Don’t worry. I’ll get over my snit.
This may sound a little Edwardian, but I rather like the use of the verb “to bed” someone.
Nzinga, Seated, you posted about liking the use of “be.” A young woman that I know had to testify in court. She was asked where she was on a certain night and she responded, “I bes at the opera.” It always makes me smile to think about it. It just seemed perfect.
Ha. I love that.
It is way too cold.
I have long been convinced that “cool” itself can be used as a noun:
“We enjoyed the cool of the evening.”
“I felt the cool of the steel against my flesh.”
Maybe that is just me, though. 
:sigh:[ol][li]The masculine gender is used for a person of unstated or undefined sex. If you disagree with this style rule, there is a perfectly good singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun: it.[]Or one could say, “twice a week.”[]I agree. The male of the species are properly “gooms” or might be if the Normans hadn’t cocked it all up. “Woman” is a subset of “man” in the same sense that “breadfruit” is a subset of “fruit.” But some people think it’s more like the relationship between “breadfruit” & “bread.”[/li]I also am fine with B.C./A.D., but I hope at some point we just change to a whole new calendar to switch things up.[li]I just go ahead & spell it “fourty.”[*]Well, yeah, except “thou” is supposed to be** in**formal. Also, I quite like hither, thither, whither, hence, thence, whence, & wherefore. (There is a herefore, apparently long subsumed into therefore.)[/ol]Mine:[/li]We need a good way to separate 2nd person singular from 2nd person plural. I’ve been using y’all a lot, but the genitives are what, y’all’s?
And we’re never going to be able to really fix the spelling until we add about seven vowels to the alphabet. The five vowels of Latin (or eight if you add œ, æ, & y) simply are insufficient to English. We need the thorn (þ) back & these days the edh (ð) as well.
So you’re saying unique is, in fact, unique?
This isn’t exactly a common one, but it think it’s important that ‘disinterested’ not be used to simply mean ‘uninterested’.
I came here just two post what you did.
Present tense after “when”, even if the action is in the future. That doesn’t make any fucken sense, dammit ! It should be “when I will be old”, not “when I’m old” !
Yes. It bugs me when people say something is “very unique.” Unpossible ;). Something is either unique or it is not. There are no shades of uniqueness.
Plurals. We speak English. Why do we have to use Latin and Greek plurals … especially when we often get them wrong? (E.g., cacti, octopi, virii) And have you ever tried to teach a non-native speaker the difference between people and persons?
We don’t have to use Latin and Greek plurals. Go ahead and say “cactuses”, “octopuses”, “viruses”, etc. Be free!
I have never been convinced by this claim.
Suppose (for the sake of argument) that eg cars have seven different things about them that can be different: colour, shape, size, cost, speed, coolness, density
Now, isn’t a car that has a colour, size and shape that no other cars have more unique than a car that just has a colour that no other cars have?
pdts
And how are we going to add vowels? Either we need to invent more letters, or it’s back to diacritical land.
“When I will be old” is… now (assuming you’re not old). “When I am old” is saying “when I am [in the state of being] old, I will do [action] with regards to the present tense when that state is true.” The future tense construction sounds to me like “When I am in a state such that I will eventually become old, but am currently not.”
I believe this used to be the case with the term “in-law” in English – it described people who were related to you legally rather than by blood, and covered both what we’d currently describe as “in-law” relations in English as well as “step-” relations. I can’t think of a specific example, but I’m sure I’ve seen step- relations described as “in-laws” in Jane Austen novels. Further confusing things for the modern reader is the fact that in Austen’s time they often dropped the “in-law” when referring to in-laws in the modern sense: Emma Woodhouse refers to Mr. Knightley (her sister’s husband’s brother) as her brother rather than her brother-in-law.
…
I just checked the OED and it does give give “stepfather” and “stepmother” as the second definition for “father-in-law” and “mother-in-law”, although it says the former is now considered incorrect (last cite for this usage is 1876) and the latter only survives as a regionalism.
The lack of uniqueness in all the other aspects besides color isn’t a lesser degree of uniqueness. An aspect of uniqueness is like being in a room, you are either there or you are not; if not, you are not less in the room, you just aren’t in the room, period.
I realize I’m bordering on prescriptiveness, however. In some software/computer science contexts, with regard to a set of data elements we might well say that they are more or less like a control element, based on how many bits match those in the control. So…your argument seems tenable to me.
And perhaps one more, since apparently “proin” as an abbreviation of “proinde” is supposed to be monosyllabic, then there is clearly at least one more diphthong nobody is putting on their lists. From English, I can guess how you’d pronounce ‘oi’ as a single syllable, but foreigners, especially dead ones, do things differently.
Of course. If you want to distinguish a larger group, you can use “all y’all”, as well.
“Yall’s pigs got out!” is a perfectly good genitive.
You can take letters from the International Phonetic Alphabet, e.g., Ə and ŋ, or you can use two letters to represent diphthongs, e.g., “mai” for “my”, “boi” for “boy”.
It’s ridiculous to use <ai> to spell the vowel in “my” in English when we already have the perfectly good spelling <i>; sure, it may be phonetically accurate to construct it as a diphthong, but this is entirely irrelevant, and indeed largely opaque, to English speakers on a conscious level. In terms of English phonology, it acts like an atomic phoneme.
[Indeed, even many of the archetypally monophthongal vowels of English are actually realized as diphthongs by plenty of speakers, but we really needn’t overhaul the spelling system to make this sort of trivia manifest]