maverick_starstrider
- 1,118
- 7
Danger said:Merriam-Webster is a Yank publication, not a proper English one.
Dude. Did you even read the previous posts?
The discussion centers around the misuse of the word "literally" in everyday language, exploring participants' frustrations with its application and broader implications for language use. The conversation touches on grammar, logical fallacies, and the evolving nature of language, with participants sharing their personal language pet peeves and debating the significance of linguistic choices.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of language misuse or the nature of language itself. Multiple competing views remain regarding the significance of using "literally" and the arbitrariness of language.
Some participants' arguments rely on assumptions about language understanding and the definitions of terms like "literally." The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on language evolution and the subjective nature of language standards.
Danger said:Merriam-Webster is a Yank publication, not a proper English one.
maverick_starstrider said:Dude. Did you even read the previous posts?
Danger said:Incidentally, I thought that you were a fellow Canuck.
Maybe if you didn't respond like such an *** this would have been a much simpler exchange. :-)Negitron said:Sorry, dude, but the ignorance is yours:
Danger said:Incidentally, I thought that you were a fellow Canuck.
Danger said:Of course. And while I dispute your claim that Old Norse was the origin of the English language, it definitely contributed to it, as did almost every other language on the planet. English is based primarily, though, upon Greek and Latin.
maverick_starstrider said:Oh, another one. I like to use "irregardless" just to annoy people.
maverick_starstrider said:Oh, another one. I like to use "irregardless" just to annoy people.
Sorry! said:That is literately the most annoying thing in the entire world. (lol)
maverick_starstrider said:*shrug*, inflammable means the same things as flammable, despoiled means the same things as spoiled. Give it a few years, regardless will be in common usage and it will be partially because of me *mwahahahahaha*
TheStatutoryApe said:disenfranchised
maverick_starstrider said:*shrug*, inflammable means the same things as flammable
USAGE NOTE Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in– has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix –in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix –in, which is related to the English –un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this –in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.
maverick_starstrider said:What's wrong with disenfranchise? To take away something that was enfranchised.
russ_watters said:Haven't read this thread, but how 'bout flammable vs inflammable?
russ_watters said:Haven't read this thread, but how 'bout flammable vs inflammable?
Danger said:Remember George Carlin's routine about that? Not an exact quote following, but close.
"Flammable, inflammable, non-inflammable. What the hell? Either the thing flamms or it doesn't flamm. Make up your mind."
GeorginaS said:"A Place For My Stuff" had me in stitches the first time I listened to it. I had it on cassette tape and listened to it on a continuous loop while travelling.
Are you kidding? I'm older than dirt, and am a mere child compared to Turbo and Integral. Hypatia and Astro are about my age, give or take a few months, and the incredibly gorgeous Evo is a couple of years ahead of me. Ivan always pretended to be older than me, but I found out that he's actually younger. There are a lot here, mostly gold members, who are in the same age range.seerongo said:You mean there are others here as old as I?