History YouKeepUsingThatWord / LessPedantic

29th Sep '17 5:04:24 AM BreadBull
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Venomous''' and '''poisonous''' are not interchangeable, which is a common mistake in usage. ''Venomous'' means the subject has the ability to actively transmit poison. ''Poisonous'' means the subject transmits poison passively (ie. is eaten). Therefore, a poisonous snake means that it will poison those eating it, while a venomous snake means it will poison its victims by biting them and injecting toxins. Some confusion is understandable, as venomous creatures are usually also poisonous, but they're not the same thing. "If it bites you and you die, it's venomous. If you bite it and you die, it's poisonous.". Similar issues happen in other languages - for instance, in Spanish, ''venenoso'' (venomous) is very often used where ''ponzoñoso'' (poisonous) should be (although the opposite almost never happens), to the extent many assume both words are now synonyms, and that ''ponzoñoso'' is just an old word that is not used anymore.

to:

* '''Venomous''' and '''poisonous''' are not interchangeable, which is a common mistake in usage. ''Venomous'' means the subject has the ability to actively transmit poison. ''Poisonous'' means the subject transmits poison passively (ie. is eaten). Therefore, a poisonous snake means that it will poison those eating it, while a venomous snake means it will poison its victims by biting them and injecting toxins. Some confusion is understandable, as venomous creatures are usually also poisonous, but they're not the same thing. "If it bites you and you die, it's venomous. If you bite it and you die, it's poisonous.". Similar issues happen in other languages - for instance, in Spanish, ''venenoso'' (venomous) is very often used where ''ponzoñoso'' (poisonous) should be (although the opposite almost never happens), to the extent many assume both words are now synonyms, and that ''ponzoñoso'' is just an old word that is not used anymore.



* The word '''whom''' is used by many as simply "who, but fancier." "Whom" is a ''direct or indirect object'', so if you ever see someone use it otherwise ("Whom are you?" for example), they're futzing it up. As a general rule, replace the usage of "whom" with "him" (and, correspondingly, "who" with "he") and see if it still makes sense.
** "Whom" is used to describe people something happens ''to'', and "who" describes people who ''do'' something. You might ask about a proposed business deal, "Who affects the deal?" and "Whom does the deal affect?"
* "Wherefore", as in Shakespeare's ''Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet'', does not mean "where", but "why"; "wherefore" is to "therefore" as "what" is to "that". Juliet was not wondering where Romeo was, but rather wondering why the man she loved had to be Romeo, one of her family's hated rivals. (Juliet's whole thing in the balcony scene is a meditation on the meaninglessness of labels.)


to:

* The word '''whom''' is used by many as simply "who, but fancier." "Whom" is a ''direct or indirect object'', so if you ever see someone use it otherwise ("Whom are you?" for example), they're futzing it up. As a general rule, replace the usage of "whom" with "him" (and, correspondingly, "who" with "he") and see if it still makes sense.
** "Whom" is used to describe people something happens ''to'', and "who" describes people who ''do'' something. You might ask about a proposed business deal, "Who affects the deal?" and "Whom does the deal affect?"
* "Wherefore", as in Shakespeare's ''Theatre/RomeoAndJuliet'', does not mean "where", but "why"; "wherefore" is to "therefore" as "what" is to "that". Juliet was not wondering where Romeo was, but rather wondering why the man she loved had to be Romeo, one of her family's hated rivals. (Juliet's whole thing in the balcony scene is a meditation on the meaninglessness of labels.)






* A '''vaccine''' is a weakened form of a disease that trains the body how to fight that disease. As mentioned in MagicAntidote, though, people tend to simply replace it with the word "cure." A weakened form of the disease is ''not'' going to help you if you're undergoing the eleventh hour of the full-blown symptoms. It will just make things worse.
** A therapeutic use of a vaccine is most likely to actually be a '''sero-vaccine''', that is a mix between the '''vaccine''' and a '''serum''' containing antibodies against whatever ails the person being treated.
** Originally, "vaccine" specifically meant the ''smallpox'' vaccine. The ''vacc-'' prefix means "cow". It's derived directly from ''vaccinia'' — the cowpox virus — from which the inoculation was originally derived.
*** As an aside, the first person treated with Pasteur's anti-rabies vaccine very likely already had the rabies, the vaccine enabling him to fight the infection. (This is more of a quirk of rabies than anything, it has a very long incubation period meaning that you can vaccinate after exposure. The vaccine is still not a cure.)

to:

* A '''vaccine''' is a weakened form of a disease that trains the body how to fight that disease. As mentioned in MagicAntidote, though, people tend to simply replace it with the word "cure." A weakened form of the disease is ''not'' going to help you if you're undergoing the eleventh hour of the full-blown symptoms. It will just make things worse.
** A therapeutic use of a vaccine is most likely to actually be a '''sero-vaccine''', that is a mix between the '''vaccine''' and a '''serum''' containing antibodies against whatever ails the person being treated.
** Originally, "vaccine" specifically meant the ''smallpox'' vaccine. The ''vacc-'' prefix means "cow". It's derived directly from ''vaccinia'' — the cowpox virus — from which the inoculation was originally derived.
*** As an aside, the first person treated with Pasteur's anti-rabies vaccine very likely already had the rabies, the vaccine enabling him to fight the infection. (This is more of a quirk of rabies than anything, it has a very long incubation period meaning that you can vaccinate after exposure. The vaccine is still not a cure.)




* People use the word '''vagina''' to describe both a woman's vulva (external genitalia) and vagina (internal genitalia). Even the author of ''The Vagina Monologues''.
** Just to avoid making a false equivalency, "vulva" describes the entire external genitalia of the female, while "vagina" is one element of the internal genitalia (which also include the uterus, ovaries, etc).
*** Explained [[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/may/04/v_is_for/ here]].
** Similarly, people seem to use '''Anus''', '''Rectum''' and '''Colon''' interchangeably, when [[YouFailBiologyForever they are very different parts of the digestive system with very different functions]]. Look 'em up!

to:

* People use the word '''vagina''' to describe both a woman's vulva (external genitalia) and vagina (internal genitalia). Even the author of ''The Vagina Monologues''.
** Just to avoid making a false equivalency, "vulva" describes the entire external genitalia of the female, while "vagina" is one element of the internal genitalia (which also include the uterus, ovaries, etc).
*** Explained [[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/may/04/v_is_for/ here]].
** Similarly, people seem to use '''Anus''', '''Rectum''' and '''Colon''' interchangeably, when [[YouFailBiologyForever they are very different parts of the digestive system with very different functions]]. Look 'em up!




* If you're '''waiting on''' someone, then you're performing the job of a waiter or servant. If you're looking at your watch wondering where the hell they are, you're waiting ''for'' them.
** [[SeparatedByACommonLanguage Dialect difference]]. Like how people from parts of the eastern US--especially New York City--say "on line for tickets" instead of "in line for tickets". Slight differences between preposition use are a common dialect variation, especially in Germanic languages (anyone who took high-school German probably read that word "preposition" and began to weep softly, like a ShellShockedVeteran).
*** Trust me, we Germans aren't happy with English prepositions either.



to:

* If you're '''waiting on''' someone, then you're performing the job of a waiter or servant. If you're looking at your watch wondering where the hell they are, you're waiting ''for'' them.
** [[SeparatedByACommonLanguage Dialect difference]]. Like how people from parts of the eastern US--especially New York City--say "on line for tickets" instead of "in line for tickets". Slight differences between preposition use are a common dialect variation, especially in Germanic languages (anyone who took high-school German probably read that word "preposition" and began to weep softly, like a ShellShockedVeteran).
*** Trust me, we Germans aren't happy with English prepositions either.








* The use of a somewhat archaic word has clouded its meaning, but nibbling on hors d'oeuvres serves to '''whet''' one's appetite, not ''wet'' it. ''Whet'' means "to sharpen," as seen in the term ''whetstone'', a stone used for sharpening knives--if something is sharpening your appetite, it's leaving you hungry for more, not dampening (or ''wetting'') your enthusiasm. So, "whetting your appetite for destruction" would mean starting small as a prelude to becoming more destructive, not sating the urge altogether.

to:

* The use of a somewhat archaic word has clouded its meaning, but nibbling on hors d'oeuvres serves to '''whet''' one's appetite, not ''wet'' it. ''Whet'' means "to sharpen," as seen in the term ''whetstone'', a stone used for sharpening knives--if something is sharpening your appetite, it's leaving you hungry for more, not dampening (or ''wetting'') your enthusiasm. So, "whetting your appetite for destruction" would mean starting small as a prelude to becoming more destructive, not sating the urge altogether.



* In chemistry, '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_%28chemistry%29 Volatile]]''' does ''not'' mean "explosive" or "flammable"[[note]]and certainly not that it [[QuarterLifeHalfwayToDestruction does not have a half-life but quarter life so you must observe with haste]][[/note]], it means how likely the substance is to vaporise. Vapours of a given flammable substance likely ''will'' be even more flammable than say the liquid form, but that's just coincidental. The correct words to describe something which is likely to go boom or ''otherwise react spontaneously'' is either ''unstable'' (for when it is energetically likely) or ''labile'' (when it is kinetically likely); in particular, gasoline and oils are volatile but not particularly unstable, compared to compounds like acetylene.
** In regular English, the other meaning ("quick to anger" or "prone to violence") is perfectly correct, however.


to:

* In chemistry, '''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_%28chemistry%29 Volatile]]''' does ''not'' mean "explosive" or "flammable"[[note]]and certainly not that it [[QuarterLifeHalfwayToDestruction does not have a half-life but quarter life so you must observe with haste]][[/note]], it means how likely the substance is to vaporise. Vapours of a given flammable substance likely ''will'' be even more flammable than say the liquid form, but that's just coincidental. The correct words to describe something which is likely to go boom or ''otherwise react spontaneously'' is either ''unstable'' (for when it is energetically likely) or ''labile'' (when it is kinetically likely); in particular, gasoline and oils are volatile but not particularly unstable, compared to compounds like acetylene.
** In regular English, the other meaning ("quick to anger" or "prone to violence") is perfectly correct, however.





* The generic [[HypocriticalHumor verbing]] of nouns, '''medaling''' to describe ''winning'' a medal, '''actioning''' for ''doing'' something, '''friending''' for ''becoming'' friends. This is an interesting case, as it is becoming increasingly acceptable to "verb" nouns in colloquial speech, and it isn't like these words have any other established uses that would make a distinction worthwhile to defend (being neologisms for the most part).[[note]]Particularly insane denizens of this very wiki would attribute this to the influence of Creator/JossWhedon; they may very well be right, but that's beside the point.[[/note]] As a result, it's difficult to solidly classify any of these verb-to-noun constructions as solecisms (except perhaps ''actioning'', which provides only a clumsy synonym for ''doing'' much as ''utilizing'' is most frequently used as a clumsy synonym for ''using''), but one would be very well-advised to avoid them in more formal writing.

to:

* The generic [[HypocriticalHumor verbing]] of nouns, '''medaling''' to describe ''winning'' a medal, '''actioning''' for ''doing'' something, '''friending''' for ''becoming'' friends. This is an interesting case, as it is becoming increasingly acceptable to "verb" nouns in colloquial speech, and it isn't like these words have any other established uses that would make a distinction worthwhile to defend (being neologisms for the most part).[[note]]Particularly insane denizens of this very wiki would attribute this to the influence of Creator/JossWhedon; they may very well be right, but that's beside the point.[[/note]] As a result, it's difficult to solidly classify any of these verb-to-noun constructions as solecisms (except perhaps ''actioning'', which provides only a clumsy synonym for ''doing'' much as ''utilizing'' is most frequently used as a clumsy synonym for ''using''), but one would be very well-advised to avoid them in more formal writing.



* '''Your''' and '''you're'''. "Your" is a possessive pronoun used to describe something as belonging to the person being addressed, while "you're" is a contraction of "you are". If "you are" would fit instead, then "your" is not the correct word.
** Likewise, '''it's''', and '''its''' have similar misuse. "Its" is a possessive pronoun that's usually used to describe what belongs to the subject in the sentence. "It's" is the contraction of "it is". If "it is" can fit into the sentence, then "its" is not the correct word. Likewise, if there's a sign of the subject having possession in the sentence, then "it's" does not apply. (A good way to make sure it's being used correctly is to speak the phrase as if there's no contraction. For example, "It's red" = "It is red" is correct. "It's walls" = "It is walls" is incorrect, and should be "Its walls".)

to:

* '''Your''' and '''you're'''. "Your" is a possessive pronoun used to describe something as belonging to the person being addressed, while "you're" is a contraction of "you are". If "you are" would fit instead, then "your" is not the correct word.
** Likewise, '''it's''', and '''its''' have similar misuse. "Its" is a possessive pronoun that's usually used to describe what belongs to the subject in the sentence. "It's" is the contraction of "it is". If "it is" can fit into the sentence, then "its" is not the correct word. Likewise, if there's a sign of the subject having possession in the sentence, then "it's" does not apply. (A good way to make sure it's being used correctly is to speak the phrase as if there's no contraction. For example, "It's red" = "It is red" is correct. "It's walls" = "It is walls" is incorrect, and should be "Its walls".)



* Similarly '''Your Mileage Will Vary''' is used as a way of referring to Your Mileage May Vary taken UpToEleven on especially controversial issues that reach a point where [[BrokenBase there is no middle ground]]. Your Mileage May Vary comes from car commercials that say consumers might get a different amount of mileage than is advertised, and on this wiki, means that viewers might not agree with the statement. Using "Your Mileage Will vary" implies unanimous disagreement rather than inevitable controversy.
%% Do not bluelink any of the Your Mileage X phrases.

to:

* Similarly '''Your Mileage Will Vary''' is used as a way of referring to Your Mileage May Vary taken UpToEleven on especially controversial issues that reach a point where [[BrokenBase there is no middle ground]]. Your Mileage May Vary comes from car commercials that say consumers might get a different amount of mileage than is advertised, and on this wiki, means that viewers might not agree with the statement. Using "Your Mileage Will vary" implies unanimous disagreement rather than inevitable controversy.
%% Do not bluelink any of the Your Mileage X phrases.






* '''Vapid''': A word meaning "uninspired", "vacuous", or "bland", that has come to be used heavily by the online community for movies they don't like. Becomes hilarious (or infuriating) when the thing about the movie that turns them off is the exact opposite of being vapid. ie. it is inspired and deep, but goes in a direction the person doesn't care for.


to:

* '''Vapid''': A word meaning "uninspired", "vacuous", or "bland", that has come to be used heavily by the online community for movies they don't like. Becomes hilarious (or infuriating) when the thing about the movie that turns them off is the exact opposite of being vapid. ie. it is inspired and deep, but goes in a direction the person doesn't care for.

29th Sep '17 4:57:28 AM BreadBull
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Ironic''' doesn't (simply) mean "funny", "unexpected", "coincidental" or "cruel." See {{Irony}} for more on the subject, and IsntItIronic for more on the misuse.
** And on a similar note, '''cynicism''' isn't "sarcastic but more". Sarcasm is mocking, cynicism is jaded negativity.
*** And before '''cynicism''' got its current meaning, it was a Greek philosophy which taught that happiness is independence. From as much as possible - pleasures, law, other people...
* '''Impeach''' does not mean to remove someone from office. Impeachment is the process by which an individual is put on trial for unlawful activity. So Congress did not "''try'' to impeach" Bill Clinton, they did. He was not removed from office, though.
** In the legal context, it means to attack someone's credibility. At trial, both lawyers are trying to impeach the other's witnesses and it has nothing to do with elected office.
* '''Irregardless'''. While taken literally it could mean "not regardless", its usage is near-invariably as an erroneous synonym of "regardless." Linguists often refer to this fairly common phenomenon as "overnegation". In a case of ''actual'' irony, this is almost the exclusive purview of [[DelusionsOfEloquence people trying to sound more literate than they are, and achieving the exact opposite]]. In a case of ''further'' irony, you're vastly more likely to encounter this word in a style guide or as part of a joke than you are to ever hear anyone using it naïvely; we're calling out people who "don't know the language" by accusing them of using what was originally a non-word, even in a descriptivist sense. It is so common that the SAT has at least one question per writing section testing it. It is usually under the hardest questions, too. The Brothers Chaps lampooned this in their ''VideoGame/PeasantsQuest'' flash game by using the word "irredisregardless". The funny thing is, despite the word having no precedent, it's a triple negative, so it's technically correct.

to:

* '''Ironic''' doesn't (simply) mean "funny", "unexpected", "coincidental" or "cruel." See {{Irony}} for more on the subject, and IsntItIronic for more on the misuse.
** And on a similar note, '''cynicism''' isn't "sarcastic but more". Sarcasm is mocking, cynicism is jaded negativity.
*** And before '''cynicism''' got its current meaning, it was a Greek philosophy which taught that happiness is independence. From as much as possible - pleasures, law, other people...
* '''Impeach''' does not mean to remove someone from office. Impeachment is the process by which an individual is put on trial for unlawful activity. So Congress did not "''try'' to impeach" Bill Clinton, they did. He was not removed from office, though.
** In the legal context, it means to attack someone's credibility. At trial, both lawyers are trying to impeach the other's witnesses and it has nothing to do with elected office.
* '''Irregardless'''. While taken literally it could mean "not regardless", its usage is near-invariably as an erroneous synonym of "regardless." Linguists often refer to this fairly common phenomenon as "overnegation". In a case of ''actual'' irony, this is almost the exclusive purview of [[DelusionsOfEloquence people trying to sound more literate than they are, and achieving the exact opposite]]. In a case of ''further'' irony, you're vastly more likely to encounter this word in a style guide or as part of a joke than you are to ever hear anyone using it naïvely; we're calling out people who "don't know the language" by accusing them of using what was originally a non-word, even in a descriptivist sense. It is so common that the SAT has at least one question per writing section testing it. It is usually under the hardest questions, too. The Brothers Chaps lampooned this in their ''VideoGame/PeasantsQuest'' flash game by using the word "irredisregardless". The funny thing is, despite the word having no precedent, it's a triple negative, so it's technically correct.












* There is some confusion as to what a '''Justification''' is in the wiki's jargon, due to the everyday use of the term in JustifyingEdit. A JustifiedTrope ''does not'' require a JustifyingEdit. A trope is justified when the in-universe explanation for its use makes sense in context. A JustifyingEdit is just a fan of a work complaining that another editor [[FelonyMisdemeanor dared]] list that work under [[TropesAreNotBad a particular trope page]].

to:

* There is some confusion as to what a '''Justification''' is in the wiki's jargon, due to the everyday use of the term in JustifyingEdit. A JustifiedTrope ''does not'' require a JustifyingEdit. A trope is justified when the in-universe explanation for its use makes sense in context. A JustifyingEdit is just a fan of a work complaining that another editor [[FelonyMisdemeanor dared]] list that work under [[TropesAreNotBad a particular trope page]].











* '''Inflammable''' is not an antonym to '''flammable'''; it's a synonym. The antonym is '''non-flammable'''. (Granted, this is played for comedy more often than it's used seriously...)
** The confusion here is mostly due to the fact that inflammable (derived from "inflame") doesn't come from the typical [in-] negation, it comes from [en-], to give or receive. It makes sense once you consider that the archaic ''enflame'' is similar to enrage and enjoy.
** [[WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons "Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"]]
** [[VideoGame/MassEffect2 "Flammable! Or inflammable, forget which. Doesn't matter!"]]
** '''Creator/GeorgeCarlin''': "Flammable... inflammable... non-inflammable. Why are there three of them? Either it flams or it doesn't!"
** [[VideoGame/KingdomOfLoathing "It tries to set your face on fire, but you're inflammable."]] Wait, that means flammable. You're [[BuffySpeak "un-light-on-fire-able."]]
** Of course, if someone ''did'' successfully light your face on fire, you'd suffer '''inflammation''', which is a physiological response to injury. So you'd be '''inflamed''' as well as inflammable.
* '''Mano a mano''' is a commonly used Spanish and Italian term that translate as "hand to hand"[[note]]like the DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment title, ''Film/ManosTheHandsOfFate''[[/note]], and means "one step at a time". It '''does not''' means "man to man"[[note]]as two man on man kisses were described at the 2009 MTV Movie Awards[[/note]]. This is what is known in linguistics as a false friend. Sincerely saying that you want to settle things "mano a mano" before pulling out a gun is an example.
** Although, technically in some countries people shorten the word "hermano" (brother) to just "mano". So it could also be "brother to brother" ("hermano" or "mano" has been used as an identifier even if the person in question is not a sibling at all.)
** Even worse is when someone says "mano y mano" which is hand and hand, making no sense in relation to fighting, and even less sense when they think they are saying "man and man". [[HoYay Unless...]]
** It is also sometimes confused with English expression 'hand to hand combat' leading to assumption that someone proposing making something 'mano a mano' wants to take it outside and settle the matter with good, old fisticuffs.

to:

* '''Inflammable''' is not an antonym to '''flammable'''; it's a synonym. The antonym is '''non-flammable'''. (Granted, this is played for comedy more often than it's used seriously...)
** The confusion here is mostly due to the fact that inflammable (derived from "inflame") doesn't come from the typical [in-] negation, it comes from [en-], to give or receive. It makes sense once you consider that the archaic ''enflame'' is similar to enrage and enjoy.
** [[WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons "Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"]]
** [[VideoGame/MassEffect2 "Flammable! Or inflammable, forget which. Doesn't matter!"]]
** '''Creator/GeorgeCarlin''': "Flammable... inflammable... non-inflammable. Why are there three of them? Either it flams or it doesn't!"
** [[VideoGame/KingdomOfLoathing "It tries to set your face on fire, but you're inflammable."]] Wait, that means flammable. You're [[BuffySpeak "un-light-on-fire-able."]]
** Of course, if someone ''did'' successfully light your face on fire, you'd suffer '''inflammation''', which is a physiological response to injury. So you'd be '''inflamed''' as well as inflammable.
* '''Mano a mano''' is a commonly used Spanish and Italian term that translate as "hand to hand"[[note]]like the DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment title, ''Film/ManosTheHandsOfFate''[[/note]], and means "one step at a time". It '''does not''' means "man to man"[[note]]as two man on man kisses were described at the 2009 MTV Movie Awards[[/note]]. This is what is known in linguistics as a false friend. Sincerely saying that you want to settle things "mano a mano" before pulling out a gun is an example.
** Although, technically in some countries people shorten the word "hermano" (brother) to just "mano". So it could also be "brother to brother" ("hermano" or "mano" has been used as an identifier even if the person in question is not a sibling at all.)
** Even worse is when someone says "mano y mano" which is hand and hand, making no sense in relation to fighting, and even less sense when they think they are saying "man and man". [[HoYay Unless...]]
** It is also sometimes confused with English expression 'hand to hand combat' leading to assumption that someone proposing making something 'mano a mano' wants to take it outside and settle the matter with good, old fisticuffs.




* People have been told not to say "Me and Joe went to the park", but "Joe and I ...". For too many, this has morphed to a general anxiety around the word "me", so they always use '''and I'''. This is a mistake. "He saw Joe and I" is wrong (it should be "Joe and ''me''").
** "I" is when you are the subject, and "me" is when you're an object. This does not change if you are accompanied by someone else.
** First person singular pronouns always go after anything else when multiple subjects or objects are involved, so "I and ..." is never correct. (This is courtesy, not grammar.)
** If you have trouble knowing whether or not to say "I" or "me", take out the other person/thing/whatever and see if the sentence still makes sense. ("Joe and I went to the park" changes to "I went to the park", not "Me went to the park")
** This is only the case in formal English, however. In discourse, almost all speakers will accept "Me and Joe went to the park" as an informal but grammatical variant. "Me and Joe" is somewhat more common than "Joe and me", an interesting inversion of the above "first person last" rule.
** Similarly, "He saw Joe and I" is used consistently by some speakers of e.g. Northern Californian English. This is probably hypercorrection in avoiding "me" entirely, as noted above, which has been adopted into the dialect.
* People who have been told that ''and I'' is not a panacea will often abuse the word '''myself'''. This is a mistake as well. Myself is ''reflexive'' -- when you're both the subject and the object. "I wet myself", "I touch myself" and "I cut myself" are all okay (grammatically, that is). "Please send the memo to Joe and myself" is wrong. You mean "... to Joe and me."
** Settling this and the above immediate point of grammatical confusion: In all cases where you list any series of individuals, ending with "and I/me", the way you settle the "I vs. me" is to eliminate everyone else from the list and isolate the "I/me". For instance, "Joseph, Victoria, and I went to the amusement park and rode the Thunderstrike," is correct because "I went to the amusement park..." would also be correct. Similarly, "Grandma Robinson regularly sent Joseph, Victoria, and me $5 checks on our birthdays," is also correct because "Grandma Robinson regularly sent me..." would also be correct.
*** There's some evidence "and myself" may be an Irish influence—Irish Gaelic (actually all the Celtic languages) has special emphatic pronouns, and Irish English often uses reflexives in a similar way (expanding on [[ShapedLikeItself English English]] constructions like "he himself didn't know what he wanted" or "you yourself should do it"). A related construction, also probably from Irish English, is referring to someone (self-)important as "himself" or "herself", e.g. "[[VideoGame/TheElderScrollsVSkyrim I guess Herself is finally getting worried about all the dragon attacks.]]"

to:

* People have been told not to say "Me and Joe went to the park", but "Joe and I ...". For too many, this has morphed to a general anxiety around the word "me", so they always use '''and I'''. This is a mistake. "He saw Joe and I" is wrong (it should be "Joe and ''me''").
** "I" is when you are the subject, and "me" is when you're an object. This does not change if you are accompanied by someone else.
** First person singular pronouns always go after anything else when multiple subjects or objects are involved, so "I and ..." is never correct. (This is courtesy, not grammar.)
** If you have trouble knowing whether or not to say "I" or "me", take out the other person/thing/whatever and see if the sentence still makes sense. ("Joe and I went to the park" changes to "I went to the park", not "Me went to the park")
** This is only the case in formal English, however. In discourse, almost all speakers will accept "Me and Joe went to the park" as an informal but grammatical variant. "Me and Joe" is somewhat more common than "Joe and me", an interesting inversion of the above "first person last" rule.
** Similarly, "He saw Joe and I" is used consistently by some speakers of e.g. Northern Californian English. This is probably hypercorrection in avoiding "me" entirely, as noted above, which has been adopted into the dialect.
* People who have been told that ''and I'' is not a panacea will often abuse the word '''myself'''. This is a mistake as well. Myself is ''reflexive'' -- when you're both the subject and the object. "I wet myself", "I touch myself" and "I cut myself" are all okay (grammatically, that is). "Please send the memo to Joe and myself" is wrong. You mean "... to Joe and me."
** Settling this and the above immediate point of grammatical confusion: In all cases where you list any series of individuals, ending with "and I/me", the way you settle the "I vs. me" is to eliminate everyone else from the list and isolate the "I/me". For instance, "Joseph, Victoria, and I went to the amusement park and rode the Thunderstrike," is correct because "I went to the amusement park..." would also be correct. Similarly, "Grandma Robinson regularly sent Joseph, Victoria, and me $5 checks on our birthdays," is also correct because "Grandma Robinson regularly sent me..." would also be correct.
*** There's some evidence "and myself" may be an Irish influence—Irish Gaelic (actually all the Celtic languages) has special emphatic pronouns, and Irish English often uses reflexives in a similar way (expanding on [[ShapedLikeItself English English]] constructions like "he himself didn't know what he wanted" or "you yourself should do it"). A related construction, also probably from Irish English, is referring to someone (self-)important as "himself" or "herself", e.g. "[[VideoGame/TheElderScrollsVSkyrim I guess Herself is finally getting worried about all the dragon attacks.]]"








* '''Nonplussed''' does not mean "aloof" or "unimpressed". It means "bewildered".

to:

* '''Nonplussed''' does not mean "aloof" or "unimpressed". It means "bewildered".







* In {{Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game}}s, people often say, "Spell X has been '''casted'''" or "I have casted spell X". There is no word "casted". The word "cast" covers both present and past tenses. So both, "I will cast spell X on the monster" and "I have cast spell X on the monster" are the correct forms. The same conjugation is also used regardless of the specific thing or person being cast: Some sculptures are cast, actors are cast in movies.

to:

* In {{Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game}}s, people often say, "Spell X has been '''casted'''" or "I have casted spell X". There is no word "casted". The word "cast" covers both present and past tenses. So both, "I will cast spell X on the monster" and "I have cast spell X on the monster" are the correct forms. The same conjugation is also used regardless of the specific thing or person being cast: Some sculptures are cast, actors are cast in movies.




* '''Inbreeding''' means [[KissingCousins breeding among]] [[BrotherSisterIncest closely related]] [[ParentalIncest individuals]]. Not breeding with members of another group or anything else. The confusion likely comes from the similar-sounding word "interbreeding." But ''in'' or ''intra'' refers to the inside and ''inter'' refers to the outside. [[note]]Other-word example: business between Los Angeles (in California) and Las Vegas (in Nevada) (e.g. an Angelino sells his 1964 Impala to someone in Vegas) is "interstate trade" or "interstate commerce". Business between Los Angeles and San Francisco (also in California) (same Angelino sells same car, but to someone in SF) is "intrastate trade" or "intrastate commerce".[[/note]] By the same token, '''interbreeding''' should not be used to mean marrying your sister.
* '''Interstellar''' means traveling between stars. Earth to Alpha Centauri is interstellar; Earth to Mars is interplanetary (and for heaven's sake not ''intergalactic''). ''Intrastellar'' travel would be travel within a star; ''transstellar'' would be across one; do not try either of these without serious heat shields or cooling tech unless you want to get fried to a crisp[[note]]You'll also get crushed; the sun masses c. 2 nonillion tons and averages half again as dense as water.[[/note]]. If you absolutely want to keep the ''stellar'' root for some reason, you might want to try ''circumstellar'' or ''parastellar'' on for size.
* To '''infer''' and to '''imply''' are different things. Person A may infer that Person B is stupid from the latter's misuse of words. Person A may then imply Person B's stupidity through witticism. Person B's inevitably incorrect response will be "Are you inferring that I'm stupid?" Person B is, in fact, inferring that Person A is implying that Person B is stupid, and they're right.
** The difference has been lampshaded by [[WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons Lisa Simpson]] and [[Series/LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit John Munch]]: "You infer. I imply."
** As annoying as this can be for anyone with an interest in logic or literature, the use of infer to mean "suggest" is in fact ''very'' old; John Dryden is just the most famous writer to have used it that way. The difference between "infer" and "imply" is very useful, but it's actually wishful thinking to claim that the words have always meant different things.
** {{Lampshaded}} and PlayedWith in ''Series/TheDresdenFiles'' TV series:
-->'''Harry''': [[OurDragonsAreDifferent These drakes]], right, they can change shape? They're magical, immortal and all that. But you can change your appearance and you're magical and [stutters] you've been around a long, long time.
-->'''Ancient Mai''': Are you inferring something?
-->'''Harry''': Technically, I'm implying. You're inferring.
-->'''Mai''': Well, it's dangerous either way.
-->'''Harry''': You didn't answer my question.
-->'''Mai''': You didn't ask one. Which, at least, shows some common sense.
** {{Lampshaded}} in ''Series/TheThickOfIt'' Series Two, Episode Three:
-->'''Hugh''': Just tell me, truthfully, did you send that email?
-->'''Terri''': No I didn't... and [[IKnowYouKnowIKnow you know I didn't.]]
-->'''Hugh''': Sorry, are you inferring...?
-->'''Terri''': Implying.
-->'''Hugh''': You're implying that... it was me?
** One of Adam Warren's ''ComicBook/DirtyPair'' short stories has this as its main plot.
** This mistake is one of the [[MinorFlawMajorBreakup minor flaws]] that bother Music/WeirdAlYankovic so much in "Close But No Cigar".
* A '''light-year''' is a measure of distance: the distance light travels in a year. Many writers have [[UnitConfusion made the mistake]] of using the term to describe a very long period of time. This is the one mistake ''guaranteed'' to infuriate pedants.
** In ''VideoGame/PokemonRedAndBlue'', the only trainer in the first Gym remarks, "You're light years away from beating Brock!" but then admits "Light years isn't time! It measures distance!" when beaten.
** Of course, often what a pedant interprets as literal but incorrect time could also be figurative and correct distance; a SufficientlyAdvancedAlien might well be light-years more advanced than us if you take it to be a metaphor using distance in place of quantity of technical and scientific knowledge.
*** In fact the construction "light-years ahead" is parallel to "miles ahead". Some pedants need to actually pay attention to the language they're using.
*** Literally, "to advance" is "to move forward", so if we define forward to be the direction of the alien planet, then it is most mechanically literal to interpret that as true, even if the aliens are using rocks. To interpret "advanced" as meaning the aliens have more sophisticated technology and comprehensive scientific knowledge is itself a figurative use of language.
** Of course, it's possible to get this both right [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/stars-far-away and wrong at the same time]].

to:

* '''Inbreeding''' means [[KissingCousins breeding among]] [[BrotherSisterIncest closely related]] [[ParentalIncest individuals]]. Not breeding with members of another group or anything else. The confusion likely comes from the similar-sounding word "interbreeding." But ''in'' or ''intra'' refers to the inside and ''inter'' refers to the outside. [[note]]Other-word example: business between Los Angeles (in California) and Las Vegas (in Nevada) (e.g. an Angelino sells his 1964 Impala to someone in Vegas) is "interstate trade" or "interstate commerce". Business between Los Angeles and San Francisco (also in California) (same Angelino sells same car, but to someone in SF) is "intrastate trade" or "intrastate commerce".[[/note]] By the same token, '''interbreeding''' should not be used to mean marrying your sister.
* '''Interstellar''' means traveling between stars. Earth to Alpha Centauri is interstellar; Earth to Mars is interplanetary (and for heaven's sake not ''intergalactic''). ''Intrastellar'' travel would be travel within a star; ''transstellar'' would be across one; do not try either of these without serious heat shields or cooling tech unless you want to get fried to a crisp[[note]]You'll also get crushed; the sun masses c. 2 nonillion tons and averages half again as dense as water.[[/note]]. If you absolutely want to keep the ''stellar'' root for some reason, you might want to try ''circumstellar'' or ''parastellar'' on for size.
* To '''infer''' and to '''imply''' are different things. Person A may infer that Person B is stupid from the latter's misuse of words. Person A may then imply Person B's stupidity through witticism. Person B's inevitably incorrect response will be "Are you inferring that I'm stupid?" Person B is, in fact, inferring that Person A is implying that Person B is stupid, and they're right.
** The difference has been lampshaded by [[WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons Lisa Simpson]] and [[Series/LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit John Munch]]: "You infer. I imply."
** As annoying as this can be for anyone with an interest in logic or literature, the use of infer to mean "suggest" is in fact ''very'' old; John Dryden is just the most famous writer to have used it that way. The difference between "infer" and "imply" is very useful, but it's actually wishful thinking to claim that the words have always meant different things.
** {{Lampshaded}} and PlayedWith in ''Series/TheDresdenFiles'' TV series:
-->'''Harry''': [[OurDragonsAreDifferent These drakes]], right, they can change shape? They're magical, immortal and all that. But you can change your appearance and you're magical and [stutters] you've been around a long, long time.
-->'''Ancient Mai''': Are you inferring something?
-->'''Harry''': Technically, I'm implying. You're inferring.
-->'''Mai''': Well, it's dangerous either way.
-->'''Harry''': You didn't answer my question.
-->'''Mai''': You didn't ask one. Which, at least, shows some common sense.
** {{Lampshaded}} in ''Series/TheThickOfIt'' Series Two, Episode Three:
-->'''Hugh''': Just tell me, truthfully, did you send that email?
-->'''Terri''': No I didn't... and [[IKnowYouKnowIKnow you know I didn't.]]
-->'''Hugh''': Sorry, are you inferring...?
-->'''Terri''': Implying.
-->'''Hugh''': You're implying that... it was me?
** One of Adam Warren's ''ComicBook/DirtyPair'' short stories has this as its main plot.
** This mistake is one of the [[MinorFlawMajorBreakup minor flaws]] that bother Music/WeirdAlYankovic so much in "Close But No Cigar".
* A '''light-year''' is a measure of distance: the distance light travels in a year. Many writers have [[UnitConfusion made the mistake]] of using the term to describe a very long period of time. This is the one mistake ''guaranteed'' to infuriate pedants.
** In ''VideoGame/PokemonRedAndBlue'', the only trainer in the first Gym remarks, "You're light years away from beating Brock!" but then admits "Light years isn't time! It measures distance!" when beaten.
** Of course, often what a pedant interprets as literal but incorrect time could also be figurative and correct distance; a SufficientlyAdvancedAlien might well be light-years more advanced than us if you take it to be a metaphor using distance in place of quantity of technical and scientific knowledge.
*** In fact the construction "light-years ahead" is parallel to "miles ahead". Some pedants need to actually pay attention to the language they're using.
*** Literally, "to advance" is "to move forward", so if we define forward to be the direction of the alien planet, then it is most mechanically literal to interpret that as true, even if the aliens are using rocks. To interpret "advanced" as meaning the aliens have more sophisticated technology and comprehensive scientific knowledge is itself a figurative use of language.
** Of course, it's possible to get this both right [[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/stars-far-away and wrong at the same time]].











* '''Infamous''' is frequently used to mean "very famous," which is far from correct. While it is not the opposite of fame (that would be obscurity), it actually means "having a very bad reputation", as in "the infamous UsefulNotes/JackTheRipper." Don't make the mistake that the Film/ThreeAmigos did when you're asked to meet someone infamous.
** Confusion may also arise from: 1) Deliberately-ambiguous sarcastic use and/or 2) the Jerry Springer effect, i.e. "I want my 15 minutes no matter what I have to do to get it".
** As described above, '''Infamous''' is not an antonym of ''famous''. Just wanted to clear it out: if something is ''infamous'', it actually ''has'' to have at least some (evil) fame.
** It is interesting, because original meaning of this word, now mostly forgotten, meant something different. Infamy was a form of punishment technically stripping the convicted of any legal protection, in other words, [[{{Outlaw}} outlawry]] (in the feudal world 'no fame' meant 'no one heard of him and no one will defend him'). Of course, the infamous had nothing left to lose, so they often were getting infamous in modern sense of this word.

to:

* '''Infamous''' is frequently used to mean "very famous," which is far from correct. While it is not the opposite of fame (that would be obscurity), it actually means "having a very bad reputation", as in "the infamous UsefulNotes/JackTheRipper." Don't make the mistake that the Film/ThreeAmigos did when you're asked to meet someone infamous.
** Confusion may also arise from: 1) Deliberately-ambiguous sarcastic use and/or 2) the Jerry Springer effect, i.e. "I want my 15 minutes no matter what I have to do to get it".
** As described above, '''Infamous''' is not an antonym of ''famous''. Just wanted to clear it out: if something is ''infamous'', it actually ''has'' to have at least some (evil) fame.
** It is interesting, because original meaning of this word, now mostly forgotten, meant something different. Infamy was a form of punishment technically stripping the convicted of any legal protection, in other words, [[{{Outlaw}} outlawry]] (in the feudal world 'no fame' meant 'no one heard of him and no one will defend him'). Of course, the infamous had nothing left to lose, so they often were getting infamous in modern sense of this word.



* '''Good''' vs '''Well'''. Good is an adjective. Well is an adverb. You look good, because good is describing you. You see well, because well is describing how you see. (You can look well, but in that cause 'well' is being used as measure of health, i.e. the opposite of 'You look ill'.)
** You can also correctly use 'look well' for 'look carefully', or 'look skillfully'. Similarly, the above could correctly describe a product that as part of its function interprets visual data. (A robot or something; if it's solely a camera, then its working is synonymous with its looking, and so it's still incorrect.)
** In [[{{Thirty Rock}} 30 Rock]], Tracy Jordan even corrected the resident Harvard grad in the first episode: "No, Superman does good. You do well."
* Some people, including many English teachers, insist that the statement '''I feel bad''' is only correct if it is used to mean that the speaker's sense of touch is functioning improperly, and the proper way to express that one is suffering is to say "I feel badly." This is totally incorrect, and in fact, the reverse is true: in the first case, "bad" is a predicate adjective modifying "I" and linked to it by the linking verb "feel," whereas in the second case, "badly" is an adverb modifying the action verb "feel," and describes how one's sense of touch is functioning. Likewise, the statement "I feel good" is a completely correct response to the question "How are you?", since "good" is, again, a predicate adjective modifying "I"; pedants who insist that one say "I feel well" are incorrect, although that statement is also grammatically correct.
** As a rule, "feel" (in the sense of feeling a certain way), "look" (in the sense of looking a certain way, not looking ''at'' something), "sound", "smell", "taste" and all forms of "to be" ''do not take adverbs'', for the reasons given above.
** Like "no split infinitives," this is another example of a Latin rule being shoehorned into English. In Latin and Romance languages, "good" and "bad" are defining characteristics, akin to "saintly" and "evil" - to say that one is feeling evil today is a far cry from being tired. Instead, "I feel well" or "I feel unwell" (or a more specific feeling) are the typical answers in those languages. In English those words do dual duty as vague placeholders and as strong characteristics.
** This is possibly the best single example on the page that exemplifies the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing natural language problem]], as well as why SesquipedalianLoquaciousness is sometimes quite justified. (i.e. "I feel bad." becoming "I feel less healthful." or "My epidermis is less sensate.") It's also how someone that WillNotTellALie can also be a ConsummateLiar through clever use of near synonyms, logical misdirection, etc.
* '''Literally''' is often used as a generic intensifier, a "smarter-sounding" substitute for "extremely" or similar. The irony is that the usage is most often figurative, when it ''actually'' means "not figuratively." Example of misuse: "It was literally a slaughter!" in reference to a sporting event, assuming said sport isn't a BloodSport. See LiteralMetaphor.[[note]]'''Really''' suffers from a similar problem; the cycle of words becoming meaningless intensifiers is ancient: "Very" comes from "verily", which means "truthfully."[[/note]] Then there are the people who correct this by saying "You mean 'figuratively'," as in [[http://xkcd.com/725/ this]] ''Webcomic/{{xkcd}}''. That's only sort of right, as inserting that word into the sentence wouldn't achieve the desired effect; what they really mean to say is an ''actual'' intensifier like "extremely," and even that is probably redundant.[[note]]Incidentally, this isn't the first time a word has shifted from meaning "not figuratively" to being used as an intensifier. "Very" (from "verily") and "really" also have their roots in words meant to distinguish factual truth from exaggeration. Perhaps in time the original meaning of "literally" will have also become so diluted by being used for emphasis that we'll have to come up with another word to take its place.[[/note]]

to:

* '''Good''' vs '''Well'''. Good is an adjective. Well is an adverb. You look good, because good is describing you. You see well, because well is describing how you see. (You can look well, but in that cause 'well' is being used as measure of health, i.e. the opposite of 'You look ill'.)
** You can also correctly use 'look well' for 'look carefully', or 'look skillfully'. Similarly, the above could correctly describe a product that as part of its function interprets visual data. (A robot or something; if it's solely a camera, then its working is synonymous with its looking, and so it's still incorrect.)
** In [[{{Thirty Rock}} 30 Rock]], Tracy Jordan even corrected the resident Harvard grad in the first episode: "No, Superman does good. You do well."
* Some people, including many English teachers, insist that the statement '''I feel bad''' is only correct if it is used to mean that the speaker's sense of touch is functioning improperly, and the proper way to express that one is suffering is to say "I feel badly." This is totally incorrect, and in fact, the reverse is true: in the first case, "bad" is a predicate adjective modifying "I" and linked to it by the linking verb "feel," whereas in the second case, "badly" is an adverb modifying the action verb "feel," and describes how one's sense of touch is functioning. Likewise, the statement "I feel good" is a completely correct response to the question "How are you?", since "good" is, again, a predicate adjective modifying "I"; pedants who insist that one say "I feel well" are incorrect, although that statement is also grammatically correct.
** As a rule, "feel" (in the sense of feeling a certain way), "look" (in the sense of looking a certain way, not looking ''at'' something), "sound", "smell", "taste" and all forms of "to be" ''do not take adverbs'', for the reasons given above.
** Like "no split infinitives," this is another example of a Latin rule being shoehorned into English. In Latin and Romance languages, "good" and "bad" are defining characteristics, akin to "saintly" and "evil" - to say that one is feeling evil today is a far cry from being tired. Instead, "I feel well" or "I feel unwell" (or a more specific feeling) are the typical answers in those languages. In English those words do dual duty as vague placeholders and as strong characteristics.
** This is possibly the best single example on the page that exemplifies the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing natural language problem]], as well as why SesquipedalianLoquaciousness is sometimes quite justified. (i.e. "I feel bad." becoming "I feel less healthful." or "My epidermis is less sensate.") It's also how someone that WillNotTellALie can also be a ConsummateLiar through clever use of near synonyms, logical misdirection, etc.
* '''Literally''' is often used as a generic intensifier, a "smarter-sounding" substitute for "extremely" or similar. The irony is that the usage is most often figurative, when it ''actually'' means "not figuratively." Example of misuse: "It was literally a slaughter!" in reference to a sporting event, assuming said sport isn't a BloodSport. See LiteralMetaphor.[[note]]'''Really''' suffers from a similar problem; the cycle of words becoming meaningless intensifiers is ancient: "Very" comes from "verily", which means "truthfully."[[/note]] Then there are the people who correct this by saying "You mean 'figuratively'," as in [[http://xkcd.com/725/ this]] ''Webcomic/{{xkcd}}''. That's only sort of right, as inserting that word into the sentence wouldn't achieve the desired effect; what they really mean to say is an ''actual'' intensifier like "extremely," and even that is probably redundant.[[note]]Incidentally, this isn't the first time a word has shifted from meaning "not figuratively" to being used as an intensifier. "Very" (from "verily") and "really" also have their roots in words meant to distinguish factual truth from exaggeration. Perhaps in time the original meaning of "literally" will have also become so diluted by being used for emphasis that we'll have to come up with another word to take its place.[[/note]]










* '''Incredulous''' means "not believing," not "incredible." If someone sees something incredible, then they can be incredulous.
** It helps to think of it this way: the base of the two words is 'credible' (meaning 'can be believed') and the negation prefix 'in'. If something is 'incredible', it is not believable, or unbelievable (similar to 'fantastical'. If you are being 'incredulous', you are being the opposite of credulous (which means 'easily believing'), not treating something with credulity, or you don't believe it.
** In ''Film/TheAccidentalTourist'', it's pointed out that '''lacking credence''' is the proper use of the word.

to:

* '''Incredulous''' means "not believing," not "incredible." If someone sees something incredible, then they can be incredulous.
** It helps to think of it this way: the base of the two words is 'credible' (meaning 'can be believed') and the negation prefix 'in'. If something is 'incredible', it is not believable, or unbelievable (similar to 'fantastical'. If you are being 'incredulous', you are being the opposite of credulous (which means 'easily believing'), not treating something with credulity, or you don't believe it.
** In ''Film/TheAccidentalTourist'', it's pointed out that '''lacking credence''' is the proper use of the word.



* '''"I could care less"''' is ''wrong''. The phrase you're looking for is '''"I couldn't care less"'''; by using the wrong phrase, you're saying that you ''do'' care. This one is distressingly common, to the point that people even try to defend the use of "could care less" or insist that it's a standard or alternate use in their particular regions.

to:

* '''"I could care less"''' is ''wrong''. The phrase you're looking for is '''"I couldn't care less"'''; by using the wrong phrase, you're saying that you ''do'' care. This one is distressingly common, to the point that people even try to defend the use of "could care less" or insist that it's a standard or alternate use in their particular regions.




* '''Immoral''' is knowing it's wrong and doing it anyway; '''amoral''' is, generally, not having a sense of right or wrong in the first place. Gravity and a large rock are amoral; my dropping a large rock on your head to kill you is immoral (unless, perhaps, I'm mentally disturbed in such a way that I'm incapable of making moral judgments). Furthermore, '''nonmoral''' deals with things that are not a question of morality, such as the choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. [[note]] Although it should be noted that [[FelonyMisdemeanor choosing vanilla over chocolate is a sign of pure, unmitigated evil.]] [[/note]]
* '''Non-zero-sum''' does not mean "win-win" or "opportunity to cooperate." It refers to some valuable resources (money, time, oil, wood, etc.) being permanently lost or gained during the event. A zero-sum game merely means that everything the participants begin with is redistributed. Non-zero-sum games can easily be lose-lose instead of win-win, and, while the Prisoner's Dilemma and a few other well-known non-zero-sum games are cooperative, others, such as the dollar auction, are normally non-cooperative.
** Whether something is win-win vs. lose-lose or cooperative vs non-cooperative is usually a function of the players' choices, not of the game itself. If the players in a dollar auction agree beforehand that only one person will bid, and that the profits will be shared equally, that is a cooperative/win-win strategy. Some games can be structured to always be lose-lose, but aren't as interesting to study.
*** If by "win" one means "end with more than one started" and by "lose" one means "end with less than one started", it is also ''not'' a requirement that someone ''must'' win and someone ''must'' lose in a zero-sum game; if everyone ends with ''exactly'' as much as each one respectively had at the start, it is still a zero-sum game.
** Also, usually game theorists do not use "zero sum game" but "constant sum game". That's partly for ease of mathematics behind it, but it also can mean that all players lose or win if compared to the status quo before the game. It is just that each win of one side is countered by a loss of equal amount on the other side (and let's not start about more-than-two-player games). Also in many to most games meta gaming (e.g. side payments outside of the game itself to counter asymmetric payouts in a win-win situation) is not considered, thus not every non-zero-sum means opportunity to collaborate.

to:

* '''Immoral''' is knowing it's wrong and doing it anyway; '''amoral''' is, generally, not having a sense of right or wrong in the first place. Gravity and a large rock are amoral; my dropping a large rock on your head to kill you is immoral (unless, perhaps, I'm mentally disturbed in such a way that I'm incapable of making moral judgments). Furthermore, '''nonmoral''' deals with things that are not a question of morality, such as the choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. [[note]] Although it should be noted that [[FelonyMisdemeanor choosing vanilla over chocolate is a sign of pure, unmitigated evil.]] [[/note]]
* '''Non-zero-sum''' does not mean "win-win" or "opportunity to cooperate." It refers to some valuable resources (money, time, oil, wood, etc.) being permanently lost or gained during the event. A zero-sum game merely means that everything the participants begin with is redistributed. Non-zero-sum games can easily be lose-lose instead of win-win, and, while the Prisoner's Dilemma and a few other well-known non-zero-sum games are cooperative, others, such as the dollar auction, are normally non-cooperative.
** Whether something is win-win vs. lose-lose or cooperative vs non-cooperative is usually a function of the players' choices, not of the game itself. If the players in a dollar auction agree beforehand that only one person will bid, and that the profits will be shared equally, that is a cooperative/win-win strategy. Some games can be structured to always be lose-lose, but aren't as interesting to study.
*** If by "win" one means "end with more than one started" and by "lose" one means "end with less than one started", it is also ''not'' a requirement that someone ''must'' win and someone ''must'' lose in a zero-sum game; if everyone ends with ''exactly'' as much as each one respectively had at the start, it is still a zero-sum game.
** Also, usually game theorists do not use "zero sum game" but "constant sum game". That's partly for ease of mathematics behind it, but it also can mean that all players lose or win if compared to the status quo before the game. It is just that each win of one side is countered by a loss of equal amount on the other side (and let's not start about more-than-two-player games). Also in many to most games meta gaming (e.g. side payments outside of the game itself to counter asymmetric payouts in a win-win situation) is not considered, thus not every non-zero-sum means opportunity to collaborate.




* '''Née''' means "born". It does ''not'' mean "formerly known as" or "otherwise known as" or even "maiden name" except in the context that a woman's maiden name is generally her birth name. If a woman is born as Mary Smith, marries and changes her name to Mary Robinson, then divorces, remarries, and changes her name to Mary Jones, it would be correct to say "Mary Jones, née Smith"; it would ''not'' be correct to say "Mary Jones, née Robinson."
** Secondly, "née" is feminine. If a man changes his name, it's '''né''' (e.g. "Malcolm X, né Little").
** For transsexuals, as a general rule of thumb, you use the gender-specific words of the gender they identify as, rather than their genotype, if you are trying to be polite to them. So for example if you know a [=FtM=], it is "He" "Him" "né" etc.
* Similarly, French-derived adjectives should retain their French masculine-feminine endings. A woman with flaxen hair is '''blonde''', but a man is '''blond'''. More obscurely, and only in English, a man with dark hair is not a '''brunette''' but a '''brunet'''. It would all be pronounced the same in English, though, where articles don't have gender.
** In French, "brunette" carries the literal meaning of "little brown-/black-haired girl." A woman who is dark-haired is "brune", and a dark-haired man is "brun". The nouns, "une brune" and "un brun" can also be used, especially with adjectives ("une jolie[[note]]pretty[[/note]] brune"/"un beau[[note]]handsome[[/note]] brun"). "Blondinette" (blond-haired girl) is an endearment. There is no male equivalent for "brunette".
** Also, when one is engaged to be married, the proper word depends on the person's gender: a man is a '''fiancé''', whereas a woman is a '''fiancée'''. As with other French-derived terms, they may be pronounced exactly the same, but their gender matters.
** Another place where people often drop the gender declension in English is for words like aviator. Saying "female aviator" is incorrect, the term is "aviatrix."[[note]]Though it's perhaps better, if the pilot's genitalia aren't relevant, to stick with "pilot".[[/note]] Same with "male dominatrix." It's just "dominator."

to:

* '''Née''' means "born". It does ''not'' mean "formerly known as" or "otherwise known as" or even "maiden name" except in the context that a woman's maiden name is generally her birth name. If a woman is born as Mary Smith, marries and changes her name to Mary Robinson, then divorces, remarries, and changes her name to Mary Jones, it would be correct to say "Mary Jones, née Smith"; it would ''not'' be correct to say "Mary Jones, née Robinson."
** Secondly, "née" is feminine. If a man changes his name, it's '''né''' (e.g. "Malcolm X, né Little").
** For transsexuals, as a general rule of thumb, you use the gender-specific words of the gender they identify as, rather than their genotype, if you are trying to be polite to them. So for example if you know a [=FtM=], it is "He" "Him" "né" etc.
* Similarly, French-derived adjectives should retain their French masculine-feminine endings. A woman with flaxen hair is '''blonde''', but a man is '''blond'''. More obscurely, and only in English, a man with dark hair is not a '''brunette''' but a '''brunet'''. It would all be pronounced the same in English, though, where articles don't have gender.
** In French, "brunette" carries the literal meaning of "little brown-/black-haired girl." A woman who is dark-haired is "brune", and a dark-haired man is "brun". The nouns, "une brune" and "un brun" can also be used, especially with adjectives ("une jolie[[note]]pretty[[/note]] brune"/"un beau[[note]]handsome[[/note]] brun"). "Blondinette" (blond-haired girl) is an endearment. There is no male equivalent for "brunette".
** Also, when one is engaged to be married, the proper word depends on the person's gender: a man is a '''fiancé''', whereas a woman is a '''fiancée'''. As with other French-derived terms, they may be pronounced exactly the same, but their gender matters.
** Another place where people often drop the gender declension in English is for words like aviator. Saying "female aviator" is incorrect, the term is "aviatrix."[[note]]Though it's perhaps better, if the pilot's genitalia aren't relevant, to stick with "pilot".[[/note]] Same with "male dominatrix." It's just "dominator."




* A '''narcotic''' is any sedative defined as drug with morphine-like effects (to quote Wiki/TheOtherWiki). Most people use it as an umbrella term to include all illicit drugs.
** The term was corrupted as soon as the ''stimulant'' cocaine was classified as a narcotic in US federal law (the original Harrison Narcotics Act was written to deal with opium trafficking), so for legal purposes it is - despite being a stimulant.
* '''Argumentum ad hominem''' is (to quote Wiki/TheOtherWiki) [[YouFailLogicForever "an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."]] It's not just a fancy word for a personal attack. "You suck, therefore your argument is false" is ''ad hominem''. "You suck" on its own isn't, neither is "your argument is false, therefore you suck,"[[note]]which, thanks to how implication works, means that the person could still suck even if their argument is true[[/note]] nor is "Your argument is false and you suck." It's certainly rude, but not fallacious.
** In many cases, the "therefore your argument is false" part is left implied. The intent is still to discredit the advocate rather than (probably more difficult) rebuttal of the premise; that the link is not explicitly stated doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ad hominem - if the attack is trying to bring down the premise, it is. If the person being attacked is not advocating anything, though (or if anything they might be advocating has nothing to do with the attack), it isn't ad hominem - just a personal attack.

to:

* A '''narcotic''' is any sedative defined as drug with morphine-like effects (to quote Wiki/TheOtherWiki). Most people use it as an umbrella term to include all illicit drugs.
** The term was corrupted as soon as the ''stimulant'' cocaine was classified as a narcotic in US federal law (the original Harrison Narcotics Act was written to deal with opium trafficking), so for legal purposes it is - despite being a stimulant.
* '''Argumentum ad hominem''' is (to quote Wiki/TheOtherWiki) [[YouFailLogicForever "an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."]] It's not just a fancy word for a personal attack. "You suck, therefore your argument is false" is ''ad hominem''. "You suck" on its own isn't, neither is "your argument is false, therefore you suck,"[[note]]which, thanks to how implication works, means that the person could still suck even if their argument is true[[/note]] nor is "Your argument is false and you suck." It's certainly rude, but not fallacious.
** In many cases, the "therefore your argument is false" part is left implied. The intent is still to discredit the advocate rather than (probably more difficult) rebuttal of the premise; that the link is not explicitly stated doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ad hominem - if the attack is trying to bring down the premise, it is. If the person being attacked is not advocating anything, though (or if anything they might be advocating has nothing to do with the attack), it isn't ad hominem - just a personal attack.





* '''Antisocial''': Sometimes used to mean someone who dislikes or fears socializing. In the psychological sense, it doesn't mean that at all. Antisocial attitudes or behaviors are against society, from extreme acts like murder to more minor transgressions like simply being a manipulative, self-centered {{Jerkass}}. Someone who fears interacting with other people should be said to be '''asocial''' or suffering from social phobia, not "antisocial" tendencies. As a matter of fact, ''social phobia'' is an outdated term, and is usually now called "social anxiety disorder." In other words, people who are antisocial are ''hostile'' -- not merely indifferent -- towards society.
** "Antisocial" is also used to denote "rebellious" individuals actively fighting (not necessarily by violence, also by dissent or passive-aggressive behavior) any authority and are incapable of operating under external influence.
** An increasingly more popular and accurate term for the above disorder is ''agoraphobia'', from the ancient Greek term for "fear of the marketplace." But to be honest, I've always understood that ''agoraphobia'' is fear of the ''entire'' outside world, not just the "social" parts of it. Thus, an agoraphobe would be just as afraid of being lost in a forest or a desert as they were of crowds.
*** It makes more sense once you know that 'agora' in this case is what the Romans called the 'forum', rather than your run-of-the-mill farmers' market.
** ''Agoraphobia'' is more specifically a fear of being unable to ''escape'' from whatever situation you're in (sometimes amended to include 'without severe embarrassment'), rather than the situation itself. In the above examples, the phobic response would be due to the fear of never escaping the forest, or being lost in the desert forever. Being in a busy place (e.g. a football crowd) could count if you couldn't leave your set without making a huge scene.
** What "agoraphobia" misses is the ''social'' part of "social anxiety disorder". Sartre's "Hell is other people" hits a nerve - and as unjustified as that hit may be, it's still felt.
** Perhaps more appropriate word would be "asocial", and it is sometimes used, though it implies lack of interest in social interaction while not fear of it.
*** This is exactly the term used in psychological parlance to describe people avoiding social situations due to social phobias, egomania, extreme introversion or any other factor.
** Agoraphobia is a disorder more focused on the area and getting to safety (without embarrassing yourself) if needed and usually has to do with panic attacks or some of the symptoms of them. A fear focused on actual people or socializing is called social phobia or social anxiety disorder (and is much more severe than shyness so should not be used lightly despite its commonness -- the most common mental disorder in adults other than substance abuse or depression, which is saying something). The best replacement for "antisocial" is "avoidant" -- avoidant personality disorder is associated with extreme social phobia. "Asocial", as pointed out above, is different. Most shy/socially anxious/avoidant people would love to be social if they weren't anxious about it. There are people who simply do not like to be around other people without being either avoidant or antisocial; these are asocial. "Asocial", however, may look like a typo in writing "antisocial" to a reader.
** On a related note, '''introversion''' is not being antisocial; being introverted is simply ''preferring'' solitary activities to social activities.
* '''Manic-depression''' is more properly known as '''bipolar disorder''', and ''does not'' mean "severe depression" or "wild mood swings;" the highs and lows last for days or weeks at a time. Neither one is a catch-all for "crazy ex." (See '''borderline''', '''histrionic''', and '''narcissistic''' disorders for what most people think of as "crazy ex syndrome.")
** [[Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy Marvin the Paranoid Android]] is a ''manically'' depressed robot, ''not'' a manic-depressive robot, which is true - he's enthusiastically depressed.
** Also, bipolar is an ''adjective'', not a noun. It's either "my friend is bipolar" or "my friend has bipolar disorder," ''not'' "my friend has bipolar."
** And it doesn't have anything to do with {{tsundere}}s, no matter what certain fansubs say.
* On the subject of '''borderline''', saying someone is borderline does not mean they're on the cusp of having a personality disorder; it means they ''do'' have one. ''Borderline'' is a name for a very specific pattern of behaviour involving emotional instability, poor self-image, impulsiveness, and [[BlackAndWhiteInsanity black-and-white thinking]] (what psychologists call "splitting"), as well as a fear of abandonment. The name is only used because of historical reasons which are too complex to get into here, and the existence of the disorder has been questioned, with some seeing it as a variant of post-traumatic stress disorder (specifically, one that the profession slaps on female PTSD sufferers, as the overwhelming majority of borderline personality disorder diagnoses are of women).
* '''Depression''' is yet another psychological term (seeing a trend here?) that's casually thrown around but has a different meaning in a medical or therapeutic context. Depression is not just sadness, but much more persistent and disabling, and includes many other mood changes and physical symptoms like: anhedonia (loss of the ability to feel pleasure), changes in sleep and eating habits (either much less or much more than usual), and a lack of energy and motivation.

to:

* '''Antisocial''': Sometimes used to mean someone who dislikes or fears socializing. In the psychological sense, it doesn't mean that at all. Antisocial attitudes or behaviors are against society, from extreme acts like murder to more minor transgressions like simply being a manipulative, self-centered {{Jerkass}}. Someone who fears interacting with other people should be said to be '''asocial''' or suffering from social phobia, not "antisocial" tendencies. As a matter of fact, ''social phobia'' is an outdated term, and is usually now called "social anxiety disorder." In other words, people who are antisocial are ''hostile'' -- not merely indifferent -- towards society.
** "Antisocial" is also used to denote "rebellious" individuals actively fighting (not necessarily by violence, also by dissent or passive-aggressive behavior) any authority and are incapable of operating under external influence.
** An increasingly more popular and accurate term for the above disorder is ''agoraphobia'', from the ancient Greek term for "fear of the marketplace." But to be honest, I've always understood that ''agoraphobia'' is fear of the ''entire'' outside world, not just the "social" parts of it. Thus, an agoraphobe would be just as afraid of being lost in a forest or a desert as they were of crowds.
*** It makes more sense once you know that 'agora' in this case is what the Romans called the 'forum', rather than your run-of-the-mill farmers' market.
** ''Agoraphobia'' is more specifically a fear of being unable to ''escape'' from whatever situation you're in (sometimes amended to include 'without severe embarrassment'), rather than the situation itself. In the above examples, the phobic response would be due to the fear of never escaping the forest, or being lost in the desert forever. Being in a busy place (e.g. a football crowd) could count if you couldn't leave your set without making a huge scene.
** What "agoraphobia" misses is the ''social'' part of "social anxiety disorder". Sartre's "Hell is other people" hits a nerve - and as unjustified as that hit may be, it's still felt.
** Perhaps more appropriate word would be "asocial", and it is sometimes used, though it implies lack of interest in social interaction while not fear of it.
*** This is exactly the term used in psychological parlance to describe people avoiding social situations due to social phobias, egomania, extreme introversion or any other factor.
** Agoraphobia is a disorder more focused on the area and getting to safety (without embarrassing yourself) if needed and usually has to do with panic attacks or some of the symptoms of them. A fear focused on actual people or socializing is called social phobia or social anxiety disorder (and is much more severe than shyness so should not be used lightly despite its commonness -- the most common mental disorder in adults other than substance abuse or depression, which is saying something). The best replacement for "antisocial" is "avoidant" -- avoidant personality disorder is associated with extreme social phobia. "Asocial", as pointed out above, is different. Most shy/socially anxious/avoidant people would love to be social if they weren't anxious about it. There are people who simply do not like to be around other people without being either avoidant or antisocial; these are asocial. "Asocial", however, may look like a typo in writing "antisocial" to a reader.
** On a related note, '''introversion''' is not being antisocial; being introverted is simply ''preferring'' solitary activities to social activities.
* '''Manic-depression''' is more properly known as '''bipolar disorder''', and ''does not'' mean "severe depression" or "wild mood swings;" the highs and lows last for days or weeks at a time. Neither one is a catch-all for "crazy ex." (See '''borderline''', '''histrionic''', and '''narcissistic''' disorders for what most people think of as "crazy ex syndrome.")
** [[Franchise/TheHitchhikersGuideToTheGalaxy Marvin the Paranoid Android]] is a ''manically'' depressed robot, ''not'' a manic-depressive robot, which is true - he's enthusiastically depressed.
** Also, bipolar is an ''adjective'', not a noun. It's either "my friend is bipolar" or "my friend has bipolar disorder," ''not'' "my friend has bipolar."
** And it doesn't have anything to do with {{tsundere}}s, no matter what certain fansubs say.
* On the subject of '''borderline''', saying someone is borderline does not mean they're on the cusp of having a personality disorder; it means they ''do'' have one. ''Borderline'' is a name for a very specific pattern of behaviour involving emotional instability, poor self-image, impulsiveness, and [[BlackAndWhiteInsanity black-and-white thinking]] (what psychologists call "splitting"), as well as a fear of abandonment. The name is only used because of historical reasons which are too complex to get into here, and the existence of the disorder has been questioned, with some seeing it as a variant of post-traumatic stress disorder (specifically, one that the profession slaps on female PTSD sufferers, as the overwhelming majority of borderline personality disorder diagnoses are of women).



* '''Depression''' is yet another psychological term (seeing a trend here?) that's casually thrown around but has a different meaning in a medical or therapeutic context. Depression is not just sadness, but much more persistent and disabling, and includes many other mood changes and physical symptoms like: anhedonia (loss of the ability to feel pleasure), changes in sleep and eating habits (either much less or much more than usual), and a lack of energy and motivation.



* '''Chronic''' does not mean "severe". It means "recurring/habitual" and/or "happening for a long time;" it comes from a Greek root meaning "time" (same as "chronological" or "chronicle"), so you should think "over time." Contrast '''acute''', which means "rapid onset". Too many people associate "acute" with "small" due to its meaning in geometry (they should be associating it with "sharp" for the same reason).
** Also an illness being acute does not necessarily mean that it is serious, it only means that full set of symptoms display themselves quickly (a papercut is acute). So calling a disease Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is not tautological.

to:

* '''Chronic''' does not mean "severe". It means "recurring/habitual" and/or "happening for a long time;" it comes from a Greek root meaning "time" (same as "chronological" or "chronicle"), so you should think "over time." Contrast '''acute''', which means "rapid onset". Too many people associate "acute" with "small" due to its meaning in geometry (they should be associating it with "sharp" for the same reason).
** Also an illness being acute does not necessarily mean that it is serious, it only means that full set of symptoms display themselves quickly (a papercut is acute). So calling a disease Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is not tautological.



* To be '''bereft''' of something does not just mean to be without something. It means to be without something ''that you previously had''.

to:

* To be '''bereft''' of something does not just mean to be without something. It means to be without something ''that you previously had''.







* '''Concerning''' is often deployed as meaning ''an area of much concern'' rather than its actual meaning, ''regarding''. The real word to use in such an instance is ''disconcerting''.
* A '''Chaingun''' is a single-barrel weapon with an electrically driven bolt operated with a chain. It is not a '''rotary gun'''. This comes from ''VideoGame/{{Doom}}'' misusing the term; usually, the reasoning for the mistake is that the latter is fed with a "chain" (ie a ''belt'') of ammunition, or that the barrel group is driven by a chain.
** More accurately still, a "Chain Gun" is the specific model of weapon used on many US and NATO aircraft. Any autoloading (generally fully automatic) weapon larger than a machinegun is called an "autocannon" regardless of mechanism. A multi-barrelled weapon in this class that rotates is called a "Rotary Autocannon." A single-barreled weapon that uses a rotating loading mechanism is a "Revolver Autocannon". The most accurate name for ''Doom'''s "chaingun" would be "Rotary Submachine Gun", as it uses pistol ammunition.
* "'''Decapitated''' head" is paradoxical: to decapitate someone is to behead him. Cutting a head off of itself is...well...[[YouKeepUsingThatWord inconceivable]]. A ''body'' can be decapitated; a better adjective for a head on its own is '''severed'''. (''Disembodied'' usually means 'intangible'.)
--> "Newsanchor overheard in ''Film/{{Highlander}}'': "It also left a man's decapitated body, lying on the floor next to his own severed head."
* Related: "decapacitate" is a rarely-used word that means to reduce someone or something's capacity for action, essentially a milder version of "incapacitate." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the head; in fact, decapitating someone is far more likely to incapacitate them (by killing them) than decapacitate them.
* '''Differential''' is both a noun and an adjective, but in the noun form, it is a mechanical device used for combining torque from different inputs, ''not'' a synonym for '''difference'''. This is a favorite of television sports announcers ("There's a three-point differential in the game!").
** A differential is also used in mathematics to refer to infinitesimals in calculus and differential geometry i.e. dx, dy etc or to the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives.
* A '''demigod''' is not a lesser "category" of deity. "Demi" means "half", i.e. "half god". A demigod has both mortal and divine parentage. For example, Hercules (son of Zeus, a god, and Alcmene, a human) ''is'' a demigod, whereas a dryad (a forest spirit) is ''not''.
** Note, however, that the term was invented by 19th century classicists; the Greek word for "of mixed divine and mortal parentage" was "hero" (which originally ''never'' applied to pureblood mortals—and also had intrinsically cultic connotations, since all the mythic heroes were considered appropriate for worship, especially Heracles).

to:

* '''Concerning''' is often deployed as meaning ''an area of much concern'' rather than its actual meaning, ''regarding''. The real word to use in such an instance is ''disconcerting''.
* A '''Chaingun''' is a single-barrel weapon with an electrically driven bolt operated with a chain. It is not a '''rotary gun'''. This comes from ''VideoGame/{{Doom}}'' misusing the term; usually, the reasoning for the mistake is that the latter is fed with a "chain" (ie a ''belt'') of ammunition, or that the barrel group is driven by a chain.
** More accurately still, a "Chain Gun" is the specific model of weapon used on many US and NATO aircraft. Any autoloading (generally fully automatic) weapon larger than a machinegun is called an "autocannon" regardless of mechanism. A multi-barrelled weapon in this class that rotates is called a "Rotary Autocannon." A single-barreled weapon that uses a rotating loading mechanism is a "Revolver Autocannon". The most accurate name for ''Doom'''s "chaingun" would be "Rotary Submachine Gun", as it uses pistol ammunition.
* "'''Decapitated''' head" is paradoxical: to decapitate someone is to behead him. Cutting a head off of itself is...well...[[YouKeepUsingThatWord inconceivable]]. A ''body'' can be decapitated; a better adjective for a head on its own is '''severed'''. (''Disembodied'' usually means 'intangible'.)
--> "Newsanchor overheard in ''Film/{{Highlander}}'': "It also left a man's decapitated body, lying on the floor next to his own severed head."
* Related: "decapacitate" is a rarely-used word that means to reduce someone or something's capacity for action, essentially a milder version of "incapacitate." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the head; in fact, decapitating someone is far more likely to incapacitate them (by killing them) than decapacitate them.
* '''Differential''' is both a noun and an adjective, but in the noun form, it is a mechanical device used for combining torque from different inputs, ''not'' a synonym for '''difference'''. This is a favorite of television sports announcers ("There's a three-point differential in the game!").
** A differential is also used in mathematics to refer to infinitesimals in calculus and differential geometry i.e. dx, dy etc or to the Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives.
* A '''demigod''' is not a lesser "category" of deity. "Demi" means "half", i.e. "half god". A demigod has both mortal and divine parentage. For example, Hercules (son of Zeus, a god, and Alcmene, a human) ''is'' a demigod, whereas a dryad (a forest spirit) is ''not''.
** Note, however, that the term was invented by 19th century classicists; the Greek word for "of mixed divine and mortal parentage" was "hero" (which originally ''never'' applied to pureblood mortals—and also had intrinsically cultic connotations, since all the mythic heroes were considered appropriate for worship, especially Heracles).







* A '''categorical imperative''' is not simply an absolute imperative. While "categorical" can mean "absolute," a "categorical imperative" is a moral obligation born of the consequences of a significant portion of a ''category'' of people shirking it, despite little harm in any one individual doing so.

to:

* A '''categorical imperative''' is not simply an absolute imperative. While "categorical" can mean "absolute," a "categorical imperative" is a moral obligation born of the consequences of a significant portion of a ''category'' of people shirking it, despite little harm in any one individual doing so.



* A '''[[UsefulNotes/FurryFandom furry]]''' is not the same thing as a zoophile. A zoophile gets off on real animals, while furries like fictional anthropomorphic characters, most of whom would be intelligent enough to consent if they were real.
** Also, many if not most furries are not interested in the sexual aspect of the fandom at all, they simply like drawing/dressing up as/writing about anthropomorphic animals.
** The confusion about the definition of the term is not helped by the fact that it is often used interchangeably to refer to both fans of anthropomorphic animal characters and the characters themselves. The especially pedantic may insist on referring to the former as "furry fans" and reserving the term "furry" for the latter, but even that may be confused by the practice of taking on a "fursona," at which point a person is both a furry fan and a self-identified (though not literal) furry (i.e. anthropomorphic animal).

to:

* A '''[[UsefulNotes/FurryFandom furry]]''' is not the same thing as a zoophile. A zoophile gets off on real animals, while furries like fictional anthropomorphic characters, most of whom would be intelligent enough to consent if they were real.
** Also, many if not most furries are not interested in the sexual aspect of the fandom at all, they simply like drawing/dressing up as/writing about anthropomorphic animals.
** The confusion about the definition of the term is not helped by the fact that it is often used interchangeably to refer to both fans of anthropomorphic animal characters and the characters themselves. The especially pedantic may insist on referring to the former as "furry fans" and reserving the term "furry" for the latter, but even that may be confused by the practice of taking on a "fursona," at which point a person is both a furry fan and a self-identified (though not literal) furry (i.e. anthropomorphic animal).




* A '''[[ImAHumanitarian cannibal]]''' eats members of its own species. Something that is non-human, but eats humans, is an '''anthropophage'''. "Anthropophage" is a pretty pedantic word, but come on; use "man-eater" or something. Technically a human [[ImAHumanitarian who eats other humans]] would be a cannibal ''and'' an anthropophage, but "cannibal" seems superordinate in this case. The word "cannibal" derives from the Carib people (after whom the Caribbean Sea is named) who were once believed to chew and spit out the flesh of a defeated enemy.
** This was actually mentioned in ''Film/DawnOfTheDead1978'', where it was said that the undead were not cannibals, because they were no longer human.
** This is also pointed out in ''VideoGame/DragonAgeOrigins'' by Alistair when he remarks that it's not cannibalism if ''Dog'' is eating fallen foes.
** However, in fantasy/sci-fi settings, the definition is sometimes extended to any [[YouKeepUsingThatWord/VeryPedantic sapient]] creature [[SapientEatSapient eating another]] (Elves eating humans, or even lizardfolk, would be considered cannibals in such a setting).
* The phrase "'''more highly evolved'''" means nothing: [[GoalOrientedEvolution evolution doesn't work like a ladder that animals climb to the top]]. No biologist has thought of it that way since Darwin. You could say that a species that hasn't changed for a few million years is "unevolved" but that would be a rather simplistic way of looking at it. After all evolution is still working on the species, because they aren't changing, evolution is "selecting" for no change. Evolution is always working on a species, unless they reach a very specific and almost impossible set of conditions.
** Can't we say a species is more or less completely adapted, if its environment has recently changed?
** The word ''evolution'' can mean a lot of different things, from the scientific "natural selection", and "development of life from single-celled organisms to current situation", the same but including emergence of life from non-life, and the less scientific "change over time", "change for the better" or simply "huge change", as used in advertising.
*** Evolution may also refer to specific terms of conditions. If we speak about, say, the operating systems that are meant to be user-friendly and efficient then we can say that better-developed systems are 'more evolved'. In the case of natural selection such judgment makes little sense because that would have required an objective knowledge of the meaning of life which is, as all things objective, beyond the grasp of human mind.
** Similarly, terms such as ''devolution'', ''de-evolution'', ''reverse evolution'', etc. carry no meaning in biology (although "devolution" carries a separate meaning in politics), since complex forms of life can become less complex and physical traits that were once advantageous can disappear (or remain as vestigial traits) over generations when confronted by a new environment. That doesn't stop the writers of science fiction from occasionally using this term when a member of one species "returns" to an ancestral form, nor does it stop [[{{Music/Devo}} some people]] from adopting the term to mean "reverse progress."
** Also: By the millions of years their species have been around with few significant changes, two of the least highly evolved creatures are alligators and sharks. Evolution doesn't have any direction, but once it stumbles on a winning combination, it is ''really good at sticking with it''. Some prominent biologists have used sharks as examples that sapience and intelligence are not evolutionary imperatives, and that they are in fact entirely up to chance.
* '''Castration''' is specifically the removal of ''testicles''. The correct term for the removal of the penis (or the male genitalia as a whole) is '''emasculation'''. Though it might be argued that the correct term for either one is [[ShareTheMalePain ouch]].
** The surgical removal of the penis is called a ''penectomy'', while ''orchidectomy'' is the term for the surgical removal of the testicles. (And now you get the joke in ''Series/MadMen'' about Bert Cooper's "unnecessary orchidectomy.")
** One can be castrated without the testicles being removed (still less the whole scrotum- very dangerous without modern techniques, it has a heavy blood supply)- the only significant part is the ''testes'', the glands within them. These can be permanently decommissioned by drugs or, in the case of the Italian castrati singers of the 14th to 19th centuries, by being deliberately ruptured by being squeezed by one who knows where to apply pressure. (They can also be ruptured by accident, though you'd have to be very unlucky to lose both this way.)

to:

* A '''[[ImAHumanitarian cannibal]]''' eats members of its own species. Something that is non-human, but eats humans, is an '''anthropophage'''. "Anthropophage" is a pretty pedantic word, but come on; use "man-eater" or something. Technically a human [[ImAHumanitarian who eats other humans]] would be a cannibal ''and'' an anthropophage, but "cannibal" seems superordinate in this case. The word "cannibal" derives from the Carib people (after whom the Caribbean Sea is named) who were once believed to chew and spit out the flesh of a defeated enemy.
** This was actually mentioned in ''Film/DawnOfTheDead1978'', where it was said that the undead were not cannibals, because they were no longer human.
** This is also pointed out in ''VideoGame/DragonAgeOrigins'' by Alistair when he remarks that it's not cannibalism if ''Dog'' is eating fallen foes.
** However, in fantasy/sci-fi settings, the definition is sometimes extended to any [[YouKeepUsingThatWord/VeryPedantic sapient]] creature [[SapientEatSapient eating another]] (Elves eating humans, or even lizardfolk, would be considered cannibals in such a setting).
* The phrase "'''more highly evolved'''" means nothing: [[GoalOrientedEvolution evolution doesn't work like a ladder that animals climb to the top]]. No biologist has thought of it that way since Darwin. You could say that a species that hasn't changed for a few million years is "unevolved" but that would be a rather simplistic way of looking at it. After all evolution is still working on the species, because they aren't changing, evolution is "selecting" for no change. Evolution is always working on a species, unless they reach a very specific and almost impossible set of conditions.
** Can't we say a species is more or less completely adapted, if its environment has recently changed?
** The word ''evolution'' can mean a lot of different things, from the scientific "natural selection", and "development of life from single-celled organisms to current situation", the same but including emergence of life from non-life, and the less scientific "change over time", "change for the better" or simply "huge change", as used in advertising.
*** Evolution may also refer to specific terms of conditions. If we speak about, say, the operating systems that are meant to be user-friendly and efficient then we can say that better-developed systems are 'more evolved'. In the case of natural selection such judgment makes little sense because that would have required an objective knowledge of the meaning of life which is, as all things objective, beyond the grasp of human mind.
** Similarly, terms such as ''devolution'', ''de-evolution'', ''reverse evolution'', etc. carry no meaning in biology (although "devolution" carries a separate meaning in politics), since complex forms of life can become less complex and physical traits that were once advantageous can disappear (or remain as vestigial traits) over generations when confronted by a new environment. That doesn't stop the writers of science fiction from occasionally using this term when a member of one species "returns" to an ancestral form, nor does it stop [[{{Music/Devo}} some people]] from adopting the term to mean "reverse progress."
** Also: By the millions of years their species have been around with few significant changes, two of the least highly evolved creatures are alligators and sharks. Evolution doesn't have any direction, but once it stumbles on a winning combination, it is ''really good at sticking with it''. Some prominent biologists have used sharks as examples that sapience and intelligence are not evolutionary imperatives, and that they are in fact entirely up to chance.
* '''Castration''' is specifically the removal of ''testicles''. The correct term for the removal of the penis (or the male genitalia as a whole) is '''emasculation'''. Though it might be argued that the correct term for either one is [[ShareTheMalePain ouch]].
** The surgical removal of the penis is called a ''penectomy'', while ''orchidectomy'' is the term for the surgical removal of the testicles. (And now you get the joke in ''Series/MadMen'' about Bert Cooper's "unnecessary orchidectomy.")
** One can be castrated without the testicles being removed (still less the whole scrotum- very dangerous without modern techniques, it has a heavy blood supply)- the only significant part is the ''testes'', the glands within them. These can be permanently decommissioned by drugs or, in the case of the Italian castrati singers of the 14th to 19th centuries, by being deliberately ruptured by being squeezed by one who knows where to apply pressure. (They can also be ruptured by accident, though you'd have to be very unlucky to lose both this way.)





* '''Asexual''' is applied in general to [[{{Asexuality}} anyone who doesn't have sex for any reason]], but, as a proper sexual orientation, there are several more nuanced shades of meaning. ''Asexual'' in the strict sense means that a person does not feel physical attraction to others. A person who wants to have sex but has physiological or psychological reasons preventing them from having sex is not asexual. Similarly, someone who identifies as asexual does not see themselves as suffering from a medical disorder like lack of sex drive.
** An asexual can and often does experience attraction but it's more of the platonic/aesthetic type. There are as many different types of asexuals as sexuals, but it should really be pointed out that it has nothing to do with desiring relationships. There are many sexuals who do not desire relationships, for example, Creator/CharlieSheen's character on ''Series/TwoAndAHalfMen''.
** Being asexual does not necessarily mean that the person doesn't want relationships-- an ''aromantic'' person is uninterested in relationships. One can be asexual but romantic (enjoys friendship, love, kissing or hugging, but is uninterested in sexual activity) or sexual but aromantic (interested in sex but not in relationships).
** ''Autosexual'' can refer to a person who enjoys masturbation, but not sex (with another person). Autosexuals are not considered asexual.
*** Technically, as an orientation, an autosexual is someone who is in love with themself. Otherwise, autosexuality or autoerotica is a behavior, not a sexual orientation. Otherwise, sexuals who masturbate would also be called autosexuals.
* Relatedly, '''abstinence''' is a willing choice not to engage in some activity--such as, for example, ''sexual abstinence'' (which might range from "doing everything but intercourse" to much stricter levels of abstinence, like refraining from masturbation and from sexual contact with others). '''Celibacy''' originally meant simply "being unmarried", but now generally means being unmarried ''and'' sexually abstinent. '''Chastity''' means obeying the appropriate moral rules for sexual behavior, which does ''not'' necessarily imply sexual abstinence: in traditional Christian teaching, for example, a chaste husband and wife would be sexually active with each other (but with nobody else), but a chaste, unmarried person would be sexually abstinent.
* '''Comprise''' and '''compose''' are (roughly) reciprocal, not synonyms. An archipelago ''is composed of'' many islands, and ''comprises'' those islands; it is not ''comprised of'' the islands -- if anything, the islands are comprised of the archipelago (though this use of ''of'' is very archaic; ''comprised by'' might be better--although not by much, since ''comprised by'' is hardly a common expression either).
* '''Erstwhile''' is not laudatory; it means 'former'.

to:

* '''Asexual''' is applied in general to [[{{Asexuality}} anyone who doesn't have sex for any reason]], but, as a proper sexual orientation, there are several more nuanced shades of meaning. ''Asexual'' in the strict sense means that a person does not feel physical attraction to others. A person who wants to have sex but has physiological or psychological reasons preventing them from having sex is not asexual. Similarly, someone who identifies as asexual does not see themselves as suffering from a medical disorder like lack of sex drive.
** An asexual can and often does experience attraction but it's more of the platonic/aesthetic type. There are as many different types of asexuals as sexuals, but it should really be pointed out that it has nothing to do with desiring relationships. There are many sexuals who do not desire relationships, for example, Creator/CharlieSheen's character on ''Series/TwoAndAHalfMen''.
** Being asexual does not necessarily mean that the person doesn't want relationships-- an ''aromantic'' person is uninterested in relationships. One can be asexual but romantic (enjoys friendship, love, kissing or hugging, but is uninterested in sexual activity) or sexual but aromantic (interested in sex but not in relationships).
** ''Autosexual'' can refer to a person who enjoys masturbation, but not sex (with another person). Autosexuals are not considered asexual.
*** Technically, as an orientation, an autosexual is someone who is in love with themself. Otherwise, autosexuality or autoerotica is a behavior, not a sexual orientation. Otherwise, sexuals who masturbate would also be called autosexuals.
* Relatedly, '''abstinence''' is a willing choice not to engage in some activity--such as, for example, ''sexual abstinence'' (which might range from "doing everything but intercourse" to much stricter levels of abstinence, like refraining from masturbation and from sexual contact with others). '''Celibacy''' originally meant simply "being unmarried", but now generally means being unmarried ''and'' sexually abstinent. '''Chastity''' means obeying the appropriate moral rules for sexual behavior, which does ''not'' necessarily imply sexual abstinence: in traditional Christian teaching, for example, a chaste husband and wife would be sexually active with each other (but with nobody else), but a chaste, unmarried person would be sexually abstinent.
* '''Comprise''' and '''compose''' are (roughly) reciprocal, not synonyms. An archipelago ''is composed of'' many islands, and ''comprises'' those islands; it is not ''comprised of'' the islands -- if anything, the islands are comprised of the archipelago (though this use of ''of'' is very archaic; ''comprised by'' might be better--although not by much, since ''comprised by'' is hardly a common expression either).
* '''Erstwhile''' is not laudatory; it means 'former'.

















* '''Casualties''' are the people ''wounded'' and ''permanently crippled'' (physically or psychologically), missing, captured, and dead sustained [[StrategyVersusTactics during a military operation]] or in any other given period. There is a term the dead, missing, captured, and crippled alone: '''Irrecoverable Casualties'''. Those who merely died (sometimes including those dead of wounds or in captivity) constitute '''Fatalities'''. Note however that the definition of wounded is pretty fluid - it can mean anything from "minor stab wound requiring hospitalisation to be on the safe side" to "crippling but temporary phobia of footsteps" to "three limbs blown off and permanent loss of hearing". In other words just anything short of actual death.
** To quote the other wiki, "In military usage, a casualty is a person in service killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, or missing, but not someone who sustains injuries which do not prevent them from fighting." So if one received a minor stab wound and got stitched up and sent back to the front one would not be a casualty.

to:

* '''Casualties''' are the people ''wounded'' and ''permanently crippled'' (physically or psychologically), missing, captured, and dead sustained [[StrategyVersusTactics during a military operation]] or in any other given period. There is a term the dead, missing, captured, and crippled alone: '''Irrecoverable Casualties'''. Those who merely died (sometimes including those dead of wounds or in captivity) constitute '''Fatalities'''. Note however that the definition of wounded is pretty fluid - it can mean anything from "minor stab wound requiring hospitalisation to be on the safe side" to "crippling but temporary phobia of footsteps" to "three limbs blown off and permanent loss of hearing". In other words just anything short of actual death.
** To quote the other wiki, "In military usage, a casualty is a person in service killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, or missing, but not someone who sustains injuries which do not prevent them from fighting." So if one received a minor stab wound and got stitched up and sent back to the front one would not be a casualty.



* '''CGI''': In VideoGames, the term is often misused to describe '''pre-rendered cutscenes'''. '''All''' videogames (except ones done entirely with FullMotionVideo) use CGI, which means "computer-generated imagery". Even ''PacMan'' and ''VideoGame/DonkeyKong'' use CGI; their graphics were created by computer images. When a cutscene is debated on whether it shows real gameplay, there's no question whether it has CGI (unless it features live-action video). The question is whether the video was pre-rendered and recorded beforehand or if it features the actual game assets.

to:

* '''CGI''': In VideoGames, the term is often misused to describe '''pre-rendered cutscenes'''. '''All''' videogames (except ones done entirely with FullMotionVideo) use CGI, which means "computer-generated imagery". Even ''PacMan'' and ''VideoGame/DonkeyKong'' use CGI; their graphics were created by computer images. When a cutscene is debated on whether it shows real gameplay, there's no question whether it has CGI (unless it features live-action video). The question is whether the video was pre-rendered and recorded beforehand or if it features the actual game assets.






* Occasionally, a law-enforcement officer will refer to the scene of a brutal crime as being very "'''graphic'''". Well, [[CaptainObvious duh]], you're there and you're looking at it, one would expect it to be visual and realistic instead of merely implied. The idea of "graphic" violence in media isn't that it's {{Gorn}}, just that it's shown onscreen rather than implied.

to:

* Occasionally, a law-enforcement officer will refer to the scene of a brutal crime as being very "'''graphic'''". Well, [[CaptainObvious duh]], you're there and you're looking at it, one would expect it to be visual and realistic instead of merely implied. The idea of "graphic" violence in media isn't that it's {{Gorn}}, just that it's shown onscreen rather than implied.



* '''Charisma''' refers to someone's speaking talents and ability to influence others through force of personality and diplomacy. While good looks help, someone is ''not'' charismatic because she looks good in a formal dress, or because he has blue eyes and a nice smile; similarly, just because someone is able to speak publicly and get their point across doesn't qualify them either, not unless people are cheering wildly for ''how'' the news is presented, rather than the facts themselves.
* '''Calorie''' is a non-SI unit of energy. It is relatively small unit however, so caloric intake of foods is usually expressed in kilocalories, (1 kcal = 1000 calories). Thus an average recommended daily energy intake is not 2200 calories but 2200 kilocalories or 2,200,000 calories.
** A '''C'''alorie refers to a kilocalorie, while a '''c'''alorie refers to the base unit. This can get confusing when 'calorie' is at the beginning of a sentence, which without context, would be indistinguishable as to if it was between the normal unit or the large unit.
** Also, although it isn't an SI unit, it ''is'' a metric unit rather than Imperial or American customary.

to:

* '''Charisma''' refers to someone's speaking talents and ability to influence others through force of personality and diplomacy. While good looks help, someone is ''not'' charismatic because she looks good in a formal dress, or because he has blue eyes and a nice smile; similarly, just because someone is able to speak publicly and get their point across doesn't qualify them either, not unless people are cheering wildly for ''how'' the news is presented, rather than the facts themselves.
* '''Calorie''' is a non-SI unit of energy. It is relatively small unit however, so caloric intake of foods is usually expressed in kilocalories, (1 kcal = 1000 calories). Thus an average recommended daily energy intake is not 2200 calories but 2200 kilocalories or 2,200,000 calories.
** A '''C'''alorie refers to a kilocalorie, while a '''c'''alorie refers to the base unit. This can get confusing when 'calorie' is at the beginning of a sentence, which without context, would be indistinguishable as to if it was between the normal unit or the large unit.
** Also, although it isn't an SI unit, it ''is'' a metric unit rather than Imperial or American customary.




* An '''epidemic''' refers to the frequency of a disease substantially exceeding what is expected in recent history.

to:

* An '''epidemic''' refers to the frequency of a disease substantially exceeding what is expected in recent history.



* '''JustForFun/{{Egregious}}''' has been used so egregiously on ThisVeryWiki that it has its own page.

to:

* '''JustForFun/{{Egregious}}''' has been used so egregiously on ThisVeryWiki that it has its own page.



* One that shows up every now and again is '''equivocal''' to mean "equivalent". An equivocal statement is one that is ambiguous and open to interpretation (conversely, an unequivocal statement is one in which the meaning is clear).

to:

* One that shows up every now and again is '''equivocal''' to mean "equivalent". An equivocal statement is one that is ambiguous and open to interpretation (conversely, an unequivocal statement is one in which the meaning is clear).



* '''Ambivalence''' is not the same as ''ambiguity'' or just 'not bothered'. if you feel ambivalent about a decision, you are torn by equally strong feelings in two (or more) directions. A child deciding whether to live with her mother or father after a divorce might feel ambivalent.

to:

* '''Ambivalence''' is not the same as ''ambiguity'' or just 'not bothered'. if you feel ambivalent about a decision, you are torn by equally strong feelings in two (or more) directions. A child deciding whether to live with her mother or father after a divorce might feel ambivalent.



* Something that is '''anonymous''' has no name attached. If there is a name attached but it doesn't match the one on the originator's passport, such as an internet username, it's '''pseudonymous'''.
* '''Cherubim''' (singular '''cherub''') are the alien looking creatures appearing in the book of Ezekiel. The chubby little winged cupids are called '''putti''' (or '''putto''' in singular), and don't really have anything to do with biblical angels.

to:

* Something that is '''anonymous''' has no name attached. If there is a name attached but it doesn't match the one on the originator's passport, such as an internet username, it's '''pseudonymous'''.
* '''Cherubim''' (singular '''cherub''') are the alien looking creatures appearing in the book of Ezekiel. The chubby little winged cupids are called '''putti''' (or '''putto''' in singular), and don't really have anything to do with biblical angels.




* In the context of wrestling, an '''escape''' is where one frees themselves from a hold, a '''counter''' is where one turns a hold being applied to them into a hold of their own and a '''reversal''' is a specific counter that results in you applying the hold your opponent just had you in.
** The confusion was referenced in Wrestling/RingOfHonor when Wrestling/CMPunk argued he shouldn't have been cost a rope break when he used them to reverse an arm hold applied by Wrestling/AJStyles instead of using them to as a means of escape. Unfortunately Punk allowed Styles to escape while arguing, weakening his own point and requiring ROH [[ObviousRulePatch to take another look at the rules]].
** In TNA, Don West had to explain the significance of someone finding a counter to the Canadian destroyer used by Petey William, after the fans had likely seen the move blocked, escaped or otherwise negated dozens of time. Even then, the move itself may never have been countered before but attempts to apply it had.

to:

* In the context of wrestling, an '''escape''' is where one frees themselves from a hold, a '''counter''' is where one turns a hold being applied to them into a hold of their own and a '''reversal''' is a specific counter that results in you applying the hold your opponent just had you in.
** The confusion was referenced in Wrestling/RingOfHonor when Wrestling/CMPunk argued he shouldn't have been cost a rope break when he used them to reverse an arm hold applied by Wrestling/AJStyles instead of using them to as a means of escape. Unfortunately Punk allowed Styles to escape while arguing, weakening his own point and requiring ROH [[ObviousRulePatch to take another look at the rules]].
** In TNA, Don West had to explain the significance of someone finding a counter to the Canadian destroyer used by Petey William, after the fans had likely seen the move blocked, escaped or otherwise negated dozens of time. Even then, the move itself may never have been countered before but attempts to apply it had.



* '''"Excessive"''' does not mean "a lot" or "a great deal". It means "too much".

to:

* '''"Excessive"''' does not mean "a lot" or "a great deal". It means "too much".



* '''Cojones''' is Spanish for balls. '''Cajones''' is Spanish for drawers.
** Although, saying ''cajones'' in English could be a [[BilingualBonus bilingual pun]].

to:

* '''Cojones''' is Spanish for balls. '''Cajones''' is Spanish for drawers.
** Although, saying ''cajones'' in English could be a [[BilingualBonus bilingual pun]].



* '''Entitled''' means that someone is given a title, authority or ''rightful'' ownership of something. Some people however use it as if it meant the opposite, "someone is claiming to deserve something, although he doesn't". Even on Wiki/TVTropes - see EntitledBastard, EntitledToHaveYou. The usage here refers to an unearned ''subjective feeling'' of entitlement, hence the common expression "sense of entitlement" - the person in question ''feels'' they deserve something, even though they don't. The correct way to use "entitled" would be saying the person feels or acts like they are entitled to something, not that they are "being" entitled.

to:

* '''Entitled''' means that someone is given a title, authority or ''rightful'' ownership of something. Some people however use it as if it meant the opposite, "someone is claiming to deserve something, although he doesn't". Even on Wiki/TVTropes - see EntitledBastard, EntitledToHaveYou. The usage here refers to an unearned ''subjective feeling'' of entitlement, hence the common expression "sense of entitlement" - the person in question ''feels'' they deserve something, even though they don't. The correct way to use "entitled" would be saying the person feels or acts like they are entitled to something, not that they are "being" entitled.



* '''[[UsefulNotes/HighFunctioningAutism Autistic]]''', at least on the Internet, gets used to mean "'retarded' only less so" more and more often in recent years - while less for perceived stupidity and more for social awkwardness (so you'll never find someone calling an inanimate object autistic even online), the general effect is the same. "Autistic" can also be used to refer to someone who has an exceptional focus on a particular activity, even if the person being described does not have an autism spectrum disorder at all. This is most likely due to the {{GIFT}}; anonymity means both that people feel freer to use "autistic" to mean "asshole" despite the UnfortunateImplications, and that people feel freer to use autism as an excuse for ''being'' an asshole (whether they're actually diagnosed or not), which only perpetuates the stereotype.
* '''AsymmetricMultiplayer''', as originally defined by Creator/{{Nintendo}} in reference to certain UsefulNotes/WiiU games, is a multiplayer mode in which the different players have totally different roles and capabilities, unlike most multiplayer games, where all the players are generally doing the same thing and playing the game the same way. This does ''not'' include games where players can be different characters (e.g., a magic user and a sword user) with slightly different abilities but carry out essentially the same goal in the same way. This instead refers to games where the roles, abilities and gameplay experience are drastically different. Misuse of the term became an issue with ''VideoGame/StarTrekTheVideoGame'' and several other games revealed and/or discussed in the period during/after [=E3=] 2012, when the development teams for the games claimed that their CoOpMultiplayer counted as Asymmetric Multiplayer (probably stemming from a desire to [[FollowTheLeader ride on the coattails of the initial Wii U hype]]).
* '''AIDS''' is often used to refer to the notorious sexually-transmitted disease that cripples the host's immune system. "AIDS" stands for '''a'''cquired '''i'''mmuno'''d'''eficiency '''s'''yndrome, and many people don't understand the "syndrome" part. You cannot ''catch'' AIDS; rather, you are reduced to it by being infected with the aforementioned STD, which by the way is called HIV ('''h'''uman '''i'''mmunodeficiency '''v'''irus), and having it beat the snot out of your immune cells. It is possible for someone to have HIV, but not AIDS, so long as their immune system is still intact. In addition, no one dies from AIDS - they die from ''complications'' related to the condition.

to:

* '''[[UsefulNotes/HighFunctioningAutism Autistic]]''', at least on the Internet, gets used to mean "'retarded' only less so" more and more often in recent years - while less for perceived stupidity and more for social awkwardness (so you'll never find someone calling an inanimate object autistic even online), the general effect is the same. "Autistic" can also be used to refer to someone who has an exceptional focus on a particular activity, even if the person being described does not have an autism spectrum disorder at all. This is most likely due to the {{GIFT}}; anonymity means both that people feel freer to use "autistic" to mean "asshole" despite the UnfortunateImplications, and that people feel freer to use autism as an excuse for ''being'' an asshole (whether they're actually diagnosed or not), which only perpetuates the stereotype.
* '''AsymmetricMultiplayer''', as originally defined by Creator/{{Nintendo}} in reference to certain UsefulNotes/WiiU games, is a multiplayer mode in which the different players have totally different roles and capabilities, unlike most multiplayer games, where all the players are generally doing the same thing and playing the game the same way. This does ''not'' include games where players can be different characters (e.g., a magic user and a sword user) with slightly different abilities but carry out essentially the same goal in the same way. This instead refers to games where the roles, abilities and gameplay experience are drastically different. Misuse of the term became an issue with ''VideoGame/StarTrekTheVideoGame'' and several other games revealed and/or discussed in the period during/after [=E3=] 2012, when the development teams for the games claimed that their CoOpMultiplayer counted as Asymmetric Multiplayer (probably stemming from a desire to [[FollowTheLeader ride on the coattails of the initial Wii U hype]]).
* '''AIDS''' is often used to refer to the notorious sexually-transmitted disease that cripples the host's immune system. "AIDS" stands for '''a'''cquired '''i'''mmuno'''d'''eficiency '''s'''yndrome, and many people don't understand the "syndrome" part. You cannot ''catch'' AIDS; rather, you are reduced to it by being infected with the aforementioned STD, which by the way is called HIV ('''h'''uman '''i'''mmunodeficiency '''v'''irus), and having it beat the snot out of your immune cells. It is possible for someone to have HIV, but not AIDS, so long as their immune system is still intact. In addition, no one dies from AIDS - they die from ''complications'' related to the condition.





* The words '''atom''' and '''molecule''', and their derived terms ("molecular", etc.) are not synonymous. Molecules are structures formed from atoms. By strict usage, "molecule" only refers to structures held together by covalent bonds, so e.g. a block of metal is not made of molecules - its atoms are connected by metallic bonds.
* In the Wiki/SCPFoundation notably, you will very often see the word '''amnesiac''' referring to substances that cause loss of memory. An amnesiac is actually a ''person'' suffering from amnesia. A substance causing amnesia would be an '''amnestic'''. However the word is so deeply rooted in SCP terminology that it's all but impossible to do anything about it. The Wiki only told newer authors that they prefer using "amnestic" instead of "amnesiac", but would forgive any uses of the latter.
* Challenging times can make it hard to make '''ends meet'''. No food item called '''ends meat''' (or '''end's meat''') has ever existed, outside of phonetic incomprehension or [[{{Feghoot}} stories that end with absolutely horrid puns]]. Imagine trying to tie a rope or cord around something with insufficient or barely sufficient length (or, conversely, with plentiful length, though it's usually only mentioned in the context of scarcity), and you'll understand the sensation the phrase is meant to convey.

to:

* The words '''atom''' and '''molecule''', and their derived terms ("molecular", etc.) are not synonymous. Molecules are structures formed from atoms. By strict usage, "molecule" only refers to structures held together by covalent bonds, so e.g. a block of metal is not made of molecules - its atoms are connected by metallic bonds.
* In the Wiki/SCPFoundation notably, you will very often see the word '''amnesiac''' referring to substances that cause loss of memory. An amnesiac is actually a ''person'' suffering from amnesia. A substance causing amnesia would be an '''amnestic'''. However the word is so deeply rooted in SCP terminology that it's all but impossible to do anything about it. The Wiki only told newer authors that they prefer using "amnestic" instead of "amnesiac", but would forgive any uses of the latter.
* Challenging times can make it hard to make '''ends meet'''. No food item called '''ends meat''' (or '''end's meat''') has ever existed, outside of phonetic incomprehension or [[{{Feghoot}} stories that end with absolutely horrid puns]]. Imagine trying to tie a rope or cord around something with insufficient or barely sufficient length (or, conversely, with plentiful length, though it's usually only mentioned in the context of scarcity), and you'll understand the sensation the phrase is meant to convey.





* '''Android''', '''cyborg''' and '''robot''' are not synonyms, as a quick glance at their respective etymologies should make clear. "Android" is derived from the Greek prefix ''"andro"'' ("man") and the suffix ''"oid"'' ("resembling"), and it means "An artificial creation built in the likeness of a human. "Cyborg" is a contraction of "cybernetic organism", and it means "A lifeform with a combination of organic and mechanical body parts". "Robot" is derived from the Russian ''"rabota"'' ("to work"), and it means "An autonomous machine built to perform a specific task". The term ''android'' technically refers to an artificial life form that resembles a male human. The female equivalent would be a ''gynoid''.

to:

* '''Android''', '''cyborg''' and '''robot''' are not synonyms, as a quick glance at their respective etymologies should make clear. "Android" is derived from the Greek prefix ''"andro"'' ("man") and the suffix ''"oid"'' ("resembling"), and it means "An artificial creation built in the likeness of a human. "Cyborg" is a contraction of "cybernetic organism", and it means "A lifeform with a combination of organic and mechanical body parts". "Robot" is derived from the Russian ''"rabota"'' ("to work"), and it means "An autonomous machine built to perform a specific task". The term ''android'' technically refers to an artificial life form that resembles a male human. The female equivalent would be a ''gynoid''.



* A '''desert''' is any place with low rainfall and vegetation, regardless of the climate. Thus, Antarctica is a desert.
* A '''Good Samaritan Law''' is not a law which compels someone to help a person in jeopardy. That is a '''Duty To Rescue''' law. A Good Samaritan law grants legal protection to anyone who attempts to help another person in the midst of a crisis. There have indeed been cases where someone offering aid was later sued by the person they attempted to help.
* '''Centurion''' is not an all-encompassing term for a soldier in Ancient Rome; it was an upper-level rank in the Roman military (roughly analogous to "Captain" or "Major") specifically designating the commander of a '''Century''' (a unit of around 100 soldiers, hence the name). A baseline Roman soldier (analogous to "Private") was a '''Legionary''' (not '''Legionnaire'''; that comes from the FrenchForeignLegion).

to:

* A '''desert''' is any place with low rainfall and vegetation, regardless of the climate. Thus, Antarctica is a desert.
* A '''Good Samaritan Law''' is not a law which compels someone to help a person in jeopardy. That is a '''Duty To Rescue''' law. A Good Samaritan law grants legal protection to anyone who attempts to help another person in the midst of a crisis. There have indeed been cases where someone offering aid was later sued by the person they attempted to help.
* '''Centurion''' is not an all-encompassing term for a soldier in Ancient Rome; it was an upper-level rank in the Roman military (roughly analogous to "Captain" or "Major") specifically designating the commander of a '''Century''' (a unit of around 100 soldiers, hence the name). A baseline Roman soldier (analogous to "Private") was a '''Legionary''' (not '''Legionnaire'''; that comes from the FrenchForeignLegion).





* For United States citizens, '''Freedom of Speech''' means a person has the right to criticize and speak out against the government without needing to fear repercussions from said government. It does not mean "I cannot be silenced for saying anything I want to" since you can get in trouble for saying something that implies a threat to someone else (even if you claim to be joking), nor does it allow you to say something offensive on a privately owned web site whose owner(s) have the full right to ban you for breaking their rules.
** To suggest otherwise is like saying the right to Freedom Of Assembly [[InsaneTrollLogic means you can have a party at someone else's house without permission whenever you want]]
* '''Emigrate''' and '''Immigrate''' refer to the same concept, but the difference between the two words is that "emigrate" refers to moving ''out'' of a country while "immigrate" refers to moving ''into'' one. '''Export''' and '''Import''' are a similar source of confusion regarding objects rather than people. Think of it as like "exhale" and "inhale".

to:

* For United States citizens, '''Freedom of Speech''' means a person has the right to criticize and speak out against the government without needing to fear repercussions from said government. It does not mean "I cannot be silenced for saying anything I want to" since you can get in trouble for saying something that implies a threat to someone else (even if you claim to be joking), nor does it allow you to say something offensive on a privately owned web site whose owner(s) have the full right to ban you for breaking their rules.
** To suggest otherwise is like saying the right to Freedom Of Assembly [[InsaneTrollLogic means you can have a party at someone else's house without permission whenever you want]]
* '''Emigrate''' and '''Immigrate''' refer to the same concept, but the difference between the two words is that "emigrate" refers to moving ''out'' of a country while "immigrate" refers to moving ''into'' one. '''Export''' and '''Import''' are a similar source of confusion regarding objects rather than people. Think of it as like "exhale" and "inhale".




* '''Arab''' refers to people who speak Arabic. It is not a term for Muslims in general (There are Christian, Druze, and even Jewish Arabs, and most Muslims come from non Arab countries). Similar, Afghanis [[note]] who speak primarily Pashto and Dari, types of Persian. [[/note]]. Iranians [[note]] Who speak Persian [[/note]] or Pakistanis [[note]] Who have multiple languages, but primarily speak Urdu, a language related to Hindi[[/note]] are not Arabs, although all use a similar script to Arabic.

to:

* '''Arab''' refers to people who speak Arabic. It is not a term for Muslims in general (There are Christian, Druze, and even Jewish Arabs, and most Muslims come from non Arab countries). Similar, Afghanis [[note]] who speak primarily Pashto and Dari, types of Persian. [[/note]]. Iranians [[note]] Who speak Persian [[/note]] or Pakistanis [[note]] Who have multiple languages, but primarily speak Urdu, a language related to Hindi[[/note]] are not Arabs, although all use a similar script to Arabic.



* '''Geneva Conventions''' are the international conventions binding their signatories to observe specific conduct toward refugees, captives and prisoners in the time of war. It has nothing to do with the agreement to abstain from the use of some types of weapons as this subject is covered by the '''Hague Conventions'''.

to:

* '''Geneva Conventions''' are the international conventions binding their signatories to observe specific conduct toward refugees, captives and prisoners in the time of war. It has nothing to do with the agreement to abstain from the use of some types of weapons as this subject is covered by the '''Hague Conventions'''.



* Television announcers in both the US and Canada routinely use the word '''common-law''' husband or wife to denote the person someone is living with. The act of cohabitation, no matter how long, ''never'' creates a legal relationship in the U.S., and only rarely in Canada.

to:

* Television announcers in both the US and Canada routinely use the word '''common-law''' husband or wife to denote the person someone is living with. The act of cohabitation, no matter how long, ''never'' creates a legal relationship in the U.S., and only rarely in Canada.



* '''Exeunt''' is not a fancy synonym for '''exit'''. Etymologically, "exit" is the third-person singular present active indicative of the Latin verb ''exeō'', and "exeunt" its third-person plural present active indicative. Thus, in stage directions, "exit" is used for only one actor (e.g., Exit Hamlet), and "exeunt" for two or more (e.g., Exeunt Romeo and Juliet).
* A '''crescendo''' is NOT the loud climax of a piece of music or other sound -- the word you want is, well, '''climax.''' ''Crescendo'' (Italian: "I wax, I grow greater") refers to the ''process of getting louder'', an increase in volume over time, which ultimately may lead to a climax (or instead subside again in a '''decrescendo.''') "The noise rose to a crescendo" is flat-out wrong, in fact semi-redundant (rather like "His speed increased to an acceleration"), and will produce winces among the musically-trained.

to:

* '''Exeunt''' is not a fancy synonym for '''exit'''. Etymologically, "exit" is the third-person singular present active indicative of the Latin verb ''exeō'', and "exeunt" its third-person plural present active indicative. Thus, in stage directions, "exit" is used for only one actor (e.g., Exit Hamlet), and "exeunt" for two or more (e.g., Exeunt Romeo and Juliet).
* A '''crescendo''' is NOT the loud climax of a piece of music or other sound -- the word you want is, well, '''climax.''' ''Crescendo'' (Italian: "I wax, I grow greater") refers to the ''process of getting louder'', an increase in volume over time, which ultimately may lead to a climax (or instead subside again in a '''decrescendo.''') "The noise rose to a crescendo" is flat-out wrong, in fact semi-redundant (rather like "His speed increased to an acceleration"), and will produce winces among the musically-trained.




* Contrary to what some believe, '''arbitrary''' does not mean the same thing as "random" or "ever-changing." It refers to a decision, definition, or policy which ''lacks a basis in prior precedent''. It is true that policies based largely on arbitration usually change rapidly and seemingly at random, but that is only a side effect. It is not the definition of the word.
* Being '''agnostic''' does not mean that a person is "undecided" or "unsure" about the existence of a god; it means that they believe in the divine, but freely admit that they don't know its exact nature (or, in some cases, that they believe that the exact nature of the divine is ''inherently'' unknowable). This is the reason for the word's Greek etymology: it comes from the prefix ''"a-"'' (meaning "lacking" or "without") and the root word ''"gnosis"'' (meaning "knowledge"). [[note]] Technically, it should also be pronounced "AY-noss-tick" rather than "AGG-noss-tick", since the "g" is silent in the Greek word ''"gnosis"''. But that's another issue.[[/note]]
* "Please '''bare''' with me". No, I don't know you well enough. But if you like, I'll try and '''bear''' with you (in the metaphorical sense of following where you're going).

to:

* Contrary to what some believe, '''arbitrary''' does not mean the same thing as "random" or "ever-changing." It refers to a decision, definition, or policy which ''lacks a basis in prior precedent''. It is true that policies based largely on arbitration usually change rapidly and seemingly at random, but that is only a side effect. It is not the definition of the word.
* Being '''agnostic''' does not mean that a person is "undecided" or "unsure" about the existence of a god; it means that they believe in the divine, but freely admit that they don't know its exact nature (or, in some cases, that they believe that the exact nature of the divine is ''inherently'' unknowable). This is the reason for the word's Greek etymology: it comes from the prefix ''"a-"'' (meaning "lacking" or "without") and the root word ''"gnosis"'' (meaning "knowledge"). [[note]] Technically, it should also be pronounced "AY-noss-tick" rather than "AGG-noss-tick", since the "g" is silent in the Greek word ''"gnosis"''. But that's another issue.[[/note]]
* "Please '''bare''' with me". No, I don't know you well enough. But if you like, I'll try and '''bear''' with you (in the metaphorical sense of following where you're going).


28th Sep '17 4:27:14 AM BreadBull
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* There is a famous (for a given value of "famous") poem by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, inventor of the "modern technique" of handgun combat:[softreturn]''A clip is not a magazine[softreturn]A mag is not a clip[softreturn]Neither is a grip a stock[softreturn]And "stock" does not mean "grip".[softreturn][softreturn]I do not mean to nitpick[softreturn]But improvement might be seen[softreturn]If we could bring ourselves to say[softreturn]Exactly what we mean.''
** A '''clip''' and a '''magazine''' are often used interchangeably, but military terminology is that a clip feeds a magazine (or the cylinder of a revolver) quickly; a magazine feeds into the weapon itself. A removable magazine is often referred to as a clip even by military sources, however.
*** This was highlighted early in 2014 when a California state senator delivered a press conference tirade where he kept using "30 calibre clip" and "30 magazine clip" to characterize the supposed firing speed of a gun.
** A '''stock''' is the part of a rifle, shotgun, or occasionally SMG or pistol that is braced against the shoulder; a '''grip''' is the part that is actually, well, [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin gripped]]—it's specifically the part of the gun that is held by the hand that pulls the trigger, and includes the trigger itself (though sometimes also used as a shortened form of "foregrip", the part of a long gun that is held by the off-hand to steady the weapon). The stock and grip are together part of the '''receiver''', the framework that holds the whole thing together (often called a '''frame''' on handguns).
*** To make things more confusing, in most classic rifles (i.e. non-automatic), a ''stock'' refers to the large wooden (or plastic) part all the metal parts (barrel, bolt and trigger assembly) are connected to. In this case, a part of stock behind the grip that is put against shooter's shoulder would be a 'butt'.
** A '''bullet''' is the metal slug fired from a gun. A '''cartridge''' or '''round''' is the unfired ammunition. A '''casing''' is the spent part of the cartridge ejected otherwise. Referring to unfired cartridges as bullets is a classic error. Similarly, '''shot''' is what's fired from a ''shotgun''. '''Shell''' can be both the unfired ammo and the spent casing.
*** To be extra confusing, old style cannon fired '''shot''' (solid projectiles) and '''shells''' (explosive projectiles). Explosive projectiles are still called shells.
** A '''barrel''' is the tube a bullet travels down when fired; before firing, the bullet sits (contained in a cartridge, see above) in a '''chamber'''. Revolvers have multiple chambers which rotate in a '''cylinder'''; other guns load their chambers (or "chamber rounds") from their magazines.
* For small arms, '''caliber''' means the width of the barrel at the narrowest point. "High caliber" is not, in fact, a way of saying "high power". E.g. A 7.62x39mm round fired from an AKM will not impart as much energy to a target as a 7.62x54mm round fired from a SVD Dragunov, nor will the 9x19mm Parabellum round impart as much energy as the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round.
** Another way to think of it is that a "high caliber bullet" will ''generally'' be fired from a bigger gun. However, caliber has nothing to do with strength ''by itself'' - if anything, the length of the cartridge (i.e. how much space there is in the casing for gunpowder behind the bullet) has more to do with the energy the bullet imparts on a target than the diameter of the bullet. If you're trying to say that a high caliber hand gun is more powerful than a low caliber rifle, chances are that you're ''wrong''. Unless you want to get into the specifics of grain count, rifling twist, bullet velocity and weight, you're better off assuming that handguns are less powerful than rifles.
*** To put it another way, "caliber" is absolutely not the same thing as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power#Energy_transfer "stopping power"]]. A small-caliber bullet fired from a high-powered rifle is a lot more likely to kill you than a large-caliber bullet fired at a much slower speed -- the latter bulldozes its way through the entire region via [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock hydrostatic shock]]; the former punctures its way through a narrow path. Kinetic energy is a function of the mass times the ''square'' of the speed.
** On the same subject, '''bore''' and '''caliber''' are not necessarily interchangeable. Traditionally for rifled weaponry, especially rifled artillery, "bore" denotes the number of turns in the number of calibers (i.e. how many times the width of the projectile down the barrel the projectile must travel to have one complete turn imparted on it by the rifling). So a rifled late Victorian artillery piece with one turn per 38 calibers is a 38 bore, but a smoothbore early Victorian cannon is a zero bore. To confuse matters further, in the UK the word "bore" is also used to mean the same as "gauge" in regards to shotguns: a measure of barrel diameter based upon the weight of a solid lead ball that will fit perfectly into the barrel, expressed as the denominator of a vulgar fraction of a pound if the numerator is one. Thus if the largest lead ball you can fit into the shotgun barrel weighs one twelfth of a pound, you have a 12-bore (or, in the US, 12-guage) shotgun.
** To confuse matters, there are two separate meanings of the phrase "high-caliber," one of which means larger bullets, and the older of which means "fits the mold ideally." Therefore in other usage, higher caliber always means "better," but in guns it's just a straight technical term with no better/worse meaning.
** To confuse the situation even further, the term caliber is also used to indicate barrel length of artillery pieces, especially naval artillery. So when one refers to a 5"/ 38 caliber gun, one is referring to a gun with a barrel that is one caliber, or 5", internal diameter, and 38 calibers, or 190" long.
* '''Point-blank''' does not mean "at very close range". Point-blank refers to the maximum distance between a firearm and its target before one's aim needs to be adjusted for elevation. Of course, for field artillery or naval guns designed to launch shells in long parabolic arcs, that ''is'' quite a close range. For handguns or rifles, not so much.
* The word '''factoid''' is often used as if it meant "little fact" or "trivia," as in "here's a little factoid for you". It actually means "[[LittleKnownFacts something resembling a fact but with no evidence to support it]]"[[note]]"Factoids ... that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority." [N. Mailer, "Marilyn," 1973][[/note]], much like ''android'' is 'something that resembles a man'. Amusingly, this can often make the word more appropriate than the speaker's intention.



* '''UsefulNotes/{{Feminism}}''' often gets misused for '''misandry'''. Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men and nothing more. Unfortunately, due to a VocalMinority of feminists who tend to skew issues into an "us vs them" rhetoric, their advocacy for equality is often conflated with outright hatred for men.



* The phrase "'''compare and contrast'''" is redundant. '''Contrasting''' involves comparing—contrasting is comparing only the differences, while '''comparing''' in the broader sense may also note similarities. This error in rampant in this very wiki.
* '''Exponentially''' means "increasing at a rate which is also increasing", not merely "increasing" and certainly not "a lot". Mathematically speaking, "exponentially more" refers only to the difference between the rates of increase of two functions, and has a much more specific meaning than "this is growing faster than that"[[note]]The mathematical meaning of "exponentially more/less" is about the asymptotic complexity of a function equal to the difference between two functions. (More specifically, a function f(x) is said to be "exponentially greater" than another function g(x) if their difference (f(x) - g(x)) is a function that has the same asymptotic complexity as some function h(x) that grows exponentially with x. Another, probably more common definition is that their ratio (f(x)/g(x)) grows faster than any power of x. If one starts to be pedantic, the latter is called super-polynomial, and most people insist on using ratios (2^x doesn't really grow faster than 2* 2^x)) This means that it's incorrect to say that something is "exponentially more/less" than something else when the two things being compared are just constant quantities, rather than quantities that increase as functions of some variable (such as time).[[/note]] Values that stay the same or increase at steady rate are not, by definition, "exponentially" ''anything''. Most people who say this mean "orders of magnitude greater". An "order of magnitude" is (usually) ten times[[note]]Mathematically speaking, an order of magnitude is a factor of whatever the base value is. Saying that it is "usually ten times" reflects the generic standard that most mathematics is done in base ten. An order of magnitude in binary, for example, would be a factor of 2, while an order of magnitude in hexadecimal would be a factor of 16, ''et cetera''.[[/note]], so more than one would be 100 times, 1000 times, or more. That said, a quantity that is ten times larger than its starting value after one year, 100 times larger after two years, and 1000 times larger after three, can be said to be growing "exponentially" as the relation between value N and time t is one of N=10^t or N≈44.7e^t.



* '''Bemused''' has nothing to do with being "amused" -- in fact it means "utterly confused."
** Similarly, '''Nonplussed''' does not mean "aloof" or "unimpressed". It means "bewildered".
*** Or "unperturbed". Non-reacting due to confusion, or just non-reacting.

to:

* '''Bemused''' has nothing to do with being "amused" -- in fact it means "utterly confused."
** Similarly,
'''Nonplussed''' does not mean "aloof" or "unimpressed". It means "bewildered".
*** Or * "unperturbed". Non-reacting due to confusion, or just non-reacting.



* Similarly, a '''butler''' is the head of a large household of servants, dealing specifically with the wine cellars -- "butler" is, in fact, a corruption of "bottler". Because Jeeves is Bertie Wooster's only servant, his first job title would be "valet", although butlers may double as valets and vice versa.
** In one story, Jeeves' feelings are actually hurt when he is called on to buttle. That the normally unflappable "gentleman's gentleman" takes offense at something that seems trivial to us says that at one point it was a much more important distinction.
** Additionally, valet, when referring to a gentleman's servant, is always pronounced such that it rhymes with "pallet" or "mallet". Valet prounounced in the French style, such that it rhymes with "chalet", is an attendant who parks your car.
* While we're on the subject, '''claret'''--meaning a type of red Bordeaux wine and its associated colour--is pronounced to rhyme approximately with "merit". The word is a very old English borrowing, deriving from [[GermansLoveDavidHasselhoff medieval English nobles' love of a kind of dark rosé Bordeaux]] called ''clairet'', which the English eventually changed to "claret" as they began speaking English rather than French as a first language. They eventually began just calling any Bordeaux "claret," and when the preference of the English nobility (who [[UsefulNotes/NationalDrinks still love French wine, especially Bordeaux]]) shifted from a rosé to dark red, the name didn't change. Pronouncing it in the French manner is a hyperforeignism and frowned upon by the people who actually drink it. (You might be forgiven for your first offence if you're from a region or group that isn't familiar with the term--for instance, the same wine marketed as a "claret" in England will just be called a Bordeaux in America--but once you've been warned, you're on your own.)



* '''Disinterested''' is ''not'' a synonym for '''uninterested'''; it means, rather, that you are unbiased or have no vested interest.
** Though it wouldn't be unreasonable to be uninterested because you are disinterested.
** A good judge is disinterested; a tough audience is uninterested.
*** Ironically, the earliest recorded use of "disinterested" is in the sense that now belongs to "uninterested".



* '''Conspicuous''' means "obvious," not "suspicious," no matter the way it sounds. Thus, if something was conspicuously absent, you are merely able to notice that it was absent; you do not necessarily have to raise an eyebrow at its absence.
** This may come from a character saying that they need to remain "inconspicuous" while in disguise or something similar. The character wants it to not be obvious they are in a disguise and consequently not be suspicious. Since they can say, "I want to be inconspicuous," or, "I don't want to be suspicious," interchangeably in such a situation, this may be why people equate them.
** By itself, conspicuous may not mean suspicious, but in that particular context it is implied the same as saying something is remarkably or questionably absent.
* '''Fascism''' is a loose political ideology that combines nationalism, militarism, anti-socialism and conservatism ([[EnemyMine insofar as Fascists and Conservatives can both agree that socialism and liberalism are bad]]). It's also associated with [[YouHaveOutlivedYourUsefulness anti-conservatism]] (because unlike conservatives they look to the future and not to the past for their ideal end-goal society), futurism, corporatism (i.e. Country-Corporation co-operation), military expansionism, and Social Darwinism. Most modern people and political parties that don't self-identify as "fascist" probably aren't fascists. Definite no-no's include communists, socialists, anarchists, feminists, environmentalists, liberals, inter/anti-nationalists, pacifists, the USA's Republican and Democratic Parties, [[Creator/GeorgeOrwell Youth Hostels, Gandhi, women and dogs]].
** To be more precise, even people showing antisemitic or xenophobic cannot be called "fascists" indiscriminately, as the original fascism introduced in Italy by Mussolini wasn't heavy on xenophobia (fascists' aggression was usually directed towards their internal political enemies, chiefly the Catholic Trade Unions and Socialist Parties). It was German National Socialism ("Nazism" or "Hitlerism") that introduces the ideas of racial superiority.
* '''Corporatism''' is the doctrine promoted by Mussolini that society should function as a body (Latin: ''corpus'') in which each of the various sectors of society (government, business, labor, etc.) are treated as "organs" within the body, interdependent and working toward the betterment of the whole. The term can include big business, but is broader than a simple collusion between business and government; "corporatism" has absolutely nothing to do with the English word "corporation."
** Relatedly, '''corporate personhood''' does not refer to letting companies vote or adopt children the way individual citizens can. It means a group of people ("a body") are treated as one person for administrative and certain legal purposes (particularly certain economic rights, including, most importantly, the right to enter into contracts and the right to sue and be sued). Perhaps ironically, "abolishing corporate personhood," if done without extremely fine precision, could ban labor unions, Indian tribes petitioning for reparations, and class-action lawsuits.



* '''Consequences'''. It's commonly used to mean the negative results of an action; the opposite of a reward or benefit. Its actual definition is ''all'' results of an action, positive ''and'' negative.



* The term "Assault and Battery" exists because the two represent different parts of the same act. '''Assault''' is a a threat which suggests that "immediate harmful contact" will occur; '''battery''' occurs upon contact. Swinging a bat at somebody is assault. Hitting somebody with a bat is battery. Consequently, the latter usually depends on the former, except when the threat is unknown until contact. Generally, the contact doesn't have to be violent; the rule is that any unwelcome ''touching'' is battery (although as a practical matter you have to meet a certain threshold in order to get the authorities to prosecute). An unwanted pie in the face or kiss on the cheek constitutes assault and battery; thus some statutes on sexual assault actually call it "sexual battery" on the theory that you're punishing the touching, not the threat.
** Different jurisdictions have different definitions. Example: what the MPC and the above call "Battery" is called "Assault" in Delaware, and what the above calls "Assault" is named "Menacing".
** Bear in mind that both assault and battery are not only crimes, they are also civil torts in most [[TheCommonLaw common-law]] jurisdictions. This means that you can be prosecuted by the state and sued for damages by the victim for one act. Battery suits often address things that the state just lets slip; in one case frequently used in law schools (''Garratt v. Dailey''), an old woman successfully sued a five-year-old boy for $11,000 (in 1952 money!) after she got a hip fracture when he moved a chair she was trying to sit in.
* "'''Affect'''" and "'''effect'''": In ''general'' terms, "effect" is usually a noun and "affect" is usually a verb. However, there are actually ''five'' words there, not two.
** af-FECT (v) - To have influence on. "The heavy rains affected the water level."
** af-FECT (v) - To pretend, often to pretend to have a degree of sophistication. "At the wine club, Bob affected a fake French accent to be a douche."
*** This is also the base word of "affectation," or a behavior adopted to evoke that air of sophistication. "Even though Bob is from America, he crosses his 7s as an affectation."
** AF-fect (n) - Usually only used in psychology circles, and it's basically a term for an emotional response.
** Effect (n) - A consequence or result of something. "The effect of all the heavy rain was flooding."
** Effect (v) - To create a change. "Due to the flooding, the city effected changes in flood channel construction."
** The things you carry on your person (in your purse or pockets) are your "personal ''effects''"

to:

* The term "Assault and Battery" exists because the two represent different parts of the same act. '''Assault''' is a a threat which suggests that "immediate harmful contact" will occur; '''battery''' occurs upon contact. Swinging a bat at somebody is assault. Hitting somebody with a bat is battery. Consequently, the latter usually depends on the former, except when the threat is unknown until contact. Generally, the contact doesn't have to be violent; the rule is that any unwelcome ''touching'' is battery (although as a practical matter you have to meet a certain threshold in order to get the authorities to prosecute). An unwanted pie in the face or kiss on the cheek constitutes assault and battery; thus some statutes on sexual assault actually call it "sexual battery" on the theory that you're punishing the touching, not the threat.
** Different jurisdictions have different definitions. Example: what the MPC and the above call "Battery" is called "Assault" in Delaware, and what the above calls "Assault" is named "Menacing".
** Bear in mind that both assault and battery are not only crimes, they are also civil torts in most [[TheCommonLaw common-law]] jurisdictions. This means that you can be prosecuted by the state and sued for damages by the victim for one act. Battery suits often address things that the state just lets slip; in one case frequently used in law schools (''Garratt v. Dailey''), an old woman successfully sued a five-year-old boy for $11,000 (in 1952 money!) after she got a hip fracture when he moved a chair she was trying to sit in.
* "'''Affect'''" and "'''effect'''": In ''general'' terms, "effect" is usually a noun and "affect" is usually a verb. However, there are actually ''five'' words there, not two.
** af-FECT (v) - To have influence on. "The heavy rains affected the water level."
** af-FECT (v) - To pretend, often to pretend to have a degree of sophistication. "At the wine club, Bob affected a fake French accent to be a douche."
*** This is also the base word of "affectation," or a behavior adopted to evoke that air of sophistication. "Even though Bob is from America, he crosses his 7s as an affectation."
** AF-fect (n) - Usually only used in psychology circles, and it's basically a term for an emotional response.
** Effect (n) - A consequence or result of something. "The effect of all the heavy rain was flooding."
** Effect (v) - To create a change. "Due to the flooding, the city effected changes in flood channel construction."
** The things you carry on your person (in your purse or pockets) are your "personal ''effects''"



* Despite popular claims, in English the word "'''America'''" refers to a ''country'', not a ''continent''. Misuse of this one (e.g. claims that America is a continent, not a country) has been increasingly common among Spanish and Portuguese-speaking Latin Americans who are also fluent in English ([[MisplacedNationalism and anyone who likes bullying Americans]]). See, in the Anglosphere (as well as most of Asia and Western Europe), there is ''no'' one single continent called America. These regions of the world use a seven-continent geographic model, which includes two continents named '''North America''' and '''South America'''. Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries use a different geographical model in which these two continents are considered one single continent called "America," but in English, the ''correct'' term for grouping North and South America together is '''the Americas'''.[[note]]North and South America physically ''are'' two continents, and Central America is a third, distinct continental plate, so the non-Iberophone world has science on its side. Both models of the continents pretend Europe and Asia exist, though, and they don't—just Eurasia (and the Arabian and Indian subcontinents). Incidentally, a good working definition of "continent", by the way, is "large contiguous landmass, of which ''most'' is situated on a single tectonic plate, and which landmass constitutes ''most'' of the land situated on that tectonic plate. Thus the portions of Siberia on the North American Plate are not part of North America (because they are not part of the North American landmass), the Falklands are not a continent (because even if they were their own plate--they may not be--they aren't large enough), and neither is India (because although the Indian Plate is its own thing, the land of the Indian subcontinent is part of the same contiguous landmass as the Eurasian Plate, and therefore not a continent unto itself).[[/note]]
** Also, for Argentinians fluent in English, take special note--'''North America''' in English refers to the ''continent'' of North America, not the United States. (In Argentinean Spanish, ''Norteamericano'' is a gentilic for the United States.)
** Also, for everyone: Mexico is part of North America, not Central or South America. "North American" and "Anglophone" are not interchangeable, and that's true even without Canadian bilingualism getting involved.
* Off the northwestern coast of Europe are the '''British Isles''', a collection of two large and many small islands, the largest of which is '''(Great) Britain''' and the second largest of which is '''Ireland'''. Together they contain two countries: the '''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''' and '''Ireland''' (called the "Republic of Ireland" to differentiate it from the island, of which it covers about five-sixths.) The United Kingdom is a country composed of four constituent countries: '''Scotland''', '''Wales''', '''Northern Ireland''' and '''England'''. '''Cornwall''' is a politically united but culturally distinct area within England. There also exists the '''Isle of Man''', the '''Bailiwick of Guernsey''', and the '''Bailiwick of Jersey''', which are not part of the United Kingdom, but which have its Queen as their sovereign and which the UK provides for the military defence thereof. It is confusing but please, for your own safety, NEVER use ''England'' to refer to anything besides the land south of the River Tweed and east of the Rivers Vyrnwy and Tamar (Cornwall may be a more debated case but the Cornish will like you for it).
*** [[http://i.imgur.com/cuq3P.png Relevant.]]
*** [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 Also relevant]].
** The term "British Isles" is also disputed by many Irish people, who object to the term "British", given its usual usage as "of or pertaining to Great Britain". The governments of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland both avoid using the term, as do most Irish people, but it is a common term in Great Britain, where it is seen as an entirely neutral, geographic term, akin to "Indian Subcontinent" or "North America".
*** Well the British Government uses it, just not in international documents. The neutral term often used is '''Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)'''. (This does, mind, include the islands of Faeroe, which are really quite un-British, being ruled by Denmark and speaking their own North Germanic language and all...)
*** Not to be confused with the island of Iona off the west coast of Scotland.
*** At least in the travel industry, the "Indian Subcontinent" is now the "South Asian Subcontinent".
** Also, it's standard practice to refer the UK as "Britain", even though Northern Ireland is part of the former but not the latter.
** Also, a person from Scotland is "a Scot"; many people from Scotland are "Scots." You may describe their nationality and their institutions as "Scottish" (so it's perfectly to say "my friend is Scottish" in the same way that one would say "my friend is English"), but ''only'' in that sense.
*** 'Scottish' is an adjective qualifying someone or something from Scotland. 'Scot' is a noun. While it's preferable to refer to people from Scotland as "the Scots" rather than "the Scottish"[[note]]though historically, the Scots -- or the Scoti -- were from Scotia, which was in fact a Roman name for ''Ireland''[[/note]], it is not wrong to refer to someone as Scottish by way of an adjective. On that note, the adjective is indeed 'Scottish'. Don't use the adjective 'Scotch' outside of Scotch whisky, Scotch eggs or Scotch pies, at least not if you don't want to be [[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scotch#Verb scotched]] yourself.[[note]]However, at least as recently as Agatha Christie, "Scotch" and "Scotchman" were acceptable English idioms, no matter what the Scots themselves may have had to say about it.[[/note]]
*** And while we're at it, place-name adjectives like "Parisian" or "Viennese" do ''not'' simply mean "from Paris" or "from Vienna", but rather "typical or characteristic of the place in question". Thus, you can have a ''Viennese café'' in London (i.e. it embodies characteristics commonly associated with Vienna), but "Le Monde" is a "Paris newspaper" (i.e. a newspaper based in Paris).
** These rules similarly apply to people. Hugh Laurie was born in England, Ewan [=McGregor=] in Scotland, and Catherine Zeta Jones in Wales. All three are British[[note]]though both Welsh people and Scots generally prefer the more specific demonym[[/note]], but only Laurie is English. Pierce Brosnan is neither (he's Irish).
*** And just to make things more complicated--people from most of the British Isles wince at the expression [[IAmVeryBritish 'British accent']]. Usually because they know what foreigners mean by that, and resent the implication that's how they sound. 'English accent' is marginally better (not that people from much of England will take kindly to being told 'all British accents sound posh and educated to ''me''...', as they'll still feel that their existence is being denied and aren't always as pleased as you'd think to be told they sound 'classy', but it narrows the offence a little.)
** The '''Isle of Man''' is not part of England, Scotland or even the UK; it's a separate dependency of the British Crown. The '''Bailiwick of Jersey''' and the '''Bailiwick of Guernsey''' (known collectively as the Channel Islands) are the other two Crown Dependencies. ("Bailiwick" being an archaic term meaning the area under the jurisdiction of a bailiff -- a bailiff being a sheriff's appointee, so a bailiwick would have been a part of a shire). There are also 13 British overseas territories, and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (both on Cyprus).
** On that note, now you know where the idiomatic expression '''bailiwick''' got its meaning: it means an area specific to one's jurisdiction (department, profession, area of expertise): "not my bailiwick".

to:

* Despite popular claims, in English the word "'''America'''" refers to a ''country'', not a ''continent''. Misuse of this one (e.g. claims that America is a continent, not a country) has been increasingly common among Spanish and Portuguese-speaking Latin Americans who are also fluent in English ([[MisplacedNationalism and anyone who likes bullying Americans]]). See, in the Anglosphere (as well as most of Asia and Western Europe), there is ''no'' one single continent called America. These regions of the world use a seven-continent geographic model, which includes two continents named '''North America''' and '''South America'''. Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries use a different geographical model in which these two continents are considered one single continent called "America," but in English, the ''correct'' term for grouping North and South America together is '''the Americas'''.[[note]]North and South America physically ''are'' two continents, and Central America is a third, distinct continental plate, so the non-Iberophone world has science on its side. Both models of the continents pretend Europe and Asia exist, though, and they don't—just Eurasia (and the Arabian and Indian subcontinents). Incidentally, a good working definition of "continent", by the way, is "large contiguous landmass, of which ''most'' is situated on a single tectonic plate, and which landmass constitutes ''most'' of the land situated on that tectonic plate. Thus the portions of Siberia on the North American Plate are not part of North America (because they are not part of the North American landmass), the Falklands are not a continent (because even if they were their own plate--they may not be--they aren't large enough), and neither is India (because although the Indian Plate is its own thing, the land of the Indian subcontinent is part of the same contiguous landmass as the Eurasian Plate, and therefore not a continent unto itself).[[/note]]
** Also, for Argentinians fluent in English, take special note--'''North America''' in English refers to the ''continent'' of North America, not the United States. (In Argentinean Spanish, ''Norteamericano'' is a gentilic for the United States.)
** Also, for everyone: Mexico is part of North America, not Central or South America. "North American" and "Anglophone" are not interchangeable, and that's true even without Canadian bilingualism getting involved.
* Off the northwestern coast of Europe are the '''British Isles''', a collection of two large and many small islands, the largest of which is '''(Great) Britain''' and the second largest of which is '''Ireland'''. Together they contain two countries: the '''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''' and '''Ireland''' (called the "Republic of Ireland" to differentiate it from the island, of which it covers about five-sixths.) The United Kingdom is a country composed of four constituent countries: '''Scotland''', '''Wales''', '''Northern Ireland''' and '''England'''. '''Cornwall''' is a politically united but culturally distinct area within England. There also exists the '''Isle of Man''', the '''Bailiwick of Guernsey''', and the '''Bailiwick of Jersey''', which are not part of the United Kingdom, but which have its Queen as their sovereign and which the UK provides for the military defence thereof. It is confusing but please, for your own safety, NEVER use ''England'' to refer to anything besides the land south of the River Tweed and east of the Rivers Vyrnwy and Tamar (Cornwall may be a more debated case but the Cornish will like you for it).
*** [[http://i.imgur.com/cuq3P.png Relevant.]]
*** [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 Also relevant]].
** The term "British Isles" is also disputed by many Irish people, who object to the term "British", given its usual usage as "of or pertaining to Great Britain". The governments of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland both avoid using the term, as do most Irish people, but it is a common term in Great Britain, where it is seen as an entirely neutral, geographic term, akin to "Indian Subcontinent" or "North America".
*** Well the British Government uses it, just not in international documents. The neutral term often used is '''Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA)'''. (This does, mind, include the islands of Faeroe, which are really quite un-British, being ruled by Denmark and speaking their own North Germanic language and all...)
*** Not to be confused with the island of Iona off the west coast of Scotland.
*** At least in the travel industry, the "Indian Subcontinent" is now the "South Asian Subcontinent".
** Also, it's standard practice to refer the UK as "Britain", even though Northern Ireland is part of the former but not the latter.
** Also, a person from Scotland is "a Scot"; many people from Scotland are "Scots." You may describe their nationality and their institutions as "Scottish" (so it's perfectly to say "my friend is Scottish" in the same way that one would say "my friend is English"), but ''only'' in that sense.
*** 'Scottish' is an adjective qualifying someone or something from Scotland. 'Scot' is a noun. While it's preferable to refer to people from Scotland as "the Scots" rather than "the Scottish"[[note]]though historically, the Scots -- or the Scoti -- were from Scotia, which was in fact a Roman name for ''Ireland''[[/note]], it is not wrong to refer to someone as Scottish by way of an adjective. On that note, the adjective is indeed 'Scottish'. Don't use the adjective 'Scotch' outside of Scotch whisky, Scotch eggs or Scotch pies, at least not if you don't want to be [[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scotch#Verb scotched]] yourself.[[note]]However, at least as recently as Agatha Christie, "Scotch" and "Scotchman" were acceptable English idioms, no matter what the Scots themselves may have had to say about it.[[/note]]
*** And while we're at it, place-name adjectives like "Parisian" or "Viennese" do ''not'' simply mean "from Paris" or "from Vienna", but rather "typical or characteristic of the place in question". Thus, you can have a ''Viennese café'' in London (i.e. it embodies characteristics commonly associated with Vienna), but "Le Monde" is a "Paris newspaper" (i.e. a newspaper based in Paris).
** These rules similarly apply to people. Hugh Laurie was born in England, Ewan [=McGregor=] in Scotland, and Catherine Zeta Jones in Wales. All three are British[[note]]though both Welsh people and Scots generally prefer the more specific demonym[[/note]], but only Laurie is English. Pierce Brosnan is neither (he's Irish).
*** And just to make things more complicated--people from most of the British Isles wince at the expression [[IAmVeryBritish 'British accent']]. Usually because they know what foreigners mean by that, and resent the implication that's how they sound. 'English accent' is marginally better (not that people from much of England will take kindly to being told 'all British accents sound posh and educated to ''me''...', as they'll still feel that their existence is being denied and aren't always as pleased as you'd think to be told they sound 'classy', but it narrows the offence a little.)
** The '''Isle of Man''' is not part of England, Scotland or even the UK; it's a separate dependency of the British Crown. The '''Bailiwick of Jersey''' and the '''Bailiwick of Guernsey''' (known collectively as the Channel Islands) are the other two Crown Dependencies. ("Bailiwick" being an archaic term meaning the area under the jurisdiction of a bailiff -- a bailiff being a sheriff's appointee, so a bailiwick would have been a part of a shire). There are also 13 British overseas territories, and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (both on Cyprus).
** On that note, now you know where the idiomatic expression '''bailiwick''' got its meaning: it means an area specific to one's jurisdiction (department, profession, area of expertise): "not my bailiwick".
22nd Sep '17 7:37:03 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* A '''Monkey''' is a type of primate, usually one with tails that live in trees. An '''Ape''' (which includes gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans) is not considered a monkey, although they belong in the same suborder(Catarrhini) as Old World Monkeys. Apes don't have a tail, have larger brains then monkeys, and tend to be larger then most monkeys. '''Simian''' refers to both apes and monkeys. Lampshaded in ''Literature/{{Discworld}}'' where the Librarian, an Orangutan, is annoyed at being called a Monkey.

to:

* A '''Monkey''' is a type of primate, usually one with tails that live in trees. An '''Ape''' (which includes gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans) is not considered a monkey, although they belong in the same suborder(Catarrhini) as Old World Monkeys. Apes don't have a tail, have larger brains then than monkeys, and tend to be larger then than most monkeys. '''Simian''' refers to both apes and monkeys. Lampshaded in ''Literature/{{Discworld}}'' where the Librarian, an Orangutan, is annoyed at being called a Monkey.
22nd Sep '17 7:11:53 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "Please bare with me". No, I don't know you well enough. I'll try and ''bear'' with you (in the metaphorical sense of following where you're going) if you like, though.

to:

* "Please bare '''bare''' with me". No, I don't know you well enough. But if you like, I'll try and ''bear'' '''bear''' with you (in the metaphorical sense of following where you're going) if you like, though.going).
22nd Sep '17 6:48:19 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Jealousy''' typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, particularly in reference to a human connection. One can be a jealous boyfriend, but one cannot be jealous of ''someone else's'' boyfriend, unless [[HoYay there's already something between the two of you]]. This is often confused with '''Envy''', which is "an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it. Further compounding the confusion is the word '''Covet''', which includes all the characteristics of the definition of 'envy' but also indicates a willingness to take the object coveted for themselves. For instance, if a person has a television set that you want, envy might drive you to buy a bigger, better TV (as you desire the quality of owning a nice television). If you coveted it, however, you'd be more likely to steal their TV (as you desire the exact television set they own).

to:

* '''Jealousy''' typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, particularly in reference to a human connection. One can be a jealous boyfriend, but one cannot be jealous of ''someone else's'' boyfriend, unless [[HoYay there's already something between the two of you]]. This is often confused with '''Envy''', which is "an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it. Further compounding the confusion is the word '''Covet''', which includes all the characteristics of the definition of 'envy' but also indicates a willingness to take the object coveted for themselves. For instance, if a person has a television set that you want, envy might drive you to buy a bigger, better TV (as you desire the quality of owning a nice television). If you coveted it, however, you'd be more likely to steal their TV (as you desire the exact television set they own). And if you're jealous, you're worried that they're coveting ''your'' TV.
22nd Sep '17 6:21:43 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

--> "Newsanchor overheard in ''Film/{{Highlander}}'': "It also left a man's decapitated body, lying on the floor next to his own severed head."
22nd Sep '17 6:12:33 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* '''Chronic''' does not mean "severe". It means "recurring/habitual" and/or "happening for a long time;" it comes from a Greek root meaning "time" (same as "chronological" or "chronicle"), so you should think "over time." Contrast '''acute''', which means "rapid onset". Too many people associate "acute" with "small" due to its meaning in geometry.

to:

* '''Chronic''' does not mean "severe". It means "recurring/habitual" and/or "happening for a long time;" it comes from a Greek root meaning "time" (same as "chronological" or "chronicle"), so you should think "over time." Contrast '''acute''', which means "rapid onset". Too many people associate "acute" with "small" due to its meaning in geometry.geometry (they should be associating it with "sharp" for the same reason).
22nd Sep '17 6:06:18 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** What "agoraphobia" misses is the ''social'' part of "social anxiety disorder". Sartre's "Hell is other people" hits a nerve - and as unjustified as that hit may be, it's still felt.
22nd Sep '17 5:52:43 AM PetroleumJerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "Please bare with me". No, I don't know you well enough.

to:

* "Please bare with me". No, I don't know you well enough. I'll try and ''bear'' with you (in the metaphorical sense of following where you're going) if you like, though.
This list shows the last 10 events of 638. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YouKeepUsingThatWord.LessPedantic