Sated and satiated. I tend to use them interchangeably.
Oriented and orientated. They seem equivalent to me, but for some reason I dislike the latter immensely. Perhaps if there is an important distinction between the two of them which would affect their usage, I could get over it.
Any straight dope on these two pairs? Any other similar paired words that give you pause?
After I oriented the map, I orientated my way to the destination.
But what’s the difference? I’ve heard plenty of folks use either word for both contexts.
Meaning is the same for both forms of both words. I think it’s personal preference as to the form you like best, and decide to use. There appears to be no difference except the number of syllables.
My American Heritage dictionary says the definition of “orientate” is “to orient.”
‘orientate’ is British English for ‘orient’.
‘sated’ and ‘satiated’ are synonomous.
The difference between “orient” and “orientate” is that the latter is an unnecessary back formation from “orientation” and it makes my skin crawl.
Which may or may not be important to you.
To me, sated implies a filled-to-capacity quality where satiated implies being overfilled.
I believe that both oriented and orientated are now considered improper. The preferred terms are now asiated and asiatated.
The name for the process of using a compass and a map to find your way is “orienteering”.
As an American I’m about as likely to use ‘orientate’ as I am ‘conversate’ (read, not at all), but living in Australia and NZ has taught me there are plenty of people here who use it as the norm.
I agree and can I add the pair, obliged and obligated?
Obligated is a back formation of obligation. When I hear the word I might as well be hearing fingernails on a blackboard. Obliged is the proper verb to use.
I might as well add commentate as a back formation of commentator, if there is even such a word. Wouldn’t commenter work just as well as commentator?
I haven’t the time to look it up but I believe satiated is a back formation from words like insatiable.
One must add, however, that “back formation” is not a synonym for “a word that doesn’t exist.” If enough people use the wrong word often enough, long enough, then it becomes the right word.
I recently read an essay from kid (maybe 10ish?) who had back formed (?) the word “imaginativity”, as in “it takes a lot of imaginativity to be a scientist”.
I’ve been using it jokingly ever since, but if it makes its way to you as a real word, I apologize for spreading it!
Watch out. The more real danger here is that you’ll joke with the word so much that you’ll go on to use it in public without realizing it!
Also, it takes a lot of imaginativity to believe three wise men attended the birth of Jesus.
And this random opinion relates to this thread how? :dubious:
Use your imaginativity.
My daughter coined the term ‘eatative’ (as in “Lions could not be allowed in a farmyard because they are far too eatative.” ‘Voracious’ was not a word in her vocabulary yet.) and verb+ative has now entered our family lexicon, but only in a “Verbing weirds language” kind of sense.
I see Sated and Satiated as synonyms. Orientation leading to orientate makes sense to me, but I haven’t seen a lexicographer comment. Of course, you could try coining oriention and see what happens. Orientate gets up my nose, but I’m a pedant.
Me too. Whenever I hear this, I get the feeling that the speaker thinks that more syllables = more smarter. :rolleyes:
flammable and inflammable
(they should be opposites, but they’re not!)