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
>1. Wash or rinse freely with a stream or shower of water: she sluiced her face in cold water
>crews sluiced down the decks of their ship
I guess she now is...
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.
"miracle" does not necessarily have religious connotation, though it is often used in that way.
Every time you hear "it's a miracle of engineering", do you think they are calling the engineers deities?
Back to /r/atheism with you.
Funny enough, in US English the word "homely" typically means "unattractive":
And would generally not be applied to a MILF.
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: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/irregardless the dictionary definition of the word that pissed everyone off since I was downvoted for posting it below.
You have to consider more than merely the act of killing the animal. We keep animals imprisoned in abhorrent living conditions, we force them to reproduce (which arguably amounts to rape anyway), we kill them, we wear the remnants of their dead bodies. And this is all socially accepted - we (or at least most people) don't think twice about doing this.
We can ethically kill a human "vegetable" because we believe doing so puts them out of their suffering. That's not why we kill animals. We kill animals for food (which is arguably unnecessary). We kill animals for leisure and sport (which is definitely unnecessary).
The fact is that pets exist for the pleasure of their owners (and before anyone gets upset - this is literally the definition of the word "pet"). Be that as the pet is his legal property and that he does not appear to be actively harming (that is, damaging the physical or mental wellbeing) of his pet, is what he doing really wrong? Or do we just think that because it seems gross?
That's not true...
1. 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: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/holocaust
I've actually just checked some of his recent posts. Not a single F was found. However, F has a fairly low frequency in English.
Are you that stupid, that you will make a claim and feign horror without even doing background research? Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of tanorexia. Please do not speak so rudely to another human being, whether it be in person or on the internet, in trying to get a point across. Matter-of-fact research is much more influential than calling strangers stupid for no reason.
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
The title is kind of misleading.
Tortoises are a family within the order turtle. So all tortoises are turtles but not all turtles are tortoises.
So because all tortoises live on land, it's common for people to colloquially say "turtle" when only referring to sea-dwelling turtles. Because "turtle" is easier to say than "sea-dwelling chelonian".
Also, in British English the word "turtle" pretty much exclusively refers to the sea-dwelling chelonians, whereas in the US is refers to all chelonians.
Do you see the problem with conflating that definition with dictionary definitions?
For example oxford
> Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people
disagreeing with the notion that aggressive hormone therapy and invasive surgery is the best or right course of action is not transphobia
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"
>A body of water does not have to be still or contained; Rivers, streams, canals, and other geographical features where water moves from one place to another are also considered bodies of water
Oxford just says > A body of water forming a physiographical feature,
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.
Depends who you ask. It's not like there's any extremely strict "This is the precise definition" that is 100% accepted pretty much anywhere.
Take Oxford dictionary as an example. A scientific procedure to test a hypothesis - "Coca-Cola is an acidic beverage"
Result: Yes; Coca-cola is an acidic beverage.
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.
There absolutely is such a thing as incorrect grammar. The language may change quickly, but that still takes a long time.
Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children).
Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain).
Don't listen to them, "retrospectively" was right.
>Retrospective: looking back on or dealing with past events or situations
>Retroactive: (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.
Apparently that one is a real expression: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sphinx-like
It means "Difficult to interpret or understand", but I assume she was going for "mischievous, but subtle and concealed" like the Mona Lisa
2 )Having the required qualities; of a high standard: a good restaurant his marks are just not good enough
2.1) Skilled at doing or dealing with a specified thing: I’m good at crosswords he was good with children
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:
Damn, I guess the editors of the Oxford Dictionary are a bunch of idiots... It's really not necessary to call someone an idiot because they hold a different opinion than your own.
> Note that although glamor is an American spelling of glamour, glamorous is not an American form. This word is spelled the same way in both British and American English, and glamourous is regarded as an error.
I believe so.
Here's the position against "an historic": http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/a-historic-event-or-an-historic-event
A discussion: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14970
The Economist continues to use "An historic".
I would say "A historic". Although I wouldn't dare "correct" someone over it.
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.
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."
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.
> Guesstimate is not a word.
Also, I didn't downvote you.
I think this is a good explanation.
>In common usage both assume and presume can mean ‘suppose’ and are often interchangeable in this meaning. However, technically there is a subtle difference between the two where presume is to ‘suppose to be the case on the basis of probability’:
>>two of the journalists went missing and are presumed dead
>Assume on the other hand is to ‘suppose to be the case without proof’:
>>I just assumed it to be the case
>Both words also share other meanings that can be summarised as ‘to take on oneself’. In this sense assume is generally used to describe taking on a role:
>>I assumed the role of the aggressor in the conversation
>Whereas presume is generally used when taking on an attitude:
>>he had presumed too great a level of familiarity
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
Prejudice has nothing to do with the colour of one's skin, whereas racism seems to have nothing to do with systems or institutions. If you want to describe the systemic racism, call it "systemic racism". Most people I know -- anecdotal -- would consider racism by this dictionary definition.
With your definition, no one can be considered a racist in of themselves because they aren't institutions or systems. Yet I would argue there are people who are racist without any systemic influence.
Call me a prescriptivist; I don't care, but don't say that people are mixing things up when they go by dictionary definitions.
Just because feminists claim that the dictionary definition is gender equality doesn't mean that it is, and it's not. The actual dictionary definition amounts to "advocacy for women, through legislation, to achieve equal outcomes".
"Humanism" has a pre-existing and specific meaning
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/humanism > 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.
Except that its an actual recognised phobia called coulrophobia.
It's four syllables, at least in ~~the UK~~ parts of the UK - com-fort-a-bull, like the sentence, "Comfort a bull."
EDIT: Apparently four syllables has been lost in a substantial number of regional accents. I'm from Oxfordshire (although I did go to school in London for a few years) and would probably consider myself to speak modern RP. Most of my friends except the ones from London would say it like I do. Here's an exact example from the Oxford English Dictionary. Click at the top to listen
From Adam Brown's Pronunciation and Phonetics: A Practical Guide for English Language Teachers:
> Number of syllables
> Speakers may differ in their opinions as to the number of syllables particular words have. These differences may arise from the following factors:
> * Elision of [ə]: As we will see in Chapter 16, [ə] may be lost in certain environments, e.g. comfortable [kʌmfətəbəl] (four syllables) or [kʌmftəbəl] (three).
I define "theism" to be "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (as does OED). I consider "deism" to be "belief in a God who created the universe, but no longer intervenes" and "pantheism" to be something like "belief that the universe is a manifestation of God." Therefore I would consider both deism and pantheism to be subsets of theism.
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. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gift?q=gift
> sorry 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.
You're seriously asking how it's harassment to regularly say vulgar things to women who are walking down the street?
This is what sexual harassment is. See the definition of sexual harassment.
If you actually look up "dinner" in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Oxford), you'll see it defined as "the main meal of the day." It can be taken either at midday or in the evening. Lunch is the midday meal, and supper is the evening meal (although those two words tend to be used when the meal is lighter). So sometimes dinner can be lunch, and sometimes dinner can be supper.
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;
>Britain? Britain does not equal one foreign secretary's statement. What a bizarre title.
It's called metonymy.
>Title should read "British Foreign Secretary accuses blah blah blah."
The Foreign Secretary isn't any random person, they represent a country's foreign policy and relations.
1.) Move in a circle on a central axis.
overhead, the fan revolved slowly
1.1) Move in a circular orbit around:
the earth revolves around the sun
Both orbit and revolve are correct.
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
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they >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.
Actually, he's probably referring to the Oxford Dictionaries page or possibly the actual definition page in the Oxford Dictionaries British and World English Dictionary on the hyphen, and his grammar in this particular instance is unimpeachable. Think about a parallel construction like, "the ESPN page on college football." It's perfectly grammatical, as would be the construction "ESPN's page on college football."
Unfortunately, he shouldn't have said the Oxford English Dictionaries, because the Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionaries are actually two separate entities. The OED does not have a punctuation usage guide like Oxford Dictionaries. The distinction between the two entities often seems almost impossible to grasp for people who don't regularly use both the OED and the Oxford Dictionaries page, especially as the Oxford Dictionaries page gives you access to multiple English dictionaries but NOT the Oxford English Dictionary.
In any event, given the rant he goes on, it's unfortunate that he didn't actually examine the 100+ hyphenated words and realize that some of them were inappropriately hyphenated. But it's astounding to see so many people up on their high horses about grammar and punctuation when they don't know what they're talking about.
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?"
>racism noun The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
>So they're black but the father sticks around?
Expressing feigned confusion at the fact that not all members of a race exhibit the same characteristics (yes, I realize it's about birds, but we all know what the joke is).
= racism joke
We can argue whether or not it's offensive (or should be or whatever), but it's pretty hard to argue against the fact that it's a joke about racism.
Weir might come from weird. Here's the etymology of weird:
> Old English wyrd ‘destiny,’ of Germanic origin. The adjective (late Middle English) originally meant ‘having the power to control destiny,’ and was used especially in the Weird Sisters, originally referring to the Fates, later the witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth ; the latter use gave rise to the sense ‘unearthly’ (early 19th cent). http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/weird
It could also come from were- as in werewolf. That prefix means man, as in part man, part wolf. The trees are part human due to the greenseers.
To be fair, it fits the description.
>A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:
I'd rather not have to make a fire and hold my bread over it just right as to finely toast it instead of incinerate it the way I would most likely do, seems like automating a complex series of actions to me.
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.
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 hope this helps!
From Oxford Dictionaries (Under the definition of 'Shade':
>Phrase, 'Throw shade', US informal' >>Publicly criticize or express contempt for someone.
In my case, it was contempt. It's kinda like taking a dig at someone.
>"Oh, Ms. Sour, it is so nice to see you. How's teaching going?"
Bitch answer because she's a bitch.
>"If there was one teacher who really made an impact on my life it was you. Because I'll never forget your raging incompetence and how horrible you were to me. I'm surprised you're still allowed to teach."
Bitter old lady outrage.
Fuck respecting your elders.
>"Have a day. Not a nice one, just one more before you get eaten by your cats."
Drops mic, walks off.
I didn't say all of that in real life, but mostly I ignored her when she tried to talk to me. But the above is top level shade throwing.
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 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/learnt-vs-learned
> 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.
> comprise - oxforddictionaries.com > >1. Comprise primarily means ‘consist of,’ as in the country comprises twenty states. It can also mean ‘constitute or make up a whole,’ as in this single breed comprises 50 percent of the Swiss cattle population. > >When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense ( the country comprises twenty states). > >This usage is part of standard English, but the construction comprise of, as in the property comprises of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect. > >2. On the differences between comprise and include, see include (usage).
Well there's <em>prandial</em> and <em>postprandial</em> in English. But this question may be more suited to /r/asklinguistics or /r/etymology?
An incompetent or stupid person, especially an elderly one: He’s the most worthless old duffer
EDIT: In case anybody else was wondering, like I was.
As far as I know the "sexism = power + prejudice" definition of sexism is limited to a few social science circles. In conversation I use the dictionary definition of sexism.
My turn at pedantry.
I see your Merriam-Webster definition, and raise you the OED, Dictionary.com, and Wiktionary - none of which include annoying anybody else as part of their definition of pedant (noun), or pedandic (adj)
> A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning
(edit - I feel my pedantry would have been better had I not misspelt "Merriam-Webster"!)
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: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/binaural
The relevant definition: "(of sound) recorded through two separate microphones and transmitted through two separate channels to produce a stereophonic effect."
Here's another: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/binaural
"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: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/boughten
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.
According to the OED, the definition of mankind as referring exclusively to men is "archaic," and therefore doesn't reflect modern understandings of the word. Anecdotally, I can't recall when I've seen someone say "mankind" as referring just to men, excepting when it was immediately followed up by "womankind," presumably to emphasize that the archaic definition was being used.
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. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism
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. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-is-a-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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#United_States
The definition is for the government not to interfere in the free market at all. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/laissez-faire
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.
You'd love the definition of rape then..
> 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
This is completely sexist.