Saint Victor!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSecondStain said:
Obviously I was a little too obscure. Basically, I'm saying that you'll never find me going into a bookmakers to bet.
Click to expand...

I once put 2/6d (also known as half a crown) each way on a horse with odds of 3 to 1 which shows just how much I know about gambling. I think it was some when around 1957 so half a crown was a night out at the cinema and fish and chips on the way home. I'd never been in a bookies before or since.
 
pass the football said:
Well, it appears the usage is 'disputed', but these days it's more commonly used to mean afflicted by nausea and is prescribed as such in the OED. So the title is nauseous and it makes him nauseous.

I know, it doesn't make sense, but I don't make the rules.

In fact, according to the OED the original meaning was 'inclined to nausea' which oddly is closer to (though not synonymous with) the more modern meaning.
Click to expand...

It should have the same rule as poisonous-poisoned. The toad is poisonous and licking it makes you poisoned. When someone says they're nauseous, it sounds like they mean they make others nauseated.

I don't like it when words become accepted just because no one realises they're structurally incorrect. "Octopi" is in the OED too, but I could write an essay on why that's not an acceptable word. Yes, I'm so arrogant I disagree with the dictionary. :tongue:
 
Joe Steinberg said:
It should have the same rule as poisonous-poisoned. The toad is poisonous and licking it makes you poisoned. When someone says they're nauseous, it sounds like they mean they make others nauseated.

I don't like it when words become accepted just because no one realises they're structurally incorrect. "Octopi" is in the OED too, but I could write an essay on why that's not an acceptable word. Yes, I'm so arrogant I disagree with the dictionary. :tongue:
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. You have the makings of a staunch pedant, Joe. :)
 
pass the football said:
Well, it appears the usage is 'disputed', but these days it's more commonly used to mean afflicted by nausea and is prescribed as such in the OED. So the title is nauseous and it makes him nauseous.

I know, it doesn't make sense, but I don't make the rules.

In fact, according to the OED the original meaning was 'inclined to nausea' which oddly is closer to (though not synonymous with) the more modern meaning.
Click to expand...

Joe Steinberg said:
It should have the same rule as poisonous-poisoned. The toad is poisonous and licking it makes you poisoned. When someone says they're nauseous, it sounds like they mean they make others nauseated.

I don't like it when words become accepted just because no one realises they're structurally incorrect. "Octopi" is in the OED too, but I could write an essay on why that's not an acceptable word. Yes, I'm so arrogant I disagree with thedictionary. :tongue:
Click to expand...

The local newspaper of the time reported my great Uncles WW1 military funeral as "pathetic". There is a word whose meaning has changed over time through inappropriate usage.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
It should have the same rule as poisonous-poisoned. The toad is poisonous and licking it makes you poisoned. When someone says they're nauseous, it sounds like they mean they make others nauseated.

I don't like it when words become accepted just because no one realises they're structurally incorrect. "Octopi" is in the OED too, but I could write an essay on why that's not an acceptable word. Yes, I'm so arrogant I disagree with the dictionary. :tongue:
Click to expand...

But licking a venomous snake would be ok as long as it didn't bite you.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
It should have the same rule as poisonous-poisoned. The toad is poisonous and licking it makes you poisoned. When someone says they're nauseous, it sounds like they mean they make others nauseated.

I don't like it when words become accepted just because no one realises they're structurally incorrect. "Octopi" is in the OED too, but I could write an essay on why that's not an acceptable word. Yes, I'm so arrogant I disagree with the dictionary. :tongue:
Click to expand...

Well I agree to a point. The OED does not include "octopi" though. In fact it goes into some detail on this:
The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used. The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for some Latin plurals, is incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
TheSecondStain said:
And for the record, I'd rather not. Did someone say [or will say], the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few, or the one..? :)
Click to expand...

Spock? I've never watched a single episode of Star Trek but I think that was Spock.
 
St Godders the Peacemaker said:
The local newspaper of the time reported my great Uncles WW1 military funeral as "pathetic". There is a word whose meaning has changed over time through inappropriate usage.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are several, maybe many, words where the original meaning has changed, even over the last 100 years or so. Off the top of my head, I can think of the example, intelligent and/or intelligence. Today, this word has become a description for someone who is bright, smart, clever, but all it does mean is that the person has knowledge or has gained knowledge, i.e. to be intelligent of.

Intelligence agencies are not clever. Their job is to gain knowledge.
 
Something's wrong with the world when you get your philosophy from old sci-fi TV programmes. Though some brief research hints that they may have just paraphrased something Jeremy Bentham once said.
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Something's wrong with the world when you get your philosophy from old sci-fi TV programmes. Though some brief research hints that they may have just paraphrased something Jeremy Bentham once said.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of wisdom to be found in ostensibly trashy fiction. No-one has been able to sum up the concept of "with great power comes great responsibility" more succinctly than Uncle Ben (not that one).
 
Joe Steinberg said:
Something's wrong with the world when you get your philosophy from old sci-fi TV programmes. Though some brief research hints that they may have just paraphrased something Jeremy Bentham once said.
Click to expand...

My memory is hazy and I'm not a huge Star Trek fan but I think that clip is from one of the films rather than the TV show. Kirk and the crew rescue Spock (or something) after he sacrifices himself to save the ship. I imagine Spock probably said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" as he saved the ship.


EDIT: Yeah, thought so. Here's the clip from the previous film.

[video=youtube;Xa6c3OTr6yA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA[/video]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back