Slashdot Mirror

I thought it was that old Kant... but it turns out that this is the original meaning:

The Oxford English Dictionary says “categorical” entered English in 1598 as a term in logic. A “categorical” proposition was – and still is – one “asserting absolutely” and “not involving a condition or hypothesis,” according to the OED.
[]
The usual meaning now (“a class, or division, in any general scheme of classification”) came into use in 1660, the OED says.
-- source

You know English is a Germanic language, right?

They're both proper words, not mispellings. There's some nuance in the difference, and "whinge" is simply more frequently found in Commonwealth countries. The internet is international after all. :) For history and distinction: http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...

Well, bust my buttons and call me Columbus! And it's actually pronounced differently. I have been educated. Thanks, Internet stranger!

They're both proper words, not mispellings. There's some nuance in the difference, and "whinge" is simply more frequently found in Commonwealth countries. The internet is international after all. :) For history and distinction: http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...

Orient was used a a verb long before orientate came along.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...

Frankly, orientate sounds like someone was trying to make themselves sound more educated and important than they were.

Sort of like what's happened to the language used by police departments at press conferences over the last 4 or 5 decades.

I've got no problem with the Los Angeles colloquial highway naming style, though. Some things should have regional flavor.

Homophobia is a word. It does not mean fear of gay people. Are hydrophobic coatings afraid of water? No.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...

Still not getting it...

Homophobia is a word. It does not mean fear of gay people. Are hydrophobic coatings afraid of water? No. http://www.grammarphobia.com/b...

There's an old curse that seems relevant: "May you live in interesting times."

No, there isn't.

I know your trolling, but here's the actual history behind the name.

“Sent up the river” refers to being sent to prison (originating from Sing Sing, as you point out,) but “sold down the river,” which has come to mean betrayal, referred to the slave trade on the MIssissippi. http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/11/river.html
 

Let me guess, you're too lazy to look it up or you have a dull axe to grind?

There are two accepted spellings, one favoured in the USA, the other by those who got and retain their English spellings from the Brits. Are you gonna carp on "favoured" too?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilization
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html
http://www.lukemastin.com/testing/spelling/cgi-bin/database.cgi?action=view_category&database=spelling&category=C
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/09/civilise-civilize.html
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civilised

The above ought to be sufficient to get you started, if you have any interest in improving your understanding. You could have done this on your own hook if you really had an interest or gave a shit. Or perhaps you derive pleasure from pressing keys in pursuit of fucking with people, or some such? Any case, I'm sooo oughta here.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/04/paid-payed.html

Your "inciteful" could relate to incitement or insight.

Please don't fall for the self-loathing. Many of the early differences in English were because British English continued to evolve while American English (and Noah Webster's dictionary) stayed closer to the British English at the time of the establishment of the American Colonies, so perhaps it was the British who were "dumbing down" many words. In reality, both American English and British English have continued to evolve.

For a modern take on whether Americans misspell/mispronounce, check linguistic experts Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman.
Why can’t the Americans learn to speak?
...or even
Did the Bard speak American?

Please don't fall for the self-loathing. Many of the early differences in English were because British English continued to evolve while American English (and Noah Webster's dictionary) stayed closer to the British English at the time of the establishment of the American Colonies, so perhaps it was the British who were "dumbing down" many words. In reality, both American English and British English have continued to evolve.

For a modern take on whether Americans misspell/mispronounce, check linguistic experts Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman.
Why can’t the Americans learn to speak?
...or even
Did the Bard speak American?

Needs a bit of english grammar!

"This here dog has fleas."

"That there bean patch is done loaded with pests."

If "this here" be the future of education then we all be down the shit river with no paddle.No wut I mean?

Ignoring the fact that I'm in the UK and therefore what is grammatically correct in English may vary across the various dialects over the world, doesn't the US constitution contain the phrase "We the people" rather than "Us the people".

And not trying to be pedantic either but it should be "unless you want TO continue sounding like an idiot".

Ok, strap in, guv'ner, because 'ere we go!

Because it is frankly a seldom-used sentence structure in modern english (on either side of the pond), I had forgotten about the "us" vs. "we" exception that deals with something called "apositives".

The difference is when the us/we is used as the subject of the sentence (e.g. We the People), as opposed to the object of the sentence (e.g. stay away from US).

We/us when used as the subject of a sentence, often occurs in a sentence clause that is separated by a comma. The acutal phrase is "We the people of the United States,...". Note that you could actually remove all the words after the "We", up to the comma, and the sentence would "read" the same. Also note that, besides making nearly all Americans cry, the we/us rule of "sounding right" would obviously be violated by replacing the "we" with "us" at the beginning of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a page object that addresses that very subject, using "We the people" as the example.

And, if you consider when the U.S. Constitution was written, and by whom (ex-Brits), I think you would agree that it would have far more "U.K. English" grammatical forms than modern "U.S. English". Besides, I really don't think that "which English" matters on the us/we rule. If I am incorrect on that point, please feel free to educate me.

As for the missing "to" in my last sentence, that would be a "typo", not a grammatical error. I wasn't very awake when I posted my comment, and simply overlooked the missing "to", sorry!

But thanks for pointing it out, you damned dirty hippie! ;-)

Hey now, you can't "whoosh" and argue at the same time. You either agree to pretend that your original post was a joke (whoosh) or you can continue to futilely argue.

Luckily I happen to work at an institution with a subscription to the OED. Let's look shall we?

c1250 Gen. & Ex. 3775 Alle he sunken e ere wi-in, Wi wifes, and childre, and hines-kin.

Yeah, that 1250 is the year the quote was written. This usage is also specifically referring to sunk into the earth.

All told, their examples for the word "sink" have 55 uses of the work sunk and 0 of the word sinked. Sinked is listed as an obscure, colloquial use though.

The argument for centuries has been between sank and sunk, sinked is right out.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/blogger-blog/2010/01/honey-i-sunk-boat.html

BTW, the Oxford English Dictionary has the meaning as the opposite (something that's quich and easy to learn). So they must have the x-axis as "mastery" and the y-axis as "time". I think. But my sudden insight into graphs is fading a little.

p.s. When I say the common meaning, I mean here in Australia and (judging by newspaper use http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/07/steep-learning-curves.html) also in the US.

I didn't even realise it had anything to do with jerry as in the wartime nickname for the Germans o_0 http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2008/08/jerry-rigged-expression.html seems to agree with me.

I don't see how the WW2 use of "Jerry" is any more offensive than calling me a "Brit", "Scot" or "Scotty" either btw. No need to try and be so overly sensitive.