This was precisely my understanding – while both strong and weak pasts are acceptable in all uses, “hanged” is the customary usage, including in law, for “executed by noose and gallows” and “hung” the more common usage in other contexts. (Note that the slang usage of “having a large penis” is always “hung.”
The mnemonic I learned back in eighth grade is: “Few men wish to be hanged but most men wish to be hung.”
This is a post that simply *must * be read out loud, with feeling. Gold, pure gold - I’m cryin’ here. 
My personal issue (for this I must pit my wife who taught it to me):
Nauseous: You make others sick
Nauseated: You feel sick
I don’t give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong! The primary definition of nauseous is causing illness, not being ill dammit.
People who misuse it ARE nauseous in their abuse of the bastardized English language.
My pet peeve, as revealed earlier this week in GQ, is verbing nouns.
My preferred example is from parliamentary procedure: “I motion to…” Vowels flow smoother than verbed nouns. It’s “I move to…”
And another example, as an obligatory Jewish point late on Friday afternoon: Reform Jews sometimes verb the coming of age ceremony, as JMS wrote in an episode of B5 (and I have heard a few too many times in real life): “I was bat-mitzvahed…”
I get hanged up every time I come across stuff like that.
Mirriam-Webster’s take on the matter.
Comedy gold!
Ah. So both the overwhelming majority of English speakers and various sources from the usual ostensibly authoritative bunch are all wrong. What exactly, then, is the criterion by which we are to determine what is right?
Bah. Webster can suck my (not so) hung throbbing cock. Just because the ignorant masses have destroyed the language does not make them right.
It is fucking nauseating.
*I don’t give a shit that various sources will allow the usage of Nauseated for Nauseous - it is wrong! *
I’m not one of those relative linguistics people, but I do wonder how people can genuinely be upset over a usage that’s been common their entire lifetime. Since it’s been used to mean “sick” since the 1800s, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve always heard it used that way, and only learned in a book that it ought to be otherwise.
The definition folks reflect the masses. The masses are not always right. Irregardless is another word that is slowly being accepted. That acceptance and reflection does not make it correct.
Now get off of my lawn.
What a pity the English language has been destroyed. What shall become of all those native speakers now?
Incidentally, Gaudere’s law has struck: you’ve made a grammatical error in your post. One is not allowed to follow a two-syllable word with a word whose first and last sounds coincide, as you did at the end of your first sentence. Granted, many English speakers do this frequently, and a large number of sources will allow it, but it is an abomination nonetheless.
The OED lists “sick to the stomach” as a meaning of nauseous. At some point you have to enter into a reflection on what it means for a word to have a “right” meaning if it is neither how people use it OR what the most respected reference books list as its meanings.
I thought it was you, if you have a big dick, who is hung, not the biggus dickus itself. Am I wrong.
I am fully fucking aware of what various references state. I noted that in my original post. You are providing Zero Additional Knowledge, though I do respect your desire to fight ignorance. This is not ignorance, it is opinion. It is an opinion shared by many others, though we are in a distinct minority.
Yes, both uses have been around since the early 1600s. Yes, all modern sources state that both are fine. Finally, most modern sources mention that traditionalists would prefer that you use nauseated if you feel sick, and either nauseous or nauseating for something that makes you feel sick.
Using the same work for two different yet related uses confuses your audience. It is also nauseating.
Humbug.
Quite - damn those ignorant masses! If not for them we’d…only have scientific and medical terms to work with. Yes. Good plan.
Did you say that your wife told you this ‘rule’ of course? If so it’s so sweet how you take her word over all the rest of reality. So sweet it makes me naseated, by which I mean nauseous, which doesn’t mean nauseating in any instance I have ever heard or read in my entire life. And I’ve read a fair bit.
By the way Indistinguishable, what the hell are you talking about?
Take it up with the hanged hung ones. I am too nauseated to discuss it further or farther or more or whatthefuckever.
Alright, it’s settled then. We’ll use “nauseous” to mean “sick to the stomach” and “nauseating” to mean “makes people sick to the stomach”, and all confusion will be averted. What’s that? People already do this? Interesting…
This has always cracked me up. It is just like the word “forte” which should (according to some) is pronounced ‘fort’ not ‘fortay.’ Cite from Merriam-Webster I very much like this part of the usage explanation: So you can take your choice, knowing that someone somewhere will dislike whichever variant you choose. All are standard, however.
I’m hopefully illustrating the silliness of rules that don’t correspond to any facts about actual speech.
Do you mean there actually is a rule that I can’t say “I’m going jogging?” (If so: cite?)
(On reflection somebody’s going to tell me that “jogging” doesn’t start and end with the same sound - “sorting socks”, then.)
My wife told me, I looked it up, and it is the FIRST MOTHERFUCKING DEFINITION.
You should read something more than pop up books.