Letter: Grammar man has gone too far
I felt it was necessary to write in to express my deep concern about that caliber of Grammar Geek that you have running around there at the Current in Noblesville. First and foremost, the issue of “bereaved” vs. “bereft” is not an issue of grammar at all; it is an issue of linguistics. Any freshman linguistics major will tell you that language is arbitrary in the first place, so either word is absolutely acceptable. Mr. Fischer points this out by defining the two terms with virtually the same definition. The only difference is Mr. Fischer seems to believe that “non-material” can include things like decorations on a wall. All of this would be reasonably forgivable and would certainly not warrant a letter to the editor but for the fact that Mr. Fischer went on to describe chili as being bereft without NOODLES. What. The. Bleep. Let’s set aside the fact that noodles are most certainly a material object and move right along to the fact that there are no noodles in chili. The great chili debate is “beans or no beans.” Noodles don’t even enter the equation. I can only assume that this type of yellow journalism will be corrected with a speedy retraction and an apology will be issued by Mr. Fischer.