Originally Posted by deathrattle
What a surprise, your definition as noted below does not appear in the Wikipedia that you submitted as it's source.
"Virtuosity: Virtuosity can be generalized to define a person who excels technically in some area of human knowledge, although its use is more commonly applied in the context of the fine arts."
If you wish to check, here is the link:
I think you will have to concede that this is one of the many quirks in English which can catch out the unwary.
The only further thing with which you can help me is this; Is it your lack of maturity
or inherent machismo which prevents you from admitting that you have been mistaken?
Sigh...it is so difficutly dealing with people whose ability to see the entire field is often limited by their blinding need to ALWAYS be right.
OK DR, keep your eye on the ball and follow along:
Here is the link from Wikipedia:
If you had only taken the time to thoroughly search through the entire Wiki, you would have come across the link above PLUS the definition that I posted.
Below, is the full definition:
The defining element of virtuosity is the performatic ability of the musician in question, who is capable of displaying feats of skill well above the average performer. Musicians focused on virtuosity are commonly critized for overlooking substance and emotion in favor of raw technical prowess. Despite the mechanical aspects of virtuosity, many virtuosi successfully avoid such labels, focusing simultaneously on other musical aspects while writing and performing music.
The Italian term of "virtuoso" was also commonly used to describe the group of emerging ballistic experts, engineers, artillerists, and specialists in mechanics and dynamics that arose during the late 17th century in response to the spreading use of gunpowder in Europe.
[u]In other contexts[/], virtuosity can be generalized to define a person who excels technically in some area of human knowledge, although its use is more commonly applied in the context of the fine arts.
I understand that you think that you hold some sort of superior knowledge of the Queen's English. You may, or you may not, posses such a superior fountain of knowledge. That is quite irrelevant and of no concern to me because, I will never have to deal with you on a personal level.
Just so that you know, however, I learned English many years after learning Spanish. Accordingly, like many people who learn another language as a second, third or fourth language, I tend to be overly meticulous about the correct use of language--including inserting the correct word at the correct place to make a point.
Sometimes I make exceptions here becase, after all, this is just the Internet. I am not writing an article for publication, so who cares about bending a few rules of grammar.
In this particular case, however, I used virtue and virtuosity to suggest something regarding about the person who was the target of my comment. I used exactly the words that I meant to use precisely because of their meaning.
You, however, thought that you saw a usage faux pas on my part. For whatever reason, you swooped in for the attack.
Problem is, that it turns out that you are the one who is wrong. And, to compound the error, you have accused me of "machismo" (with its veiled racist overtones) and of "immaturity" (with its not so-veiled overtones of superiority on your part).
You know what? I may be guilty of occasional displays of machismo and immaturity. (For instance, continuing to respond to your posts is a potential sign of immaturity on my part. It is so obvious that you are wrong and that wasting my time in trying to educate you is well, just a waste of time).
I've read your posts here and guess what? You are in no position, at all, to lecture others on machismo and emotional or intellectual maturity. I've read your posts and maturity and lack of overblown machismo are defitinitely traits not always present on your posts.
In this particular instance mate, you are wrong. You have committed the ultimate rhetorical sin of not fully and thoroughly checking through your citation--a common mistake made by amateurs.
You have been hoisted by your own petard. To continue further will only elevate you to even greater heights of mendacity.
I've written this before. You seem like a fairly bright chap. Why are you now so intent on establishing otherwise?
Give it a rest lad.
Have a good day mate.
PS: What exactly does "catch out (the unwary)" mean? Is that a particularly British expression? I am not picking on you, I really want to know if "catch out" is a British phrase.