I just looked up the etymologies for these two words, and they aren't actually related.
The word car derives from the latin word "carrus", which translates to "wheeled vehicle". Carriage derives from the latin word "caruca", which means "a plough".
I'm sure there may be common roots, a long time ago, but they developed separately.
TL;DR - OP is wrong
Edit: Added sources
You know what, I just looked at the definition of disease Here and Here and as much as I dont like it, it meets the criteria without question, I was wrong.
No. Discussion != debate.
There are plenty of possible fruitful discussions to be had where neither side is trying to argue a point. A discussion is just an exchange of ideas, not necessarily a battle of arguments.
The first box is a fail for two reasons. First, one needn't necessarily be open to changing ones own position to be curious as to how other people think about things. Second, not being able to envision reasons to change one's mind may be due to a lack of imagination rather than a lack of openness to different ideas.
I can see the logic behind this flowchart, but it is incomplete and highly condescending.
Edit--Clarification: I take issue to the given definition of a discussion.
>Discussions are a dialog between people in which the participants are willing to alter their position if it makes sense to do so. Sometimes, people confuse "discussion" with "sermon" or "lecture".
Where did you come up with this? According to Oxford, discussion
Clearly, a debate is a type of discussion, but is by no means the only sort of discussion.
A scallywag is a person who behaves badly but in an amusingly mischievous rather than harmful way. I think the word you're looking for is trollop.
Actually, rape fits.
It also means "The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place".
Comes from back when taking the virginity of a woman was spoiling her.
> Streever: Woman who denies sexism and priveldge exist: Goodbye
This whole thing over the past few weeks has taught me one thing. Irregardless of whether you are male, female, feminist, egalitarian, or whatever, one thing shines through. There are two types of people: assholes with a power trip, and everyone else.
Look at how quick he turns on her once he realizes he can't convince her of his beliefs. It goes from 'women are oppresed' to 'you hate all other women' to 'you're sexist' to 'you're having a psychotic episode'. He's an asshole at heart who's weaponizing nice to tell others how they're wrong.
Also, how long until people realize twitter isn't the place to have discussions like this. He averages 4 tweets per point he makes. It's annoying to read everything broken up.
Edit: [link] the dictionary definition of the word that pissed everyone off since I was downvoted for posting it below.
That's not true...
destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war.
"a nuclear holocaust"
synonyms: cataclysm, disaster, catastrophe;
As per the oxford dictionary: [link]
I have educated myself as to the meanings of all 3 words in "Yes, all men".
As it turns out, at least one of the words in "Yes, all men" is incorrect, and needs to be replaced in order to be accurate.
So "Not all men" is an improvement in terms of accuracy, as would be "Yes, some men" or "Yes, all misogynists".
Assuming, for the moment, that we're talking about being misogynists. As some tumblrites takes "Yes, all men" to mean killing all men, or all men are rapists etc.
Disability: "A physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities".
Being bloated to all fuck with a human inside you certainly inhibits movement and activity. You're not stating opinion here, you're just wrong, pregnancy objectively makes someone less able to do most jobs.
Edit: This comment was made before OP made edit
From Oxford Dictionaries:
>English uses the Latin alphabet of the Romans. However, this had no letter suitable for representing the speech sound /w/ which was used in Old English, though phonetically the sound represented by /v/ was quite close. In the 7th century scribes wrote uu for /w/; later they used the runic symbol known as wynn. European scribes had continued to write uu, and this usage returned to England with the Norman Conquest in 1066. Early printers sometimes used vv for lack of a w in their type. The name double-u recalls the former identity of u and v, which you can also see in a number of words with a related origin, for example flour/flower, guard/ward, or suede/Swede.
The lie was indeed vile, and I agree that people need to stop getting so worked up over limited and unconfirmed information, but I think treating everyone as a liar may be a bit of an overreaction and ultimately do as much harm as being too trusting.
I just mean, I recommend being more skeptical (the real kind) than accusatory. Sometimes unconfirmed information needs to be voted up to have a chance of being verified or debunked by someone with knowledge on the topic.
I think the problem here is mainly someone confusing the terms "sex" and "gender" since the former is defined as something strictly biological (see definition 2) ... which is also why I wonder why the form says "Gender"
As the "nurse" states:
> & your genitals/physiology have nothing to do with your gender.
I wanted to sort this out for myself so I did a google search. I am more confused now.
> Less is also used with numbers when they are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time, e.g.:
> His weight fell from 18 stone to less than 12.
> Their marriage lasted less than two years.
> Heath Square is less than four miles away from Dublin city centre.
The definitions for "rape" are just as bad if not worse:
noun: The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
"he denied two charges of attempted rape"
"he had committed at least two rapes"
verb: (Especially of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
"the woman was raped at knifepoint"
There is no such thing as a "British billion" any more. ~~I can't find a date for the switch but according to multiple sources it was "some time ago".~~ The Wikipedia article below says the UK switched to the "American billion" in 1974. In all forms of English, a billion is 1000000000.
It's not even a strawman. Just a word which has multiple definitions.
> Spoil or destroy (a place): Synonyms: ravage, plunder, pillage, violate, desecrate, defile; lay waste, ransack, sack; maraud over, raid
The original meaning doesn't have anything to do with sex. For being so anal about the etymology of words (dumb is ableist!) they sure like to selectively ignore it when it suits them.
Don't listen to them, "retrospectively" was right.
looking back on or dealing with past events or situations
(especially of legislation) taking effect from a date in the past
This kind of punishment would take effect at the time that it was handed out, not retroactively.
Ranger does not mean ranged fighter. The word comes from the verb to range, and has nothing to do with the range of a bow. So please, adapt to the fight and switch to melee when it's better.
1: a keeper of a park, forest, or area of countryside: ‘park rangers’
2: a member of a body of armed men, in particular a mounted soldier, a US a commando or highly trained infantryman
3: a person or thing that wanders or ranges over a particular area or domain
It's not Arenanet's fault that other games have restricted the rangers as a ranged fighter.
Hur har du lyckats missa när det skrivs om det? Det är ju inte särskilt svårt att hitta heller:
> Vi tror inte på teorin om att människor föds som blanka blad som kan fyllas med vilket innehåll som helst. Miljön har visserligen en stor betydelse för individens utveckling och samspelar ofta med det biologiska arvet och den fria viljan. Det finns dock också en nedärvd essens hos varje människa som man inte kan undertrycka i hur hög utsträckning som helst utan att det får konsekvenser. Delar av denna essens är gemensam för de flesta människor och annat är unikt för vissa grupper av människor eller för den enskilde individen.
Seriöst. Det där är ju fan definitionen av rasism.
>The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
It's straight outta Oxford though, so probably referring to the AAVE dialect.
/their second example sentence: "I is an ignorant crack-a-lacking moron."
Did you mean cavalry or calvary? Though I admit both are apt here.
Nitpicking aside, post faster!
They're trying to change a official definition power is not required for racism. So yes you can call it racism because it is and no amount of feels is ever going to change that.
For those confused about the word "plan." In this context, it means "map." See definition 3 in the OED.
It's quite common for old maps to be called a "plan" of something. The important thing to note is that this was an actual rendition of how Boston was laid out at the time, not a vision of what someone wanted it to be in the future as in our more modern use of the word "plan."
Perhaps he's too stemmed out to realise the actual defintion of rape sort of makes it impossible to want to be raped
What a burning UTI of a man
"Humanism" has a pre-existing and specific meaning
> rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
Although most humanists believe in gender equality there is nothing in the concept of humanism that entails it. That is, you could be a humanist and believe that women should lose the vote, without contradiction.
I agree that feminism shouldn't exist. But it shouldn't exist in virtue of women not experiencing discrimination, and other kinds of unjust treatment, on the basis of their gender. While this injustice remains it is right there remains a specialist subject and activism to correct it.
However, an activist should not make the mistake of thinking that denying others their right to speak freely counts as a valid form of protest.
Not sure why you've been upvoted so heavily. Blackmail doesn't have to be disclosing illegal activity.   
No I'm not qualified at all to be giving advice on English. However, when I see someone correcting someone else's grammar AND the person doing the correcting is wrong, I'm going to point it out. Regardless, you shouldn't be giving advice on English either.
> sorry i am a little of a word nazi.
i am a little of a word nazi.
Protip: if you're going to call yourself a word-nazi (or a grammar-nazi) you best be sure that what you're preaching is actual linguistics/grammar.
When the public have an opinion you like, it is 'democratic'; when the public have an opinion you don't like, it is 'populist'.
What is democracy if not populism?
It would be more honest for you to say that people will be 'duped by ideas I don't like'.
No sorry but it's just a word. No bizarre hate group will redefine or delegitimize its meaning. Regardless of what it means to you it does have it's own real meaning that is used by the vast majority of the planet;
It's actually something in Spanish. The 'Yaow" sound, is the last syllable of a word ending in -iado, but pronounced in Puerto Rican slang it sounds like -iau by cutting out the 'd' sound, which in English would be yaow.
What a section of the sample says is "Lo tengo tequia'o" (slang). Tequiado is a conjugation of the verb tequiar which means to damage or put in danger. In this context it would literally mean "I have him/you harassed", or figuratively, "I've got him/you threatened". Basically, something a big bad thug gangsta would say.
There is also something else he says before (the part that sounds like 'doublebutterfinger'), but I believe it's actually a combination of the previous sample and a new one which together say "tampoco lo tengo" which literally means "I dont have it either", but figuratively and in context means something like "it's not like I have him/you ____" where the Yaow would fill in the blank, meaning "it's not like I have him/you threatened", which would have the opposite meaning of the other sample.
It's a nice play on words.
> A continent of the northern hemisphere, separated from Africa to the south by the Mediterranean Sea and from Asia to the east roughly by the Bosporus, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Ural Mountains.
east yurop best yurop
>You can use the plural pronouns ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ etc., despite the fact that, technically, they are referring back to a singular noun:
>>If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.
>>A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings.
>Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
Well there is a dictionary definition which states 'unexpectedly' but the committee sounds like a good idea if you want to set that up.
Whoa. You're right. I looked up dictionary example usages, and only two of them use the word in a positive way (in additions to like 3 other negative examples), but I've never heard it used any way but in the negative. My brain feels like it's been so small and confined right.
I'm going to budge all the things. I'll make them budge. They will budge more than they ever dreamed of budging. The Budgening.
They have a similar problem with literally.
Edit: to say that Literally means the same thing as Figuratively is rubbish. I know it has become conversational to use it that way but those two words mean opposite things for a reason. Otherwise we run into a problem like in "The Dictator" where we now have to ask "wait, do you mean literally or literally?"
Hadn't perused the Oxford Dictionaries in a while so I took a look. God with a capital G is defined as:
>(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Seems pretty far from a 'vanilla term' to me.
1 lack of common sense; unintelligent; foolish
2 Silly, disorganized
It is somewhat ironic that the dictionary definition of his name fits his character so well.
He was once working with an anti bullying charity ... and had to step down because he sent threatening messages to a fan including deaths threats (Source). Classy.
Dude, that meaning even got accepted by Oxford.
Here's how"vanilla" became shorthand for "bland":
> Vanilla's lackluster reputation stems in part from its particular history in America, where most people initially encountered it as a flavoring for ice cream. According to Patricia Rain, author of Vanilla: The Cultural History of the World's Favorite Flavor and Fragrance,vanilla was first brought to America by Thomas Jefferson in the late 18th century. He had sampled vanilla sweets in France and later imported beans to make vanilla ice cream. (His recipe can be found with his papers at the Library of Congress.) The flavor, novel for its aromatic intensity, quickly became popular. Ice cream had previously been flavored with fruit or nuts (and, occasionally, with unexpected foods like brown bread), so this colorless, lumpless incarnation would have seemed plain by comparison, writes Rain. Today, the many candied and cookied ice cream flavors that use vanilla as a base reinforce the notion that vanilla is basic: merely the starting point for flavor, not flavor itself.
I'm assuming you're American? I've only just 'learnt' this tonight, but Americans say 'learned' and the British (i.e. me in this case) say 'learnt'. I'm sorry it put you off, but it's not incorrect, just Ye Olde British English haha
> Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16thcentury. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
Indeed I do.
In defense, it's a common misuse of the term, widely used. Even different dictionaries are not consistent on the term 'atheism'.
However, the in/correctness of the jargon used is not really the point of your question; I'm use the term anti-clericalism, but I understand what others mean if they use 'atheism' in that context.
EDIT: FWIW, I include a correct definition as I see it:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As that is a status, an ideology would be something else.
There are 17,400,000 hits for "Crazy Ex Boyfriend"
There are 26,500,000 hits for "Crazy Ex Girlfriend" but there is a song from Miranda Lambert called Crazy Ex-Girlfriend to pad the numbers.
Also, Crazy has a rather robust range of definitions that apply to many situations for both genders. And it's not limited to humans, I call my cat crazy when she feels like using my stomach as a springboard randomly or decides my shoulders look awesome to perch on and claws her way up my stomach to lay down while I am standing, but because she is female does that mean I am shaming her into submission?
0/10. Do not believe the guy with absolutely no formal sciencitific, psychological, nor statistical training. Way to polarize an English word for your benefit, guy.
Oh Christ, not this again.
>Brit: A British person.
>British: Relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language.
That is incorrect.
Note the banner at the top of that Wikipedia page: "This article does not cite any references or sources."
The reason for that is that it isn't true. That isn't what the word "binaural" actually describes, that's just what a handful of people decided it should describe.
Here's a dictionary entry for reference: [link]
The relevant definition: "(of sound) recorded through two separate microphones and transmitted through two separate channels to produce a stereophonic effect."
Here's another: [link]
"Of or relating to sound recorded using two microphones and usually transmitted separately to the two ears of the listener."
Binaural just means anything that elicits a stereophonic effect. Any stereo recording (of the same source) will elicit such an effect. Using a dummy head improves the effect, creating a stronger sense of localization for the sounds.
Dummy-head recordings are better binaural recordings, but they aren't the only ones.
I want to play word Nazis too!
Oxford says it's only valid as an adjective: [link]
You've used it as a conjugation of the verb "to buy".
Either way, language evolves, what's "correct" is quite arbitrary and really comes down to collective acceptance of the rules, etc etc.
But yes, if I were proofreading your posts for you, I also would recommend "bought" in this construction and not "boughten".
EDIT: But I also agree there's no reason to insult one another. Pencils wouldn't need erasers if humans never made mistakes!
If socialism not the problem, then why does it happen every time it's tried?
> By the way, any country that collects taxes and then uses that money to build infrastructure, runs schools, does research, has a military, government run postal service, police force, judicial branch, public parks and national parks, services to make sure food is good for public consumption, and a myriad of other services - it is a socialist country.
Ah, I see the problem. You need to look in a dictionary or encyclopedia.
"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Note how no-one defines it as "a state", which is what your definition is (since it includes military, police and judicial branch).
Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. It is contrasted by "Capitalism".
There, you learned something.
Racism involves the belief that one race being is superior to another. Being racially aware and behaving in a racially sensitive manner is not racism.
>I do not think it means what you think it means.
Looked it up.
Found two meanings. The first for which people use this word most often is:
to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely.
to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); efface.
I think BCCI writer used it for the second sense (as in "the previous record was blotted out"). Just because people use "obliterated" for for its first sense doesn't mean it can't be used in its second.
It also has the sense of cancel.
You really should read up some more about some basic concepts - such as what socialism actually is !
> A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The stock market is not "the community as a whole", and it wasn't just early communists that advocated state ownership. Anyone who doesn't advocate similar ideals, isn't a socialist at all.
In other words, you are confusing socialists with social democrats.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
>Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin apostata, from Greek apostatēs 'apostate, runaway slave'.
My favourite thing about having escaped enslavement: that I am autonomous human being and not the covenented property of my family to their church.
To whit: I AM FREE
The word "literally" has been misused so much that it's literally been added/changed in the dictionary as "figuratively" under 'informal uses'.
Rape seems to be heading in the same direction.
Sexism is "typically against women". Thankfully, to this point, racism doesn't yet exclude white people...yet...
This is correct, there was a lot of banking going on between the US and the UK in the 20th century so in 1974 the British treasury adopted the US billion.
Sure, why not? It's called reverse discourse, and it happens all the time.
"Punk" used to mean prostitute, but its meaning has changed and been reclaimed. "Queer" used to be purely pejorative, but now plenty of non-straight and gender variant people proudly identify as queer.
laissez-faire is a form of capitalism. Also it's not what America does: [link]
The definition is for the government not to interfere in the free market at all. [link]
No. No. Just no. Potatoe is not a perfectly valid way to spell it. That is absolute bullshit. The excuse of "Somebody with a newspaper is too stupid to know they spelled it wrong" is crap. It is not the correct spelling and there are no two ways of spelling this word. The "source" you quoted is a blog with one reference to an actual article that had maybe 20 readers and was obviously not proof read very well.
I think what you meant to say was "spelling it potatoe, while certainly unusual, was still perfectly valid for the uneducated and ignorant" as it has never been the correct spelling since the word was introduced into the English language.
Source: I'm a motherfucking linguist.
I didn't downvote you. But there's this site called Google which will show you that you're wrong. You really should look into getting access to that site.
"combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."
Definitely not violent, but certainly confrontational.
Yes, that is the historical definition of the word, however like every language, words can evolve. Decimate can mean to eliminate by a tenth, it can also mean
Unless we are specifically discussing Ancient Rome, there should really be no confusion unless you are just trying to be pedantic.
You are correct. Never starting a sentence with "and" or "but" is another rule that isn't really a rule (although in many cases, it's poor form). Here is one of many discussions on the topic.
Balogna is a processed meat.
Definition of baloney in English
1foolish or deceptive talk; nonsense:
typical salesman’s baloney
[corruption of bologna]
>chiefly British Past and past participle of spell1.
>Outside America, spelt is more common, but spelled is generally accepted.
Read more at [link]
Awww, no one picked up on that? Shame, I thought it was really clever:
> Pronunciation: /ˈvɪtrɪəl
> 1. Bitter criticism or malice: her mother’s sudden gush of fury and vitriol
> 2. ^ARCHAIC ^or ^LITERARY Sulphuric acid: it was as if his words were spraying vitriol on her face
The term "vitriol" literally comes from being the former name for sulphuric acid and only became to be used to describe criticism after a few hundred years of acid attacks in dear old England.
I'll just add:
>University: A high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done
Apparently the Education Minister is so educated he's rewriting the English Language on the go.
I think you mean two kinds, but you're wrong.
One definition of a robot - A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
One example of such a machine - probably NSFW.
Lots of people are already having sex with robots, and most of them are women. They generally don't need the robot to look like a woman (or a man).
Hey, no sweat. Let's go look at the Oxford Dictionary instead.
It is absolutely an informal use. But it is also a correct and accepted use. You (and actually me, too) might be rubbed the wrong way by this because we know the latin roots-- but to ignore that language is by its nature a consensus system that changes with time is to completely fail to understand language in general. If this one is enough to get you worked up, I urge you not to look too closely at most words. There's no spirals on a "helicopter," for example, despite the greek root.
you didnt explain that nerd doesnt equal smart. you just jerked off your own ego. besides its in the definition of nerd.
don't act like an asshole because you think your smart
As cute as it is to watch the toddlers have a slap-fight, if we're gonna play the reclamation game, then rocketrissa is right; "fag" isn't thrown at lesbians, or asexuals - it's pretty much only slung at gay and bi men (the definition is "a male homosexual"). So, no, the other one does not get to "reclaim" it.
I can understand some people want to assign some new name to themselves, but changing definition of a word 'woman' to suit someone's identity views is fucked up. Words have definitions for a reason, you can't just change it. Make up new words if you must, but don't go around hijacking words with already assigned meanings.
Basically, if someone says they're a woman, then it's only valid if they actually are a female human. Because word woman is used to describe female of homo sapiens, sexually, genetically.
If people want to make up new genders go ahead but don't twist meanings of existing ones cause nobody does it to any other words. Doing things like that ruins language - Or is simply part of some slang, so not recognized academically or world wide.
And that someone who says they are a woman, would he/she/it be allowed to join women team for Olympics? You say gender is fluid, but you also use words related to describe sex. Which is not 'fluid' by any means. Hence the confusion, not only on my part i believe.
>Fat (noun): A natural oily substance occurring in animal bodies, especially when deposited as a layer under the skin or around certain organs.
>Fat (adjective): (Of a person or animal) having a large amount of excess flesh.
Sorry, but you are fat, and you have fat.
"Gotten usually implies the process of obtaining something."
Huh. OP was in the process of obtaining lucky?
Also learn2pastparticiple faggot.
EDIT: This was the deleted comment: "[link] educate yourself faggot."
No problem, and sure I can try!
. marks the end of a sentence. You don't really pronounce it. In speech you can usually tell by a very short pause (less than a half second) where the speaker is taking a quick breath.
" is just a punctuation mark. It doesn't show anything other than a quote in writing. For example the post you replied to:
> As they say "Only if you give us some :)"
In speech a gesture would generally accompany the statement. Where I live the gesture would be to raise one or both hands. Then you would bring your thumb, pinky, and ring finger together. Your index finger and middle finger would be in the air. Then those two fingers would be be moved up and down while you are saying the quote. If that is confusing, then this image shows the gesture (without the movement)
In writing though, you can't use nonverbal gestures. So quotes (") are used to signify if something is a direct quote.
For a comma, I think it is usually just a short pause like a period... although not always. Sometimes you take a breath there when saying something that is long, but not always. If there is a pause though, it is always shorter duration than a period pause. It is more of a stylistic device to make reading easier I think, although it is noticeable in speech. You could read this page for more information about how to use it in writing (if you are not clear).
It is perfectly fine to begin a sentence with a conjunction. Many fine writers do it. I think children are taught not to, because it is very easy to overdo it.
That's Merriam-Webster which apparently likes to add in words that other dictionaries don't take as formal use.
>Merriam-Webster, however, gives fun as an adjective without comment, and states that funner and funnest are ‘sometimes’ used. Because of the remaining stigma, more fun may be preferred in formal writing.
>The use of fun as an adjective meaning ‘enjoyable,’ as in we had a fun evening, is now established in informal use, although not accepted in standard English. The comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest, formed as if fun were a standard adjective, should only be used in very informal contexts, typically speech.
Actually, the words "slave" and "slav" are related:
Middle English: shortening of Old French esclave, equivalent of medieval Latin sclava (feminine) 'Slavonic (captive)': the Slavonic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th century.
Edit: origin according to [link]
Firstly, there's a strong tradition going back centuries of using 'they' as a singular term - see here.
Secondly, surely it makes more sense to slightly alter the meaning of a word that already exists (one that is commonly used in this instance as a singular pronoun anyway) rather than to create an entirely new word?
Or this article, which describes a linguist who believes the term was initially used by natives themselves, states that after the term gained popularity it became a pejorative.
>An 1871 novel spoke of "redskinned devils." The Rocky Mountain News in 1890 described a war on the whites by "every greasy redskin." The Denver Daily News the same year reported a rebellion by "the most treacherous red skins."
Point being that, even if the term was created and used initially by Native Americans, it eventually became a disparaging slur (similar in some ways to "nigger" going from benign to slur over time).
It doesn't though. We haven't officially used the long scale (where 1 billion = 1 million million) since the 1970s, and I haven't heard anyone use it in conversation... well, ever, as far as I can remember.
What a word "actually" means is exactly the same as how it is used. And people use it - all the time - to mean events that do not happen at one year intervals. That is what the "broadly" indicates - not that a usage is wrong or somehow unreal, but that it is an expansion of the primary sense. I am sure that if you write to Merriam-Webster and ask, they will tell you the same thing... when they get around to it. They could probably tell you a thing or two about the etymological fallacy as well.
But just for you, I looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary as well. Same results.
And if I check the Oxford American Dictionary, it also gives me that definition:
I'm not really sure what you found on Google, or how those other results you found compile their entries. However, again, dictionaries can only record language. They cannot be used to prescribe language.
Here's where I'm confused, I have always thought the following: [link] thus I call myself a feminist because I want equality between the sexes. I have never hated men, and many, if not all the feminists I know, feel the same way. I have yet to meet the crazy dick hating "feminist" everybody seems to be so hung up on, that apparently is so common?
Yes, and no. There's a huge debate on the acceptability of "they" as a singular neutral pronoun. The Oxford Dictionary holds it's perfectly acceptable, and in my dialect of English, it's also perfectly acceptable (PDF - see page 4), even in formal language.
ok so this says the ance/ence thing can be decided on the sound of the preceding syllable.
The only word I can think of that includes sounds similar to "eusocialance" is "nonchalance", so I'd go with "-ance" as more correct.
As for alternatives ... Haplometrosis is "the founding of a colony by a single queen." ...
"Haplo" just means single, so "Metrosis" is the founding of the colony.
So how about "Metrosis"?
That's bullshit, nowhere in the definition of homosexuality does it even insinuate that it's not normal.
Just because you can string together a sentence does not make it true.
Homo means same, not abhorrent.
Unfortunately Oxford made this one okay.
• informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true:
I have received literally thousands of letters
I think we have differing views on what equality means.
>Equality; noun - The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
How can there be equality in the church when men and women have different rights and opportunities?
If a secular organisation claimed to promote equality of the genders and then only let men have positions of leadership, would you support their definition of equality?
Although you've already declared that CMV is impossible here:
>My definition of homophobia is that which is discriminatory towards gays. Denying someone equal rights is discrimination, and so is therefore homophobia.
discrimination != homophobia. Homophobia in the most limited sense literally means you're afraid of gays. In the broadest sense it means you have a personal, emotional/subjective problem with homosexuality.
Merriam webster, wikipedia and the OED agree more with my definition than yours. I assert that your definition is incorrect.
Having a personal problem with homosexuality is not necessary for someone to discriminate against homosexuals.
If someone sincerely believes (even if incorrectly so) their religion prohibits acceptance of homosexuality, and they are a genuinely pious person, they may discriminate against gays, even if they genuinely don't mind gays at all on a personal level.
While very unusual... this is possible and such people do exist.
So, I disagree that simply discriminating against gays (for any reason at all) necessarily implies homophobia - despite the fact that they usually go hand in hand IRL.
I am familiar with both uses of * in linguistics. Read your link. It’s for ungrammatical constructions. Not nonstandard. (Not that I want to get into it, but snuck is not nonstandard. It features in the speech of speakers of standard varieties of English, in North America at least.)
I Googled your Language-Change thing and assumed you were following this.
>Expressions that are invariably poor usage are marked with an asterisk (*).
How about oxford? [link]
It just means to prepare something ahead of time. Hell, if you wanna get really ridiculous, the latin base paro means prepare so adding pre to that word is redundant.
Actually, it should be cobear, but since in Venezuela cobear means "bullshit" they had to change the name to "polar bear" why do you think they are white? its because they are opposite.
If these two bears touch, they would dissapear
I'm all for spelling words the proper (non-Americanised) way, but that one is just a matter of variation in the spelling. Both are correct and "flotation" is more common.
> I don't know why /u/q00u is getting so many downvotes for being literally correct. Which is the best type of correct.
But did he mean "literally" in the literal sense or in the figurative sense?
> I feel like the friend zone is when someone feels entitled to someone else's romantic feelings which is a result of being too immature and inexperienced to properly navigate romantic relationships.
Indeed, that's incorrect.
> A situation in which a friendship exists between two people, one of whom has an unreciprocated romantic or sexual interest in the other.
Technically, chemotherapy just means the treatment of disease using chemical agents. While the term is most frequently used in relation to cancer, the association is not implicit.
>Next big thing they add to the dictionary is R= are c= see u= you and so on singe those 3 letter words are way too long to type
Why do prescriptivists always go to the absurd when arguing?
>ALL words are made up. What's so bad about the fact that new made up words now officially exist?
Good sense there from that commenter.
>No, I would prefer if people didn't say useless things such as "You Only Live Once" Of course we only live once (unless you're Hindu) why is there a need for such a stupid phrase?
Like Carpe Diem is such a stupid phrase. I wonder if this person has issues with the word OK.
>This is the exact reason why the English language is the hardest current language to learn. It's also why every single person learning English as a second language find it to be the worst. I didn't realize how redundant it was until I tried learning another language. The rules are hypocritical and we have 50+ synonyms for every word just for the sake of describing it under every possible condition no matter how fucking stupid it sounds. Love being an American, hate speaking English.
A little of "English is the hardest language" crap in there. Didn't realize that language could be hypocritical, but apparently English is.
I didn't have the heart to look at any more comments.
>regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals
Yes there is (sort of):
"Why is the alphabet in that order? Is because of that song? The guy that write that song wrote everything"
It can be either depending on the context of the sentence.
I personally prefer "A group (of anything) is ..."
Tsk. Not this bullshit again.
The consensus definition of the word "democracy" includes both direct and indirect democracies.
The US is a democratic republic, a form of indirect democracy. Similarly, for reasons of scalability or stability indirect democracies are also the type of democracy enjoyed by every single other democratic system in the world.
Some ignorant people or True Believers of one stripe or another arbitrarily try to redefine "democracy" to only mean "direct democracy" and try to establish an opposition between "democracies" and "republics", but this is dumb for the following reasons:
Don't be one of those people - use the same definitions as the rest of the English-speaking world does, and let this stupid meme that "the USA isn't a democracy it's a republic" die like the demonstrable nonsense it is.
Terrorism. <em>(Noun; Mass Noun)</em>: The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation <strong>in the pursuit of political aims</strong>
Words don't always have their obvious meaning.
People often point out that they and their are plural and ungrammatical if used in this sense. That's simply not true, even the OED acknowledges this.
>Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.