John,

My point about clarity is simple. Those who understand that "obstinacy" is the standard word will rankle at "obstinancy." Whatever follows will be greeted with skepticism. Others will be unaffected. They won't understand you, irregardless.

And it's not a matter of liking a word or not. I like the word "bling," but I wouldn't use it in my will: "To my niece Tabatha I leave all my bling. Cousin Winnie, you have been poned!" (I like "poned" too, in the right context.)

Sometimes new words bring new flavors of meaning, sometimes they are just more fun than the old words. But sometimes they are simply corruptions of existing words.

From Merriam-Webster:

* Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
* Pronunciation: \?ir-i-?gärd-l?s\
* Function: adverb
* Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
* Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
usage: Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless)

"Obstinancy" is of that ilk. Except that it is not an amalgam of words, with whatever modicum of legitimacy that imparts. It is little more than a misspelling.

Don't get me wrong: I am not a big fan of either "obstinacy" or "obstinateness." Both are better replaced by "stubbornness" in most cases. Why add "obstinancy" to an already crowded menu?

Dear Porsche,

You make a good point. Dear has become somewhat archaic in business communication. Perhaps it should be retired. I still think that "Hi" is a poor substitute.

John,

You are correct that "obstinancy" is used in 811 "Google Books." However, "obstinacy" is used in 19,500 of them. That others have used a word does not prove it to be correct. Millions use "irregardless," regardless of the fact that is not a word.

Dictionary.com, Webster Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, and Encyclopædia Britannica's online dictionary all exclude "obstinancy."

"Obstinancy" is what Bryan A. Garner (A Dictionary of American Usage) would call a Needless Variant: "two or more forms of the same word without nuance or differentiation." Since there is already a noun "obstinacy" there is no purpose -- no nuance or differentiation -- to adding another.

The problem with needless variants is that the reader or listener is apt to wonder about the intended meaning, especially if unsure of the correctness of the word in question. Clarity suffers.

English teacher is correct. I would only add that you are not required to repeat John's idiom if you aren't quoting him. In this case the idiom "fell on" is awkward. To say "my birthday fell on last Friday" makes it sound like a catastrophe. A better sentence would be "My birthday was last Friday." In paraphrasing, feel free to improve: John said that his birthday was last Friday. Whether you change "last" to "the previous" depends on which is clearer in context.

Whether Dickens used "obstinacy" or "obstinancy" is immaterial. "Obstinate" is an adjective derived from the Latin "obstinatus," which is the past participle of "obstinare," meaning "to be resolved." Related forms of the word are "obstinacy" (noun). "obstinately" (adverb), and "obstinateness" (noun), all derived from the same Latin root. "Obstinancy" is a corruption, and makes no more sense than does "abstinency."

I do not agree that obstinacy and obstinance are interchangeable, particularly since the latter is not properly a word: the word is "obstinateness." Nor are "obstinacy" and "obstinateness" always interchangeable. The difference is subtle:

"John refused to agree through sheer obstinacy."

"John's obstinateness would not allow him to agree."

If the words "obstinacy" and "obstinateness" are swapped each sentence suffers, particularly the first.

Dear Anette:

It is never improper to use "Dear" in a salutation. It may seem old-fashioned, but it is standard. "Hi" is too informal for business correspondence. There is no reason email should be treated differently from traditional mail. Also, a colon is the proper punctuation to use in formal correspondence. A comma is used to end the salutation in personal or social correspondence.

Many comments posted here have discussed the issue of how to address multiple persons in an email. I'm not sure that was the intent of your question, but it is a valid question. "Dear Team:" or "Dear Group:" are preferable to "Dear All:" or "Dear Everybody." (You are not, in fact addressing the world at large.) If the message is sent to anyone outside of the team or group those recipients should be copied (Cc'd).

Elsewhere on this blog there is a lively debate of whether irregular verbs should be "regularized" or not. There are fewer than 200 irregular English verbs, and the trend is towards fewer. For example, the word "mown," the (former) past participle of "mow," is rarely used, except as an adjective. Should we really be adding irregular verbs to the language? The past tense of "text" should be "texted."

A case could be made for either construction, but I think context trumps syntax in this instance. That context is the subway. The phrase "the next stop will be" is more likely to be understood in a crowded train than "the next stop is." The sibilant "is" would be more easily drowned out than the sharper-sounding "be."

To add to porche's comment, here is a definition from thefreedictionary.com:

pi  also pie, Printing
n. pl. pis also pies
An amount of type that has been jumbled or thrown together at random.
v. pied (pd) also pied, pi·ing also pie·ing, pies also pies
v.tr.
To jumble or mix up (type).
v.intr.
To become jumbled.

My speculation is that the term does not derive from the mathematical term. I seems more likely to have derived from "pied," an adjective meaning "of two or more colors in blotches; also wearing or having a parti-colored coat. example: a pied horse" (Merriam-Webster)

Or a pied piper, for that matter. Merriam-Webster dates the word "pied" to the 14th century. The printing press, specifically movable type, came in to use in Europe in the mid 15th century. Perhaps the word was picked up by early printers as a substitute for "jumbled," another 15th-century word. Maybe they appreciated its economy of letters.

The correct plural of "grizzly" is "grizzlies."

The rule for plural nouns ending in "y" is this:

If the "y" is preceded by a vowel the plural is formed by adding an "s."

If the "y" is preceded by a consonant the plural is formed by omitting the "y" and substituting "ies."

Note that neither "grizzly bear" nor "grizzly" (in the sense of a bear rather than as an adjective) are proper nouns. A proper noun is one that designates a particular being or thing. "Grizzly bears" designates a type of bear, as does "grizzly," not a particular bear. Once you have adopted the word as a name it becomes a proper noun, of course, but it is taken from a common noun that has already been made plural.