The Tom Patterson Style Guide

 To use a double negative and have it be a negative, you must negate in a special way.  While "I didn't do nothing" means "I did something", "ne did I nawhit" means "I didn't do anything".  Similarly "I ain't done nothing" is also a negative. CHANGE MY MIND!!! 

 If a word is loaned from etruscan, such as phersu, if it is spelled with a "p", "t", or "k", it should be pronounced with either [b~p], [t~d], or [k~g].  However, it should not be pronounced with [pʰ], [tʰ], or [kʰ].  Because of aspiration in english, "tezan" should be pronounced as /dɛtsæn/, because prevocalic consonants in english are aspirated, but "tmia", a generic term for an independent holy site not owned by any particular church, should be /tmjɑ/.  Another example is "zeri", describing a type of weather in which the sky is completely clear of clouds, which is pronounced /tsɛri/. CHANGE MY MIND!!!

 Preposition are great to end sentences with.  In fact, the end of a sentence is where all people should want their prepositions at.  In fact, the end is always where you should  always try to move a preposition to.  In fact, it is even clarity that this should be done at the expense of.  Such ugly writing is something that you should not put up with.  You are the one that this should be done by. CHANGE MY MIND!!! Edit: One of the rarest rules grammatically is that when it comes to any sentence, a preposition is what it has to end with. German  trennbarë verben  do this, but only kind of.  When a clause is what they're at the end of, a prepositional prefix is almost always not what they end with.

 I forgot to mention this in the initial post, but "tur" alliterates with "take".  "you tura and take" sounds really good , and on the merits of it being a monosyllble which alliterates really well with "take" and similar words like "try".  "He turcé the tul-tezan" is easy to alliterate, and with the simple syllables it allows, it shouldn't be to hard to see why loaning these words, tuche from Etruscan, was a good idea. CHANGE MY MIND!!!

 We should loan the etruscan word "φersu" with the plural "φersuar".  We could spell it the way the etruscans did too!  It is the origin of person, and it means a mask worn in a play.  No, I do not care that this will be the third word we took from "𐌘𐌄𐌓𐌔𐌖".  Normally I would advocate this "φersuar" as the correct spelling for "person", and if the "n" was silent, then I would, but I think we need to loan it because we need more loans from Etruscan.  Also, Ynglish has some doublets already, so why not make some more? I believe we should combat the Romancisation of Ynglish by loaning from other languages.  This being said, because loanwords do not usually displace words from the lexicon of a language when coming into the wordhoard, I think we should be even more liberal when loaning, and also when coining simply because this gives us even more of a rich diversity of synonyms and near synonyms, and also makes it easier to rhy...

 Please do not use the term womxn.  For fuck's sake, it is a quantity neutral term.  This is the most stupid neologism I have ever heard.  The only time you would ever use this is when constructing a sign of the variety that you would otherwise have to say "lady(ies)".  In that context alone it is sensible, and that is it.  Furthermore, other terms like "Mx." are equally frivilous.  New roots are, in my opinion, always better than using <x> by derivation from its freqvent use as a variable in math classes.  For fuck's sake, use "Guv.", it has always been genderless, and it deserves more love as a word.  Finally, "latinx" is dumb, and either loan it without the gender from Spanish, or if you want to keep adjective inflexion, use "latiné", /e/ at the end of a word is genderless in spanish. CHANGE MY MIND!!!

       So, this word's a unique one.  It comes from the French word gourmet, so you would expect that I, as an advocateaur for historical spelling by analogy (see earlier post on fruight), would support spelling it the way the French did, as we should write "queynte", not "cunt".  The problem is this: the French were spelling it wrong too.  Lo, the original word was the english "grome", and while I do like myself an archæic spelling (heck, I spell it "diæ̈resis"!), I would never behold another language to poison its own orthography with english loanwords, nor would I suggest spelling as somewhere for metathesis be ignored in.  No, I would suggest the French should've gone with "gourmé", and as such, we anglophones should spell it "gourmé".  "É" is already basically an english letter, we add it to words which never had it in the original language, and this is a better way to write "gourmé", because, ...

 Fruight is frequently spelt without the "gh" it should be spelt with.  To spell it "fruit" is to deny the etymology of the word.  Because in German it is spelled "frucht", we ought to restore the historical spelling and add back in the <gh>. CHANGE MY MIND!!!