# Real-world examples of 'Ummm, acktually, It's X, not Y' nitpicks, and discussion about them **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 8, 2025, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326 "2025-06-08T12:47:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/121 "2025-06-10T20:29:28Z")
> [@Xocomil](#): > > Maybe it’s because children’s science shows of my youth drilled the fact that whales are mammals into my soft millennial skull. IIRC, those shows were also unfailingly meticulous as to the differences between seals and sea lions. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/122 "2025-06-10T20:36:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The whales etc are not very closely related at all. Whales are more closely related to bony fish than are sharks, but the problem is, so are we. If there was to be a single taxonomic set of organisms that included all of the things that are currently called fish, it would have to include whales, but also elephants and dogs and so on. But ‘fish’ isn’t such a definition - it’s more or less ‘looks like a fish’, but in more technical terms. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/123 "2025-06-10T21:01:07Z")
“Actually, it’s well, poisoning” ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/124 "2025-06-10T21:33:15Z")
I always read the meme as emphasizing the exaggerated way in which the people who engage in this typically say it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/125 "2025-06-10T21:43:26Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Whales are more closely related to bony fish than are sharks, but the problem is, so are we. If there was to be a single taxonomic set of organisms that included all of the things that are currently called fish, it would have to include whales, but also elephants and dogs and so on. Note that I stated that they can be argued to be fish, not that they are. Other possible arguments are that the category “fish” is simply not a clade, that is, based on how closely related the members are; or that the clade exists, but is not a useful category; or that the clade exists and is a useful category, but should not be called “fish”. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/126 "2025-06-10T21:54:50Z")
I skip “spicy” altogether for that type of description and use something like “well-spiced” or “heavily spiced” or “aromatically spiced.” In terms of the other spiciness, I have the categories of hot pepper/capsaicin spice, mustard/brassica spice (mustard, horseradish, radish, wasabi) and peppercorn/piper spiciness. I’m sure there’s others I’m forgetting, but those are the three categories I most often deal with. They are all different types of spicy. I tend to think of mustards/brassicas as “sharp” more than anything, and black pepper is, well, peppery. It’s hot pepper spice that is my default “spicy.” ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/127 "2025-06-10T21:58:45Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > “sour” and “acid” are etymological cognates, deriving from the same root. False. _Acid_ is from Proto-Indo-European \*h₂éḱ-eh₁ye-ti (“to be sharp”), eh₁-stative of Proto-Indo-European \*h₂eḱ- (“sharp”). _Sour_ is from Proto-Indo-European \*súHros (“sour”). Completely different. ---
**Author:** ![WildaBeast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wildabeast/32/6_2.png) [@WildaBeast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WildaBeast)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/128 "2025-06-10T23:49:25Z")
I admit I am guilty of saying “That vehicle isn’t an SUV, it’s a crossover”. Personally, I think that’s an important distinction, because I think there’s some misdirected hate towards crossovers, because people are just lumping them in with old-school SUVs (which I think did deserve the hate they got). But other people obviously don’t think that distinction matters. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/129 "2025-06-10T23:56:23Z")
Like Jordan Peele as Neil deGrasse Tyson: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/TyZSBqQ813c/maxresdefault.jpg "What It’s Like Being Married to Neil deGrasse Tyson - Key & Peele") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyZSBqQ813c) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/130 "2025-06-11T00:21:40Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Whales are more closely related to bony fish than are sharks, but the problem is, so are we. Okay, on that we agree. > [@Johanna](#): > > False. _Acid_ is from Proto-Indo-European \*h₂éḱ-eh₁ye-ti (“to be sharp”), eh₁-stative of Proto-Indo-European \*h₂eḱ- (“sharp”). “Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is a reconstructed language. There are no direct written or spoken records of PIE.” Acid can be shown to come directly from the latin “acidus”. , altho certainly there can be earlier roots. Sour- [sour - Wiktionary, the free dictionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sour#:~:text=From%20Middle%20English%20sour%2C%20from,s%C3%BAHros%20(%E2%80%9Csour%E2%80%9D)). _From [Middle English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English) [sour](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sour#Middle_English) , from [Old English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) [sūr](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sur#Old_English) (“sour”), from [Proto-West Germanic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-West_Germanic_language) [\*sūr](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/s%C5%ABr) , from [Proto-Germanic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language) [\*sūraz](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/s%C5%ABraz) (“sour”), from [Proto-Indo-European](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) [\*súHros](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/s%C3%BAHros) (“sour”)._ Not that trying to go back to Proto-Indo-European is necessarily _wrong_ mind you. It is a reasonable hypothesis, that many language experts like. Just unproven. > **[Proto-Indo-European language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language)** > > Extant > Extinct > Reconstructed > Hypothetical **Proto-Indo-European** ( **PIE** ) _is the reconstructed common ancestor of the [Indo-European language family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language_family).[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language#cite_note-1) No direct record of Proto-Indo-European exists; its proposed features have been derived by [linguistic reconstruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_reconstruction) from documented Indo-European languages. Far more work has gone into reconstructing PIE than any other [proto-language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-language), and it is the best understood of all proto-languages of its age. The majority of linguistic work during the 19th century was devoted to the reconstruction of PIE and its [daughter languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughter_language), and many of the modern techniques of linguistic reconstruction (such as the [comparative method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method)) were developed as a result.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language#cite_note-2)_ ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/131 "2025-06-11T00:30:53Z")
Are you suggesting that a proper reconstruction of a proto language might find that ‘sour’ and ‘acid’ **are** cognates? ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/132 "2025-06-11T00:31:39Z")
It’s as well established as anything in the science of linguistics, so please don’t spread any linguistic pseudoscience around here or you WILL get so busted. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/133 "2025-06-11T00:37:06Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Are you suggesting that a proper reconstruction of a proto language might find that ‘sour’ and ‘acid’ **are** cognates? Nope. > [@Johanna](#): > > It’s as well established as anything in the science of linguistics, so please don’t spread any linguistic pseudoscience around here or you WILL get so busted. The cite i gave disagrees. Here is another- > **[Proto-Indo-European: A PIE in the Sky?](https://www.schandillia.com/p/proto-indo-european)** > > An Objective Look at Paleolinguistics’ Most Controversial, Most Polarizing Hypothesis _The debate hinges on fundamental questions. If PIE existed, what evidence supports it? How do linguists reconstruct a language never recorded? Can shared features among Indo-European languages only be explained by a common source, or are alternative explanations viable? Beyond linguistics, does archaeology provide corroboration, or does it complicate the picture? These questions are not merely academic—they touch on identity, history, and the reliability of scientific methods applied to the past._ and > **[The Death of Proto-Indo-European](https://subhashkak.medium.com/the-death-of-proto-indo-european-2ba0df1cb2cd)** > > In the 19th century, linguists came up with the idea that nearly all modern European languages are descended from an ancestor language… _PIE was based on many fanciful assumptions. From a logical point of view, its proponents forgot that it is not enough to show that a reconstructed (and imagined) PIE, A_, leads to languages B, C, and D, but that the derivation excludes all other reconstructed languages. One must be able to exclude reconstructions such as L\*=\> C =\> B =\> D or M\* =\> D =\> C =\> B and any number of permuations thereof.\* _This simply cannot be done, and so the PIE reconstruction is simply worthless, and just one of any number of similar reconstructions one can develop._ _In retrospect, we cannot say that the labors of the linguists who created it were no worse than that of the scholiasts in the Middle Ages who determined how many angels can be accommodated on the tip of a pin. Because of the wars and violence that PIE has engendered, it should be compared to the similarly sloppy reasoning that led Europe, over the course of a century and a half, to try 80,000 people for witchcraft, [half of whom were executed, and often burned alive](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/07/witchcraft-economics-reformation-catholic-protestant-market-share?CMP=share_btn_tw)._ But note i did say- > [@DrDeth](#): > > Not that trying to go back to Proto-Indo-European is necessarily _wrong_ mind you. It is a reasonable hypothesis, that many language experts like. Just unproven. So, I am not calling it wrong. Still it is an unproven hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/134 "2025-06-11T00:37:36Z")
Well, some Canada Geese live in Canada, which makes them Canadian geese, along with the other species of goose which live there. Of course they _migrate_. Wily boogers. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/135 "2025-06-11T00:37:54Z")
Anybody can cite pseudoscience. That don’t impress me much. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/136 "2025-06-11T00:42:24Z")
But the claim was that the words ‘acid’ and ‘sour’ were related. If PIE is right that that claim is wrong - and if PIE is wrong, the original claim is completely unsupported as well. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/137 "2025-06-11T00:55:07Z")
Sure. However, I am _not_ saying PIE is wrong. I am just saying it is a _unproven hypothesis_. That point about the two words being unrelated may be completely correct- the _known recent entomology_ of the words seems to indicate that the two words are not related. “Acidus” vs “sur”. But take the White Hole hypothesis - unproven. But interesting. That does not mean you can _prove_ something by postulating a White Hole. Wikipedia does indeed go back to PIE for Sour. So, a strong maybe. And casting doubt on a popular but unproven hypothesis is exactly what science is about. For example- Phlogiston. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/138 "2025-06-11T01:12:10Z")
There’s no evidence at all that the words are related. Only if PIE-recontruction is wrong **and** some other reconstruction (that there’s absolutely no evidence for) is true and that reconstruction has the words related would the words be related. So anyone claiming that the words are related is making that claim based on no evidence- regardless of whether PIE existed or not ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/139 "2025-06-11T01:15:27Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > There’s no evidence at all that the words are related. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > So anyone claiming that the words are related is making that claim based on no evidence- regardless of whether PIE existed or not I have no issues with these statements. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326/140 "2025-06-11T01:42:47Z")
Thsnk you [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-world-examples-of-ummm-acktually-its-x-not-y-nitpicks-and-discussion-about-them/1019326.md?page=8)