Oy vey! I don't mind be rotated, but orientated?!? (I'm hoping this has
something to do with taters, eh? Them at least you can eat.)
As a perspectivist, I see any one orientation as deflecting what one
might perceive from other orientations. (Not, of course, that all
orientations are equally useful--I'm not a relativist/individualist.)
So, from a perspectivist orientation (or should I write
meta-orientation), it is much better to be rotated (which also isn't a
back formation) than to be orientated.
Begad! Take that, varlet!
Spin on, dervish. (a loaf, a cup, and . . .
_Orientation_, for ye lurkers, seems to be rooted etymologically in the
notion of orienting the front of cathedrals toward the holy land (i.e.,
Isn't the slogan, PUT THE ACTION IN THE VERB! That is, sentences are
easiest to read if the gramatical structure subject-verb matches the
cognitive structure agent-action. (Not, of course, that ease of reading
is always a priority.)
> I'm always glad to hear Rick undertaking fulmination.
> I wonder if this means that we can expect to find him in attendation?
> Possibly having brought to remembrance the Greek name for this, um,
Russ, you're sweet. 'Twould be a pleasure sure. I'll have to check
with Tom Waldrep, for I fear I owe you a dozen red gladioli. [That
is the sort of remark which makes lurkers fear this list-serve is
populated by an in-group that uses private references and intimacies.
Fear not, brave souls. This reference is so private I doubt it means
anything to Russ, perhaps not to anyone on CASLL.]
But WHAT! No expectATION! Shame. Surely one could have an expectation
(thereby using/usatation another word of three or more syllables to get your
readability index score up, not to mention getting yet another action
or actatation out of the verb).
Love and Laughter (as some French feminists used to say)
Or "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."