nauseous or nauseated?

i’m curious if anyone with good grammer skills can tell me the correct way of saying this. i’m nauseous or i’m nauseated. i recently heard it was i’m nauseated which means i’ve been saying it wrong. but i’m not sure. and also if it is in fact i’m nauseated can you tell me how to use the word nauseous correctly and why most people say i’m nauseous. maybe this is a silly question but i would like to know. thank you.
jen

It’s not silly. It’s just that both words can mean the same things.

Nauseate: to cause to feel nausea, to make sick; to feel nausea at, to loathe; to feel nausea.

Nauseous: causing nausea; feeling nausea (colloquial).

I think most people use the second term, which is the more colloquial one anyway.

I have a ** Dictionary of Difficult Words** that maintains: “A nauseated person is no more nauseous than a poisoned person is poisonous.” However, I have found that people will fight you to the very death regarding their right to describe themselves as nauseous when they want to haver. And there are quite a few dictionaries who agree (or at least don’t disagree) with them.

Certain language mavens will tell you that “nauseated” means “sick to one’s stomach” while “nauseous” means “nauseating” or “inducing nausea”. However, they are wrong.

Words mean what we commonly agree they mean, much as a dollar is worth what we commonly agree it’s worth. To argue that a word “really” means X when 98% of the population use it to mean Y is every bit as ridiculous as arguing that a cup of coffee “really” costs a dime because that’s what it used to cost back when all was right with the world.

Btw, Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary now lists “affected with nausea” as the first definition of “nauseous”, while “causing nausea” is listed second – if you’re into referencing authorities. (I won’t cite OED b/c the WNUUD is more widely available/verifyable, and will be accepted by most folks as authoritative.)

If you’re wondering about my “good grammar skills”, I’ve cited my creds as a “real grammarian” elsewhere on this board, and won’t bore Dopers with them again.

So please, feel nauseous in good health. And tell the school marms to get stuffed.

Yeah, yeah, y-to-i, I know, I know – it’s late, gimme a break.

thank you to all who answered my question :slight_smile:
-jen

They would be “wrong” only if they insisted that one could not use “nauseous” to indicate that one has been nauseated. (And even then they would not be “wrong” if they were speaking among a group of prescriptivist grammarians.)

The word has changed meanings in the last few decades and a good descriptivist will recognize that change (even if grudgingly), but a declaration that nauseous indicates that one induces nausea in others is not “wrong”; it is simply correct in the more formal usage.

:frowning:
All of a sudden, I’m not feeling well.

Sorry, my mistake. Should have written, “really means” in that first sentence. Good catch.

And I would say that those who make claims that “nauseous really means ‘inducing nausea’” (and I know some of them) are wrong, no matter who they’re talking to. There’s no “real” meaning lurking behind the supposedly “incorrect” usage that most folks use.

"When I use a word, " said Humpty Dumpty, “it means what I choose it to mean.”

It’s no wonder that the “Kings English” had gone to …
The new standard, if it be a standard, is based on how unlearned persons misuse language.
Language like most things drifts to the LCD!

What does havering have to do with nausea? :confused:

Does it have a second meaning I don’t know about?

Ever watch a nauseated person throw up and then have to urp yourself? I’d say that’s a case of a person being nausous.

Both commonly mean that the subject is feeling ill. But being nauseous simply states that the condition exists; being nauseated implies that the condition had a direct cause. As an analogy, consider the difference between being pregnant and being impregnated.

It drifts to the liquid crystal display??

No wonder we can’t communicate.

I find that to be totally inaccurate, not to mention snobbish. “Unlearned persons” can be incredibly inventive with language. Would you have some elite group decide what words “really mean”, then issue edicts to the rest of us? Words are simply tokens, symbols, sounds and letters. They mean what we agree they mean, nothing more, nothing less. For one group to claim that their usage (their dialect) is correct while others’ usage is somehow mis-usage is mere egocentricity.

The AHD usage note has a good take on it, BTW:

The AHD paper copy I have also features a pair of articles by Dwight Bolinger and William F. Buckley debating whether “The prevailing usage of its speakers should be the chief determinant of acceptability in language.” It’s worth looking at. If you take the negative, you are agreeing with Buckley, who would have proper usage be a matter for lexicographers to bless, or at least he argued that side in the dictionary (there’s a certain degree of sophistry in the practice of debate - I wouldn’t guarantee that the articles were Buckley or Bolinger’s unvarnished opinions).

“Language is not an abstract construction of the learned, or of dictionary makers, but is something arising out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes, of long generations of humanity, and has its bases broad and low, close to the ground.” ~ Noah Webster ~

Sorry, it was very confusing, it was late, and I took a 90 degree tangent thinking about this song:
*“And if I haver, yeah I know I’m gonna be / I’m gonna be the man who’s havering to you.” — lyric of I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles) by The Proclaimers * which, taken in its entirety, is mostly about drinking and throwing up. Just not that particular word of it. :smiley:

Well, words mean what people want them to mean, right? :wink: