Re:Wikipedians are rebelling against “unethical” Wikipedia f...
by cxr on Friday November 25, 2022 @07:40AM
(#33741840)
Taco Shack is not a taco. It certainly is a shack, however. To claim with a straight face, then, that, "Taco Shack is not a shack"* (as you did here) is possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen someone make on HN, ever.
Likewise, your defense that omitting articles is fine is what's truly "unconvincing". To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your ("unsupported") claims otherwise. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"—why is it that you didn't, then?
Likewise, your defense that omitting articles is fine is what's truly "unconvincing". To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your ("unsupported") claims otherwise. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers.
* I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"—why is it that you didn't, then?