I login. You login. We all logined. What? We all loggedined? We all loggedin?
If we just acknowledge that "login" is a noun referring to your credentials, where as "log in" (or "log on") means to supply one's login/credentials, then it's all hunky-dory.
I do not see that a space makes much of a difference.
Plenty of linguists would admit 'login' as a verb. There is very little difficulty in accepting that 'to log in' and 'to login' mean the same thing.
In this case "in" does not function as a preposition, it is part of the verb. The evidence for this is immediately apparent when we consider that "to log" and "to log in" really are two different activities. We do not mean that we record anything when we login to a machine, what we are doing is obtaining access to it by means of an exchange of previously established authenticating information - and while this step may involve making a record of our login, it need not for the basic sense of that action to remain intact.
Also, we have no trouble with a multi-word verbs in English, if you don't believe me, try googling 'phrasal verbs'. This article is either a gag, or really is just an example prescriptavist nonsense which attempts in futility to combat the last 50 years of linguistic consensus.
'If we just acknowledge that "login" is a noun referring to your credentials, where as "log in" (or "log on") means to supply one's login/credentials, then it's all hunky-dory.'
If only. According to the James Study of Casual TV Activity, "log on" means "visit this Web site". Any use of user name or password is coincidental.
E.g "Log on to CNN.com for all the latest headlines."
It's a lost cause. I'm saving my energy to preserve the distinction among "few", "fewer", "less", and "lesser".
> According to the James Study of Casual TV Activity, "log on" means "visit this Web site". Any use of user name or password is coincidental.
That's just incorrect usage of terminology by (most likely) marketing/PR people.
In the olden days, you had to log on to your ISP over a modem. "Logging on" happened all the time to access anything outside your computer.
I suspect that the occasional use of "log on" in reference to simply visiting websites will disappear in favor of simply "visit". "Log on" will continue to be used and abused with connection to sites that actually want you to log on (after all, what better way to turn your website into a money maker than by gathering user data).
> It's a lost cause. I'm saving my energy to preserve the distinction among "few", "fewer", "less", and "lesser".
This is reminding me of the article about the recent English grads who traveled the country correcting grammar and spelling errors in signs on the way.
Comments
> "Google" and "email" did
"Google" and "email" don't contain prepositions.
I log in. You log in. We all logged in.
I login. You login. We all logined. What? We all loggedined? We all loggedin?
If we just acknowledge that "login" is a noun referring to your credentials, where as "log in" (or "log on") means to supply one's login/credentials, then it's all hunky-dory.
I do not see that a space makes much of a difference.
Plenty of linguists would admit 'login' as a verb. There is very little difficulty in accepting that 'to log in' and 'to login' mean the same thing.
In this case "in" does not function as a preposition, it is part of the verb. The evidence for this is immediately apparent when we consider that "to log" and "to log in" really are two different activities. We do not mean that we record anything when we login to a machine, what we are doing is obtaining access to it by means of an exchange of previously established authenticating information - and while this step may involve making a record of our login, it need not for the basic sense of that action to remain intact.
Also, we have no trouble with a multi-word verbs in English, if you don't believe me, try googling 'phrasal verbs'. This article is either a gag, or really is just an example prescriptavist nonsense which attempts in futility to combat the last 50 years of linguistic consensus.
'If we just acknowledge that "login" is a noun referring to your credentials, where as "log in" (or "log on") means to supply one's login/credentials, then it's all hunky-dory.'
If only. According to the James Study of Casual TV Activity, "log on" means "visit this Web site". Any use of user name or password is coincidental.
E.g "Log on to CNN.com for all the latest headlines."
It's a lost cause. I'm saving my energy to preserve the distinction among "few", "fewer", "less", and "lesser".
> According to the James Study of Casual TV Activity, "log on" means "visit this Web site". Any use of user name or password is coincidental.
That's just incorrect usage of terminology by (most likely) marketing/PR people.
In the olden days, you had to log on to your ISP over a modem. "Logging on" happened all the time to access anything outside your computer.
I suspect that the occasional use of "log on" in reference to simply visiting websites will disappear in favor of simply "visit". "Log on" will continue to be used and abused with connection to sites that actually want you to log on (after all, what better way to turn your website into a money maker than by gathering user data).
> It's a lost cause. I'm saving my energy to preserve the distinction among "few", "fewer", "less", and "lesser".
This is reminding me of the article about the recent English grads who traveled the country correcting grammar and spelling errors in signs on the way.
Logdin, or perhaps, logdone.