Via Reader Sean F., another gem:
Everyone likes to tell us that if we adopt very strict gun control laws, no one who isn’t supposed to have firearms can get them. It’s so naive it’s almost adorable, or it would be if it wasn’t our rights they were idiotically talking about trampling on.
Instead, it’s very troubling because their nativity is likely to get someone killed.
This is known as “killing the message with illiteracy”.
FYI: the words are “naïve” and “naïveté”. We English writers don’t often use verbal modifications such as the acute accent (é), and the diacritic / umlaut (ï) hardly ever. But the latter should be written when the compound vowels need to be expressed individually, e.g. “nah-eev” instead of “nave”. As I recall, I learned this back in 1965, in sixth grade from our English teacher, Mr. John Ball (MA, Oxon),.
Microsoft spellcheck still nailed you, old boy.
There sure is a lot of “nativity” involved.
No matter, your intent and message is quite correct, also suspect your teacher and mine (Mr. Weekly MA Oxon) were in the same class with the same grammarian at Oxford.
BTW, was accepted at both Oxford and Cambridge based on the O’s and A’s but chose the U.S. due to prohibitive cost at the time, a wiser choice it appears.
Cheers
Actually, spellcheck may have bitten Tom Knighton over at bearing arms.com, as “nativity” is in his original piece.
Also, to pick a nit, this use of the two-dots diacritic is a diaeresis, not an umlaut. Same sign, different usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_dots_(diacritic)
I hate the word “diaeresis”, for obvious reasons.
Yeah, too close to dialysis, easily confused 😉
But it is true, whatever the OP intended to say, that if it weren’t for their nativities, the naifs wouldn’t be here to get people killed. Perhaps that could be fixed.
.