparent to all sapient participants here that the aforementioned confection is spelled "donut". All refutations against this notion are asininely misinformed, as this spelling is far more concise and succinct, and the other superfluous spelling contains an exorbitant excess of letters.
While the apologies outlined herein do, admittedly, hold merit, should we not further expound upon the potential dismissal of verbosity prevalent with the less extravagant spelling 'donut'? Why should the upstanding gentlefellow thus unnecessarily minimalize his or her ability to expel the fullest and most luminous linguistic constructions? Are such instances of lingual efficiency so imperative that a flamboyant flourish finds offense in critical response?
I can only pray the morrow bears forth a courteous consideration on the contents hereof.
While the apologies outlined herein do, admittedly, hold merit, should we not further expound upon the potential dismissal of verbosity prevalent with the less extravagant spelling 'donut'? Why should the upstanding gentlefellow thus unnecessarily minimalize his or her ability to expel the fullest and most luminous linguistic constructions? Are such instances of lingual efficiency so imperative that a flamboyant flourish finds offense in critical response?
I can only pray the morrow bears forth a courteous consideration on the contents hereof.
Farewell.
To the esteemed gentleman,
I must eulogize you, sir, for the most sagacious consideration you have shown thus far. Truly, I am envious of your ability to excogitate.
Pleasantries aside, however, I must maintain that the spelling 'donut' is the superior form the word must take, not only for matters of practice, but of art. 'Doughnut' is a cumbersome, wasteful construction; it lends itself in no way to the polished prose we have become accustomed to in our studies of all things literary and just.
Indeed, 'donut' serves its role much more admirably than its tumefied and boisterous cousin; whereas 'doughnot' clogs the mouth and muddles the meter of the sentence, 'donut' creates a gentle but forceful staccato of words which the artist or the philosopher may use to both amuse and convince his reader.
Therefore, I deprecate this construction not on grounds of 'efficiency,' as has been argued, but on grounds of aesthetics.
I must eulogize you, sir, for the most sagacious consideration you have shown thus far. Truly, I am envious of your ability to excogitate.
Pleasantries aside, however, I must maintain that the spelling 'donut' is the superior form the word must take, not only for matters of practice, but of art. 'Doughnut' is a cumbersome, wasteful construction; it lends itself in no way to the polished prose we have become accustomed to in our studies of all things literary and just.
Indeed, 'donut' serves its role much more admirably than its tumefied and boisterous cousin; whereas 'doughnot' clogs the mouth and muddles the meter of the sentence, 'donut' creates a gentle but forceful staccato of words which the artist or the philosopher may use to both amuse and convince his reader.
Therefore, I deprecate this construction not on grounds of 'efficiency,' as has been argued, but on grounds of aesthetics.
My admirable fellow,
Your appreciation for aesthetics is a remarkable one; to better the appeal of language helps both the scholar and the common man. However, based upon both aesthetics and a respect for a word's extravagance must I argue for the original, and perhaps more sophisticated spelling, "doughnut".
Admire the pastry's complex, round shape. Its delicate, flaky interior, and middle removal could only be accomplished by an artisan. To simplify such a delectable treat as a simple "donut" is nothing short of an insult, and a massive and crude simplification of a sophisticated confection. More importantly, is "doughnut" not an accurate depiction of such a pastry? It is made of dough, and has a "nut" removed from the core; therefore, a doughnut. "Donut" is merely a simplification of that. Are we to sacrifice linguistic purity for shorter phrases that can be used in more ways? Why not replace other words with shortened forms as well?
I must respect the elegance of the doughnut by spelling it as such.
I do believe that the proper orthography of these circular delicacies is "Doughnut". However, imperceptibly, the way people pronounced the name of said cake has metamorphosed into the less complex spelling "Donut".
I do believe that the proper orthography of these circular delicacies is "Doughnut". However, imperceptibly, the way people pronounced the name of said cake has metamorphosed into the less complex spelling "Donut".
It is upon that which we must take issue. If popular culture is to dictate how words are spelled, why bother with spellings at all? Most words would be localized to how people speak in an area; dialects would be so different that they might as well be different languages.
I do say, however, that our loquacious society, has managed to (albeit accidentally) conjure a meaningful debate from one intended to be meaningless. Be this progress, or treason?
It is upon that which we must take issue. If popular culture is to dictate how words are spelled, why bother with spellings at all? Most words would be localized to how people speak in an area; dialects would be so different that they might as well be different languages.
In fact, if the abolished grammatic conventions, linguistic studies and language learners will have a horrendous job. Linguists would not be able to trace tounges back in their proto forms and people attempting to learn a second one, will be dazzled by the abysmal differences between the various english jargons.
I do believe that the proper orthography of these circular delicacies is "Doughnut". However, imperceptibly, the way people pronounced the name of said cake has metamorphosed into the less complex spelling "Donut".
I fail to conceive, how in either form, you can derive "doo" phonetically as the first syllable. Dough is pronounced as... "dough", and donut does not create the hard "O" sound you propose.
I fail to conceive, how in either form, you can derive "doo" phonetically as the first syllable. Dough is pronounced as... "dough", and donut does not create the hard "O" sound you propose.
Alas.That was a misworded and ungrammatical statement on my part. I admit my poor mistake on the previous entry, and now looking back at it, the word 'doohickey' stands firm against my argument.
It seems, superficially, we have wrought amongst ourselves an embattlement of indecision - perhaps the crenels and merlons of elite conversational derision can be cast earthward, and the fortifications of literary treaty be reforged herein; I, however, apprehensively anticipate a perspicacious rebuttal.
My proposal, then, is this - convention has failed to faithfully bequeath its wisdom upon this enlightened audience, and thus a new moniker more befitting the subject's form and function should be consummated in the title, 'pastorus.'
Pastorus is a portmanteau of my own idiosyncrasy, namely the marriage of the object's nature, 'pastry,' with a sufficient description of its shape, 'torus.' Intellectual inspection hereof will invariably invoke further debate; that aside, it is with only solemn and reverent adoration of that delightful delicatessen I suggest such an establishment of redefinition be instigated, in hopes of easing ills and ushering forth an attitude of convalescence within our ranks.
If we are talking name-brand products probably made with fake ingredients, I would say "donut".
But, if we are talking about home-made or the REAL ones made possibly by bakeries and confections of any sort, "doughnut" would be used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left." -Bertrand Russel
My mind was broken by the Internet. I put a sash around the wound, and went on my business.
I bid you all a warm introduction to the Loquacious Society of Verbose and Meaningless Debates; a scholarly circle dedicated to the propagation of empty thoughts and full language to all corners of this cherished and much browsed realm.
Indeed, the primary function of this learned organ is the lexical edification of the entire board -- starting, humbly, with this first post.
To wit: debates on all manner of topics will be held, and the participants therewithin will bring their best words to the battle of the mouths. Inspired by their curiosity and passion, posters will be forced to look up words they do not know, thereby expanding their rhetorical toolkit in the form of new nouns, verbs, adjectives, phrases, and all manner of euphemisms.
The first topic of heated and impassioned discussion: the correct spelling of the round confection we all enjoy:
Dear sir,
It is with the gravest and most elegiac of hearts that I must inform you of your sub-par diction. Indeed, the very thrust of the initial post seems to have been lost, and I must say that it saddens and embitters me to think that the godly virtue of reading comprehension has been lost in these hollowed lands.
Truly, these are dark times.
Nonetheless, I can not pretend to a seat of comfort while the verbal deprivation of these forums continue.
So, I must begin with all soberness by saying that it is clear, as the unjust and haughty nose on your face, that the correct and just spelling of this term is 'donut.' If a word may be expressed in a simpler form, why should it not be done? It expedites what would have been a laborious process and with all due haste allows the writer to focus the full breadth of his thought to the substance of the subject at hand, rather than to its spelling.
The former, I should say, is the primary focus of any literary struggle, while the latter is naught but technical chicanery. We need vaster vocabularies, true, but they should be made up of the most common sense of spellings and constructions.
I spell it donut, 'cause I'm lazy.
Truly a most elegant exposition on the state of this most dire concern. By far the most salubrious method through which to undertake the task, neigh, obligation, of spelling a word as prominent as donut is it's most simple form; to dictate any contradiction to this would be injurious to every well meaning party presently involved.
I thank you dearly, not only for the laurels bestowed upon me, but for easing an otherwise solicitous conscience.
Indeed, I was afraid my harangue would be the death knell of an otherwise noble and magnanimous thread, heretofore given over to the best intentions, but now it seems to be the opposite -- especially now that you have joined in this learned and scholarly discussion.
So, from the depths of my being, accept this invocation of my thanks with the warmness you have already shown me.
I can only pray the morrow bears forth a courteous consideration on the contents hereof.
Farewell.
To the esteemed gentleman,
I must eulogize you, sir, for the most sagacious consideration you have shown thus far. Truly, I am envious of your ability to excogitate.
Pleasantries aside, however, I must maintain that the spelling 'donut' is the superior form the word must take, not only for matters of practice, but of art. 'Doughnut' is a cumbersome, wasteful construction; it lends itself in no way to the polished prose we have become accustomed to in our studies of all things literary and just.
Indeed, 'donut' serves its role much more admirably than its tumefied and boisterous cousin; whereas 'doughnot' clogs the mouth and muddles the meter of the sentence, 'donut' creates a gentle but forceful staccato of words which the artist or the philosopher may use to both amuse and convince his reader.
Therefore, I deprecate this construction not on grounds of 'efficiency,' as has been argued, but on grounds of aesthetics.
My admirable fellow,
Your appreciation for aesthetics is a remarkable one; to better the appeal of language helps both the scholar and the common man. However, based upon both aesthetics and a respect for a word's extravagance must I argue for the original, and perhaps more sophisticated spelling, "doughnut".
Admire the pastry's complex, round shape. Its delicate, flaky interior, and middle removal could only be accomplished by an artisan. To simplify such a delectable treat as a simple "donut" is nothing short of an insult, and a massive and crude simplification of a sophisticated confection. More importantly, is "doughnut" not an accurate depiction of such a pastry? It is made of dough, and has a "nut" removed from the core; therefore, a doughnut. "Donut" is merely a simplification of that. Are we to sacrifice linguistic purity for shorter phrases that can be used in more ways? Why not replace other words with shortened forms as well?
I must respect the elegance of the doughnut by spelling it as such.
It is upon that which we must take issue. If popular culture is to dictate how words are spelled, why bother with spellings at all? Most words would be localized to how people speak in an area; dialects would be so different that they might as well be different languages.
I do say, however, that our loquacious society, has managed to (albeit accidentally) conjure a meaningful debate from one intended to be meaningless. Be this progress, or treason?
In fact, if the abolished grammatic conventions, linguistic studies and language learners will have a horrendous job. Linguists would not be able to trace tounges back in their proto forms and people attempting to learn a second one, will be dazzled by the abysmal differences between the various english jargons.
Lad, then it would be pronounced a doo-nut.
I fail to conceive, how in either form, you can derive "doo" phonetically as the first syllable. Dough is pronounced as... "dough", and donut does not create the hard "O" sound you propose.
Alas.That was a misworded and ungrammatical statement on my part. I admit my poor mistake on the previous entry, and now looking back at it, the word 'doohickey' stands firm against my argument.
Indeed it would, my fellow good sir. However, there are countless exceptions in terms of spelling in the English dialect.
It seems, superficially, we have wrought amongst ourselves an embattlement of indecision - perhaps the crenels and merlons of elite conversational derision can be cast earthward, and the fortifications of literary treaty be reforged herein; I, however, apprehensively anticipate a perspicacious rebuttal.
My proposal, then, is this - convention has failed to faithfully bequeath its wisdom upon this enlightened audience, and thus a new moniker more befitting the subject's form and function should be consummated in the title, 'pastorus.'
Pastorus is a portmanteau of my own idiosyncrasy, namely the marriage of the object's nature, 'pastry,' with a sufficient description of its shape, 'torus.' Intellectual inspection hereof will invariably invoke further debate; that aside, it is with only solemn and reverent adoration of that delightful delicatessen I suggest such an establishment of redefinition be instigated, in hopes of easing ills and ushering forth an attitude of convalescence within our ranks.
Until the morrow.
-Tk
DOUGHNUT
If we are talking name-brand products probably made with fake ingredients, I would say "donut".
But, if we are talking about home-made or the REAL ones made possibly by bakeries and confections of any sort, "doughnut" would be used.
My mind was broken by the Internet. I put a sash around the wound, and went on my business.