re: I'll get down voted, but what is so wrong with our freshman having "swag"

quote:

---

I'm going to beat this already pulverized horse to dust by adding that I understand "swag" is shorter than "swagger", and helps keep the thesis short. But, frankly, I don't think it's worth it. These players have sincere swagger, and I believe truncating the final three letters effectively castrates the term, it's worse than "swagga". At least that term maintains the general form; exchanging a syllable is preferable to killing it. On top of that, there's exists a namespace collision with the noun form of "swag". It's more or less synonymous with "lagniappe", sometimes used in reference to objects you might acquire at an entertainment transaction. Personally, I would steer of clear that of ambiguity, by using the already existing word which specifically describes the characteristic to which you refer. There's both nouns, and they're applicable in some overlapping situations, however they describe weakly associated but fundamentally direction things: on is a collection of physical and non-corporal (but discreet and well-defined instances), while the other is the nebulous confluence of confidence, exuberance, arrogance and style. But that's your choice: only you (or an admin) can change it. Also, I disagree with the omission of the "?" sentence terminator. Because I'm not utterly retarded, I understood that you're asking a question and understood the line inquiry. To summarize, the subject's structural quality reminds of the 2011 season: it was solid from the beginning and fantastic most of the way through, but ended badly. Moving on to your answer, I agree.

---