[QUOTE=only_human;418955]You are correct. That matches some other languages and is much more pleasant to the ear. I realized after I wrote, that the verb should stay in
traditional plural form even for singular usage.[/QUOTE]

We didn't want thine modernizaton to leave thee behind.

:smile:

happy xmas: a secular way of saying haxxy hoxidays axd new year !

:smile:

mistletoe (n): A common podiatric condition resulting from kicking the tires on an ICBM one is considering purchasing. Ex: [i]Mistletoe is a frequent foot problem suffered by war heads.[/i]

happy new year: american-english translation of feliz ano neuvo

Best To All!

Did someone just wish everybody a "happy new asshole" in Spanish?

Is there a simple way to turn an 'n' into the accented n?

[QUOTE=davar55;420946]Is there a simple way to turn an 'n' into the accented n?[/QUOTE]Like this you mean: año

[QUOTE=xilman;420962]Like this you mean: año[/QUOTE]

But what's an easy way to enter the correct unicode w/o memorizing
the correspondences?

[QUOTE=davar55;421402]But what's an easy way to enter the correct unicode w/o memorizing
the correspondences?[/QUOTE]
If in Windows, [B]charmap.exe[/B] aka Character Map.:smile: I find it very useful for non-US/English characters.

[QUOTE=davar55;421402]But what's an easy way to enter the correct unicode w/o memorizing the correspondences?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;421404]If in Windows, [B]charmap.exe[/B] aka Character Map.:smile: I find it very useful for non-US/English characters.[/QUOTE]

But how does one access that while typing?
Is there a hot key or a keystroke sequence?

[QUOTE=xilman;420962]Like this you mean: ***[/QUOTE]

I am NOT mean ! :smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;421479]But how does one access that while typing?
Is there a hot key or a keystroke sequence?[/QUOTE]Yes, to the latter. Check out keyboard mapping. Some maps (the Spanish one is an obvious example) provide a single keystroke for ñ

Others, such as the one I use, allow me to type the three keys Right-Win n ~ in that order to get an ñ

In practice, I find it much easier to have a "Character Map" app open because I can then (inshallah) just as easily type إن شاء الله‎, which would be inordinately difficult without serious mucking about.

HTH

Criminal negligee (n) -- dessous that are to die for. [i](Usage: Not to be confused with criminal negligence.)[/i]

[QUOTE=davar55;421479]But how does one access that while typing?
Is there a hot key or a keystroke sequence?[/QUOTE][LIST][*]Use Word (in it, use Insert::Symbol)[*] [SIZE=3]ǟƱƸǼɚʬʥϾѬםא۞ڴ]ᾃ♠♣[COLOR=Red]♥♦[/COLOR]♫שּׁ№ᴟ‼ ░▒▓█ [/SIZE][*]spellcheck[*]copy-paste[*]???????[*]PROFIT![/LIST]

[LIST][*]hold down the Alt key, type the code of the character using numerical keypad, release the Alt key. This is very simple, you can find your favorite character in only 65501 trials...[/LIST]

The question is not how to insert characters but how many ways are there to do that. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you keep on using "ano."
[QUOTE]What is CopyPasteCharacter.com?

A web and iPhone application for copying the ‘hidden’ characters that comes with the computer’s typefaces, to be pasted into emails, tweets, text documents, forums and whatever else you might need to spice up with an extra ♔, ฿ or, ❒.
If you have any questions, feedback or praise, feel free to send us a tweet (@copypastechar) or email.[/QUOTE]

Well, thought the goal is to type them fast, without going through menus, clicks, looking into the tables, navigating the web, etc. You hold down Alt, type from the numeric keypad, be careful that numlock is on, say 140, release alt: î. Hold down Alt, type 235, release alt: δ, after a while you learn the ascii codes of the characters you use most often. There are some tricks to access unicode characters which are not in the current 256-wide set, for example typing a 0 in front, followed by the unicode of the char, or typing a "+" and then the extended unicode of the character, Like this: ۞, or this: ∰, or this: ㎒ (you may need a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_code"]registry trick[/URL] for it!).

In time you learn the characters you use most often and you can type them very fast, without breaking the rhythm of the normal typing to look into the tables and click the mouse. I know a Chinese girl who can type Chinese by this method, she knows the unicodes of almost all usual chinese characters. Like 你好吗? (Ha! it took me almost 3 minutes to find the right characters in the unicode tables! But don't tell to these guys here!)

For basic diacriticals when you just want to make the intended accented letter clear, just follow the letter with the markup, e.g. "the first time I met her fiance' he was bombed on pin~a coladas and loudly singing [i]Deutschland u"ber Alles[/i]."

Since anything worth taking time to 'make it look nice' should be composed offline anyway to prevent the internet from eating your homework, you can stash a list of common markups in a text composition file and just copy-and-paste as needed, thus "the first time I met her fiancé he was bombed on piña coladas and loudly singing [i]Deutschland über Alles[/i]."

Here's the basic markups-string I keep handy: äöüßáàéèæïçñ. No need to separately store uppercase versions because my text-editor's uppercasing (select-text / ctrl-u) handles them properly (including the German [i]scharfes s[/i], which stands for 'ss' and exists only in lowercase form): ÄÖÜSSÁÀÉÈÆÏÇÑ.

Also have a more-complete list of such and their HTML-codes in my composition file. It's not rocket science.

Or we can just insist that everyone use English. I'm a genius!

[QUOTE=only_human;421618]I'm a genius![/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks"] Hmm... [/URL]
:razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;421619][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks"] Hmm... [/URL]
:razz:[/QUOTE]
That's why we need a fence around English - and we'll make the world pay for it.

I would almost believe you if I wouldn't know your duolingo efforts/results :razz:
ಊ

[QUOTE=LaurV;421623]I would almost believe you if I wouldn't know your duolingo efforts/results :razz:
ಊ[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you realise that I'm just mocking the stupid things that get said. We wouldn't need [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law"]Poe's law[/URL] if so many extremely thoughtless people weren't so outspoken. Parody is hard to distinguish from sincerity.

[QUOTE=LaurV;421623]I would almost believe you if I wouldn't know your duolingo efforts/results :razz:
ಊ[/QUOTE]
You are only 14 points behind me this week on Duolingo.

We use this free utility: [URL]http://www.copypastecharacter.com/Xyzzy/xyzzy-1[/URL]

You can easily set up your own list.

:mike:

[QUOTE=ewmayer;421617]...
It's not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;421618]Or we can just insist that everyone use English. I'm a genius![/QUOTE]

Thanks for the variety of ways. I didn't intend to be a pen~a in the a**.

I have only English on my resume', but I'm getting u"ber it.

[QUOTE=only_human;421620]That's why we need a fence around English - and we'll make the world pay for it.[/QUOTE]

Literate Americans (those can read and watch debates) cannot support that clown.

Spotted in NYT article: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/opinion/campaign-stops/the-tempting-of-bernie-sanders.html"]Trumperdammergung[/URL]

WP Wonkblog:
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/the-totes-amazesh-way-millennials-are-changing-the-english-language/"]The totes amazesh way millennials are changing the English language[/URL]
[QUOTE]OK, but why does it all sound so weird?

Totes-words sound strange because they often end on strange sounds. This is a fascinating fact for linguists. There aren’t any English words, for instance, that end on “nf” or “aish” — which is totally arbitrary, Spradlin says, because we use these sounds all the time in the middle of words. Sinful. Infamy. Vacation. Relationship. In totes-speak, those words become: Sinf. Inf. Vacaish. Relaish.

We’re very unused to hearing words finish like that, and that may be why people react so negatively to these abbreviations. They sound funny.

But sounding funny is also part of the point. There’s something else very strange going on with totes-speak, Spradlin says. People are putting “-sh” sounds at the end of words to sound cute. Instead of saying imposs for “impossible,” people like to say imposh. They even say things like maybsh. This happens in other languages such as Japanese and Russian, because the “-sh” sound tends to be associated with baby-talk. But Spradlin says it has never been observed in English, at least not in this widespread way.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;422396]
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/the-totes-amazesh-way-millennials-are-changing-the-english-language/"]The totes amazesh way millennials are changing the English language[/URL][/QUOTE]From that article:

[I]There aren’t any English words, for instance, that end on “nf” or “aish” — which is totally arbitrary[/I]

That depends on your dialect. For instance, Cockney speakers are world-renowned for pronouncing voiced-th as v and unvoiced-th as f. Hence, for example, the saying of the hopeful sculptor: [I]Some day my plinf will come.[/I] A recent example of the voiced variety which came to a global audience is [I]You aint no Muslim, bruv.[/I]

[QUOTE]There aren’t any English words, for instance, that end on “nf”[/QUOTE]

It does occur, however, in Gaelic:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banff,_Aberdeenshire#Etymology[/URL]

It sounds a lot like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand"]stenography[/URL], dropping the vowels and having special signs for terminations, and I think that is human nature to do it so (well... the steno was driven by the need to write fast with the pencil on the paper, the other is driven by the need to use the small on-screen kbd and to look "cute" - don't tell me, we have a feral teenagers[SUP]TM[/SUP] here in house..)

[QUOTE=Nick;422536]It does occur, however, in Gaelic:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banff,_Aberdeenshire#Etymology[/URL][/QUOTE]

And in maff, where I learned the standard abbreviation of 'infimum' (both written and spoken) to be "inf".

Today's word is [I]Outredgeous[/I]. It is a variety of lettuce as described here by a seed vendor:
[url]http://www.highmowingseeds.com/organic-non-gmo-seeds-outredgeous-lettuce.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Out-does all the reds, forming a loose teenage head with spectacular solid magenta color. Outredgeous is so red that botany students didn't recognize it as lettuce when they saw it in the Wild Garden Seeds breeding nursery. Makes an eye-catching statement in your premium salad mix. Bred by Frank Morton and released under the Open Source Seed Initiative; now growing at the International Space Station! Open Source Seed · Great baby leaf variety · Upright habit (Lactuca sativa)[/QUOTE]
So this is an amusing turn on the word [I]outrageous[/I]. I came across it when a different sentence piqued my interest enough to read an article about a little space garden:
[URL="http://phys.org/news/2016-01-mold-space-station-mars.html"]How mold on space station flowers is helping get us to Mars[/URL]
[QUOTE]The zinnia plants began to exhibit [B]guttation[/B] and [B]epinasty[/B], both signs of plant stress. [/QUOTE]
I looked up both words; I had no clue whatsoever. The sound is much more luridly evocative than any actual meaning would be. While I am on that article, they misspelled [I]Outredgeous[/I] as [I]Outredgrous[/I] but that is understandable since it is a variety name and not a regular workhorse of the English language - unlike, (ahem), guttation and epinasty.

A last thought: I like the quotidian nature of gardening discussions with ground support (from the above article):
[QUOTE]By Christmas Eve, though, Kelly called down to the ground support team to report new problems with the plants. It seemed the high fan speed was drying out the crop too much, and Kelly said he thought they needed more water. He was told, though, that the next scheduled watering was not until Dec. 27.

"I think that would be too late," Kelly told the ground team. "You know, I think if we're going to Mars, and we were growing stuff, we would be responsible for deciding when the stuff needed water. Kind of like in my backyard, I look at it and say 'Oh, maybe I should water the grass today.' I think this is how this should be handled."[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-35279102"]The Vocabularist: When plastics stopped being plastic[/URL]
[QUOTE]Nevertheless, it was only in the 1950s that "quality" UK newspapers started saying things were "made of plastic" rather than "made of plastic material".

Meanwhile, the word's meaning developed so that sometimes it is rather the opposite of the original sense.

A plastic fork, for instance, could be said to be anything but plastic.

The material it was made from was plastic - that is, easily moulded - but the fork itself is brittle and quite incapable of being moulded into anything else.

Unless it is melted again - and then it stops being a fork.[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]PSxihhBzCjk[/YOUTUBE]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlan[/url]
[QUOTE][B]Verlan[/B] (French pronunciation: ​[vɛʁlɑ̃]) is an argot in the French language, featuring inversion of syllables in a word, and is common in slang and youth language. It rests on a long French tradition of transposing syllables of individual words to create slang words.[1] The name [I]verlan[/I] is an example: it is derived from inverting the sounds of the syllables in [I]l'envers[/I] ([lɑ̃vɛʁ], "the inverse", frequently used in the sense of "back-to-front").[/QUOTE]
YouTube: [URL="http://youtu.be/m75CK3O9FCU"]French Verlan for Dummies[/URL] (3:02)
[YOUTUBE]m75CK3O9FCU[/YOUTUBE]

nofly list:
list of people whose recreational drug use violates their terms of probation.

Recently I read that hairdresser shop names in another language were also formed from puns. So I have finally found a legitimate everyday use for puns.

In the department of corrections department, on the several occasions that I've tried to use the word [I]irregardless[/I] as an obviously deliberate but colorful mistake, each and every time I've been gravely corrected to make sure that I was aware that it was a mistake.

The only time that I have been corrected more vehemently was the single time that I used the word [I]Frisco[/I].

I'm trying to recall legitimate uses of double negatives in English as a negative intensifier. I noticed them a long time ago as occurring when one of the negatives was hidden in the definition of a word. As far as single negatives, prescriptivists seem to have no problem with a negative in a question merely riding along to indicate expectation instead of being used for negation.

Oh yeah, one more. Does anyone in casual speech pronounce [I]bona fide[/I] with the correct number of syllables?
[QUOTE]bo·na fide
ˌbōnə ˈfīdē/
adjective
1.
genuine; real.
"only bona fide members of the company are allowed to use the logo"
synonyms: authentic, genuine, real, true, actual; More
adverbLAW
1.
sincerely; without intention to deceive.
"the court will assume that they have acted bona fide"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;425351]Oh yeah, one more. Does anyone in casual speech pronounce [I]bona fide[/I] with the correct number of syllables?[/QUOTE]What is the correct number of syllables in your opinion?

I pronounce each word with two syllables, as in the Latin which it so obviously is.

[QUOTE=xilman;425426]What is the correct number of syllables in your opinion?

I pronounce each word with two syllables, as in the Latin which it so obviously is.[/QUOTE]
Well of course you know and pronounce it correctly. I have never pronounced the second word with two syllables. I don't think most of my peers would recognize it.

[QUOTE=only_human;425432]Well of course you know and pronounce it correctly. I have never pronounced the second word with two syllables. I don't think most of my peers would recognize it.[/QUOTE]
Good point.

Derivations of the Latin for "faith(ful)" are often abbreviated, for example in "Semper Fi(delis)" or "Hi(gh) Fi(delity)".

[QUOTE=only_human;425432]Well of course you know and pronounce it correctly. I have never pronounced the second word with two syllables. I don't think most of my peers would recognize it.[/QUOTE]My initial reaction is that there may be a US/UK distinction. On consideration, I wondered if there was a selection bias in my estimate of typical UK behaviour. Perhaps I associate more with those who are more likely to recognize and use the Latin pronunciation.

I'll investigate further, but if non-US speakers would like to chip in that would be helpful.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;425472]I'll investigate further, but if non-US speakers would like to chip in that would be helpful.[/QUOTE]
Spent the first 29 years of my life in the UK. Heard "bona fide" very rarely, and it would often result in the speaker being asked what it meant, but I'm pretty sure it was always 2+2 syllables just as you know it.

[QUOTE=xilman;425472]My initial reaction is that there may be a US/UK distinction. On consideration, I wondered if there was a selection bias in my estimate of typical UK behaviour. Perhaps I associate more with those who are more likely to recognize and use the Latin pronunciation.

I'll investigate further, but if non-US speakers would like to chip in that would be helpful.

Paul[/QUOTE]
I think this is a UK/US distinction after all. I just checked [I]Forvo.com[/I] .
Forvo is [I]the[/I] place to go to check local native pronunciation.
[url]http://forvo.com/word/bona_fide/#en[/url]

political expediency: the art of choosing a victorious candidate you support rather than one who is actually qualified to do the job.

Zipf's Law w.r.t. 30,000+ Project Gutenberg texts.
[URL="http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2016/02/surprising-mathematical-law-tested-project-gutenberg-texts"]Surprising Mathematical Law tested on Project Gutenberg Texts[/URL]
[QUOTE]Zipf's law in its simplest form, as formulated in the thirties by American linguist George Kingsley Zipf, states surprisingly that the most frequently occurring word in a text appears twice as often as the next most frequent word, three times more than the third most frequent one, four times more than the fourth most frequent one, and so on.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The researchers studied the validity of the three most frequently used formulations of Zipf's law in all the English-language texts (31,075 books) in the Project Gutenberg database, and they observed that one of these formulations fits, with statistically significant results (p>0.05), the frequency of occurrence of all the words in over 40 percent of the books in the collection, texts that contain between 100 and over a million words.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]According to the analysis, if the rarest words are left out — those that appear only once or twice throughout a book — 55 percent of the texts fit perfectly into Zipf's law, in its most general formulation. If all the words are taken into account, even the rarest ones, the figure is 40 percent.[/QUOTE]

Impossible (politics): possible. Often used in a converse formulation with one or more "not" qualifiers. In this formulation, the actual number of "not"s used does not appear to semantically meaningful.
cf. Inflammable, infamous
[QUOTE]Nothing is impossible. The word itself says "I'm possible"[INDENT]Audrey Hepburn[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

SWMBO (apocryphal): She Who Must Behave Obsequiously

[QUOTE=only_human;429404]SWMBO (apocryphal): She Who Must Behave Obsequiously[/QUOTE]
shhhhhh! hope she doesn't read... :sirrobin:

Original Sin:
[SPOILER]Sin(0)[/SPOILER]

increment (n): another word for :poop: while it's still inside you.

[QUOTE=only_human;431382]Original Sin:
[SPOILER]Sin(0)[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]

Cool. Since [spoiler]sin(0) = 0[/spoiler],
this proves the contrary of most religious doctrine !

:smile:

[URL="http://mashable.com/2013/11/19/because-internet-preposition/"]English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet[/URL]
[QUOTE]The word "because," in standard English usage, is a subordinating conjunction, which means that it connects two parts of a sentence in which one (the subordinate) explains the other. In that capacity, "because" has two distinct forms. It can be followed either by a finite clause (I'm reading this because [I saw it on the web]) or by a prepositional phrase (I'm reading this because [of the web]). These two forms are, traditionally, the only ones to which "because" lends itself.

I mention all that ... because language. Because evolution. Because there is another way to use "because." Linguists are calling it the "prepositional-because." Or the "because-noun."

You probably know it better, however, as explanation by way of Internet — explanation that maximizes efficiency and irony in equal measure. I'm late because YouTube. You're reading this because procrastination. As the linguist Stan Carey delightfully sums it up: "'Because' has become a preposition, because grammar."[/QUOTE]
So people can vote for a racist because politics.

There is also a third form, that when 'because' is followed by nothing.
"Why did you do that?"
"Because".
:razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;436000]There is also a third form, that when 'because' is followed by nothing.
"Why did you do that?"
"Because".
:razz:[/QUOTE]

Not really. There is an implicit "reasons" there. as in:

"Why did you do that?"
"Because reasons".
:razz:

Bandwidth (n. biology): That pesky situation requiring a larger belt and looser pants.

randy: adj. sexuality: Ron Paul's son in college

[I]Shall[/I] has a history of interpretations. wiki: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will"]shall and will[/URL]

I'm not going to visit the OED or repeat "I shall drown" puzzles. Nor will I get into first and third person variances. The wiki says:
[QUOTE]Shall is widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Due to heavy misuse, its meaning is vague and the US Government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word.[/QUOTE]
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States weighed in the meaning of [I]shall[/I].
[URL="http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-unanimous-court-hands-victory-to-veterans-in-contracting-dispute/"]Opinion analysis: Unanimous Court hands victory to veterans in contracting dispute[/URL]
[QUOTE]When Congress uses the word “shall,” it intends to create a mandatory obligation. That was the unanimous conclusion of the Supreme Court today in the case of Kingdomware Technologies, a Maryland-based company that provides web, software, and technology services. The issue before the Court was whether a federal law which provides that, as long as certain conditions are met, the Department of Veterans Affairs “shall award” contracts to small businesses owned by veterans applies every time the department awards contracts. The federal government had argued that the rule left some room for discretion, but today the Court rejected that argument. “Shall,” the Court emphasized, was meant as “a command.”[/QUOTE]

Nice to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has read RFC2119...

[QUOTE=Nick;436388]Nice to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has read RFC2119...[/QUOTE]
And not even one comment from them on how wiggle room in the interpretation of [I]shall[/I] would be detrimental in following the ten commandments.

[QUOTE=Nick;436388]Nice to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has read RFC2119...[/QUOTE]
What's also nice to know is not only do RFCs have technical word definitions, Dictionary.com has technical RFC definitions:
[url]http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rfc-1157[/url]
[QUOTE]rfc 1157 in Technology
networking, standard
The RFC defining Simple Network Management Protocol.
(rfc:1157).
(1994-11-14) [/QUOTE]
Got to give those old folks sitting in robes on that law bench some credit; it took less than 20 years to catch up to RFC2119 using merely protein computers.

[QUOTE=only_human;435994][URL="http://mashable.com/2013/11/19/because-internet-preposition/"]English Has a New Preposition, Because Internet[/URL]

So people can vote for a racist because politics.[/QUOTE]

So effectively a novel euphemism for "thanks to".

--------------------------------------

[i]Dire straights[/i]: A decidedly non-gay fellowship.

I love the English Language. The fact that I wrestle with it it and am often unappreciative of prescriptivists and an unapologetic user of features in transition does not hinder me in my admiration. I wish I spoke more languages so that I could appreciate them better too.

Be that as it may, I'm a little surprised when a clunky language feature gets abandoned. It is easier to adopt new things than let go of old. One thing I don't like is the almost vanishing of the subjunctive in English. It often comes up in discussions at Duolingo.com where I try to learn a little bit of some languages.

Anyway, here's today's offering:
[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/accidence-will-happen-oliver-kamm-interview_us_576ae249e4b09926ce5d718e"]It’s Finally Time To Stop Correcting People’s Grammar, Linguist Says[/URL]
This article speaks with "Oliver Kamm, a linguist who recently wrote a book about the problem with pedantry, [I]Accidence will Happen[/I]."
[QUOTE]Do you have a favorite grammatical “error”?

I enjoy splitting infinitives, knowing that they not only accord with the grammar of Standard English but conform to its prosody as well (as they typically alternate stressed and unstressed syllables). Splitting infinitives is not just the right but the duty of the stylish writer.

You mention in your book some words -- such as authoress -- that are almost always unjustifiable. What are some others, and what, to you, makes a word unjustifiable?

A word is unjustifiable when it's used in defiance of modern mores. "Authoress" is a slighting term for which there is no masculine equivalent. The use of "he" as a singular generic pronoun is also no longer justifiable. [/QUOTE]
I was a little surprised to see the use of "he" as a generic pronoun being so easily dismissed. I've mentioned the use of [I]they[/I] here but felt that it was still a bit ahead of the curve.

[QUOTE=only_human;437448](Quoting Herr Kamm):
[i]
A word is unjustifiable when it's used in defiance of modern mores. "Authoress" is a slighting term for which there is no masculine equivalent. The use of "he" as a singular generic pronoun is also no longer justifiable.[/i][/QUOTE]

I find 'modern mores' to be as slippery a concept as the homonymous (homonymic?) 'morays' - it's a pre-emptive objection-stifling rhetorical ploy akin to "end of story" or "no serious person disputes that...".

Re. 2nd sentence above, let's change the specific word and see if the argument still sounds convincing: "...'lioness' is a slighting term for which there is no masculine equivalent." Now it may well be passé to use a gender-specific form like that nowadays, but "there is no masculine equivalent" is misleading - there are many words such as this where the masculine (or non-feminine-suffixed, if you want to be lawyerly) form is also used in the "many, not necessarily all male" context. Spanish has a similar convention, and for far more words ... e.g. in English the word "child" is neutral so one need not worry about gender when pluralizing, but in chauvinistic Spanish "hijo" is son, "hija" is daughter, and "hijos" is "children" or "multiple sons" whereas "hijas" is strictly "multiple daughters". I am open to an ambiguity-based objection, however - why use a male-gendered plural which introduces ambiguity? In English we have, very clearly: sons, daughters, children.

But neverending arguments about such points is half the fun of linguistics! To use a sports metaphor, it's like arguing about who was the greatest _______ of all time ... it's more fun when one can make cases for multiple candidates than if there is indeed a singular overweening embodiment of greatness. Or to use a different framing, it's like the middle-eastern bazaar scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian, where the appalled vendor of false beards asks [strike]Bwian[/strike]Brian, desperate to buy a disguise-beard against his hot-on-heels pursuers and willing to ridiculously overpay for it, "what - aren't you gonna haggle?"

Judicious deliberate rule-breaking is an important device in most arts.
Thus an artist may deliberately break the rules of perspective to draw attention to a particular spot in a painting, or a composer may introduce the forbidden consecutive fifths in harmony for the slight jarring which this gives (try Vaughan Williams). The same holds for good poets playing with language.

I can't see Professor Higgins on-board with the recent detente between presciptivists and descriptivists but I think Eliza Doolittle would fit in nicely.
[URL="http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2016/06/29/farmers-and-cowmen-in-the-language-wars/"]Farmers and Cowmen in the Language Wars[/URL]
[QUOTE]Someone who has been making even more radical peacemaking gestures toward the traditional enemy camp is John McIntyre, a copy editor for [I]The Baltimore Sun[/I], who writes a blog called You Don’t Say and, as you can see, actually looks like a male schoolmarm. (I mean that in the best sense of the word.) McIntyre, who refers to himself as “The Old Editor,” has in recent months railed against the “bogus” rules of no-split-infinitive and no-prepositions-at-the-end-of-sentences; mounted a spirited defense of singular [I]they[/I]; and, in a single post, given his seal of approval to[I] begs the question, hopefully, which[/I] in restrictive clauses, [I]is comprised of, could care less[/I], starting sentences with conjunctions, [I]anxious[/I] to mean eager,[I] centers around[/I], and [I]impactful[/I]. He concluded that post, “For my part, I look back at learning these crotchets, and enforcing them, as a bitter waste of my time and talents.”

But all that was as nothing compared with what McIntyre wrote last Friday. He said that a sentence like “Me and Madison are going to the mall” “is not an error. It is merely a common form of non-standard English.” He added,
[QUOTE]To insist that “me and someone” is an error … is to assume that standard English, one dialect of the language, is the only correct one and that anything varying from it must be wrong. If you think so, this assumption is causing needless pain and cluttering up the internet with pointless fulminations.[/QUOTE]
Of course, he did not say whether he would countenance a Sun writer’s using the “Me and …” form. I’m pretty sure he would not. Nevertheless, in my mind’s eye, I could see McIntyre exchanging his white button-down and bow tie for a tie-dyed T-shirt and letting the freak flag fly. And what’s that in the distance? It looks like the onetime antagonists gathering under the flag and making their way to the Promised Land of harmony and eternal peace.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;437531]I can't see Professor Higgins on-board with the recent detente between presciptivists and descriptivists but I think Eliza Doolittle would fit in nicely.
[URL="http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2016/06/29/farmers-and-cowmen-in-the-language-wars/"]Farmers and Cowmen in the Language Wars[/URL][/QUOTE]

I draw the line at manglish exemplars like [i]I could care less[/i] (intended as a way of saying "I don't care") because that actually inverts the meaning of the correct [i]I could not care less[/i]. Similarly, the mangling of the saying [i]for all intents and purposes[/i] into [i]for all intensive purposes[/i] is not merely a stylistic issue; it alters the meaning of the expression, thus is simply bad English.

Those examples are very different than e.g. "me and Joe went swimming," where the meaning is unaltered by replacement of "I" with "me" - in both cases it is clear who is being referred to by the personal pronoun, namely the speaker. Interestingly, I find substitution of a "me" for a Strunk&White-mandated "I" less offensive than the other way around, since e.g. [i]this was a good thing for you and I[/i] not only offends a basic style rule - that the phrasing should work equally well if the "you and" is removed - it also sounds like the speaker is trying to sound hifalutin, which, combined with the first offense, really raises my hackles. "Me and Joe," OTOH, is less-formal-sounding than "Joe and I", thus the mis-styling occurs in a less formal "barstool conversation" context, making it much less jarring.

Speaking of "Joe and I," it was only on Duolingo that I realized that we never say "I and Joe."

also:
As far as drawing a line at literal meaning, the one phrasing I don't particularly like is:
"Don't you want to go to the store?"
The answer is the same as if the question was "Do you want to go to the store?"
The difference is that the second question indicates that the speaker is expecting a "yes."

more definitions:

INCONGRUOUS: that place in our government where all of
our national disagreements are put on hold while we celebrate
the 240th birthday of the USA.

INSCRUTABLE: that quality of attitude possessed by those
around whom all others pay attention.

YES: the only proper answer to the self-referential question
"Is this a self-referential question?"

NO: (I'm not so sure of this one) the answer given by the
rank and file of both major political parties when asked whether
they even MIGHT vote for their opposing party's candidate.

MAYBE: unambiguously independent decision.

Singular [I]they[/I] has been getting a lot of attention the last couple of weeks among the linguistically inclined in my Google+ circles and on also on Twitter based on quotes in my social stream. The reason I bring it up yet again is because of a C.S. Lewis reference I came across in an older blog post.
[URL="https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/"]Singular “they” and the many reasons why it’s correct[/URL]
[QUOTE]Suppose you were reading and came to the following line:

“She kept her head and kicked her shoes off, as everybody ought to do who falls into deep water in their clothes.”

Would you …
(a) continue reading, because that’s a perfectly acceptable sentence, or
(b) throw a tantrum and insist that the author is an imbecile speeding the wholesale destruction of the English language?

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’re probably answering (a). If you’re answering (b), I regret to inform you that you hate the writing of C. S. Lewis.[/QUOTE]
The reason that I've been looking for a C.S. Lewis reference to segue off of is entirely tangential. Recently I learned the the word for lion in Turkish is [I]aslan[/I]. Aslan is the named lion in the Chronicles of Narnia. In those books Edmund sells out his family for a tasty treat of Turkish Delights.
[URL="http://www.neatorama.com/2015/12/03/How-CS-Lewis-Convinced-American-Kids-That-They-Would-Like-Turkish-Delight/"]How C.S. Lewis Convinced American Kids That They Would Like Turkish Delight[/URL]
[QUOTE]For most, the only reference they have to Turkish Delight is in the first book of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. In the story, Edmund Pevensie declares it his favorite food, and he willingly betrays his family for some. The book was published in 1950 in England, so readers at the time didn’t need an explanation of what Turkish Delight is.
[INDENT]For kids who weren't already familiar with it, though, "Turkish Delight" was likely to be meaningless – which meant we could project onto it whatever confection seemed most delicious. "I imagined it was better and more sophisticated than anything I had ever tasted, considering that Edmund was willing to sacrifice his entire family for just one more piece," said Coco Langford, who described her childhood vision of Turkish Delight as "rich, but still delicate, chewy and soft, probably like some kind of vanilla or caramel fudge, with just enough nuts to add the perfect crunch."[/INDENT][/QUOTE]
So I don't know why C.S. Lewis named the lion Aslan, but it is often interesting when small bits of further association give possible clues into an author's mindset. C.S. Lewis' books have many religious connotations and I imagine that there may be some implication in that direction with these Turkish hints. Maybe so, maybe not.

Anyway I continue to be enriched in my small efforts in language discovery.

Yes, it is an intriguing connection. Brian and I found out about aslan in Turkish a few years ago when we visited Ephesus.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephesus[/URL]

While "everybody" is, of course, singular, its meaning seems to make us more tolerant of the following "their" in the sentence you quote.
Something similar happens in French, where you will often see, for example, "[B]Elle a l'air fatiguée" [/B](she looks tired), which feels OK in spite of being technically wrong (since "air" is masculine).

[QUOTE=only_human;437806]..... In those books Edmund sells out his family for a tasty treat of Turkish Delights.
[URL="http://www.neatorama.com/2015/12/03/How-CS-Lewis-Convinced-American-Kids-That-They-Would-Like-Turkish-Delight/"]How C.S. Lewis Convinced American Kids That They Would Like Turkish Delight[/URL]
.....
Anyway I continue to be enriched in my small efforts in language discovery.[/QUOTE]
In my family, in which the first couple of books got read aloud, either at bedtime, or on long car trips, I think we imagined the stuff to be like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marzipan"]marzipan[/URL]. The reality is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_delight"]somewhat different, [/URL]

[QUOTE=kladner;437821]In my family, in which the first couple of books got read aloud, either at bedtime, or on long car trips, I think we imagined the stuff to be like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marzipan"]marzipan[/URL]. The reality is [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_delight"]somewhat different, [/URL][/QUOTE]
That's funny to me because when I was a kid some of the spy books I read said that plastic explosives smelled like marzipan and I always wondered about that smell.

[QUOTE=only_human;437827]That's funny to me because when I was a kid some of the spy books I read said that plastic explosives smelled like marzipan and I always wondered about that smell.[/QUOTE]In an IT security conference I attended back when I had responsibility for that sort of thing, the speaker handed round a package containing kilogram of what he claimed was Semtex. Given his background I've no reason to doubt him. Almost everyone present sniffed it, despite knowing that Semtex is notoriously odourless. Curiously enough, it [i]looked[/i] exactly like marzipan made from whole almond flour (unskinned and unbleached kernels). The texture was quite similar too.

In case you're wondering, this guy's affiliation was the Ministry of Defence and he was talking about physical security and contingency planning. Ever since I've paid close attention to those aspects of IT security. My views may have become clearer here on the forum recently when we were discussing the loss of a database.

I think they were talking about this:
[QUOTE]One of the simplest plastic explosives was Nobel's Explosive No. 808, also known as Nobel 808 (often just called Explosive 808 in the British Armed Forces during the Second World War), developed by the British company Nobel Chemicals Ltd well before World War II. It had the appearance of green plasticine with a distinctive smell of almonds.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_explosive[/url]

brag·ga·dou·ci·o (noun)
/braɡəˈdoo shē ō/
That gentle cleansing that occurs after bragging about illegal activities.

[URL="http://theweek.com/articles/476086/9-suspected-criminals-who-got-themselves-caught-social-media-updated"]9 suspected criminals who got themselves caught via social media [/URL]

All affischering utom affischering om affischering förbjuden förbjuden

[QUOTE=only_human;438511]All affischering utom affischering om affischering förbjuden förbjuden[/QUOTE]
Swedish for: [SPOILER]All signs except signs about signs being forbidden are forbidden[/SPOILER]
I'm trying to get further in my Spanish and I just realized that:
la esposa = the wife
las esposas = handcuffs

I've been listening to early Dresden files audio books in English while to a certain extent reading along with the Spanish translated novels. In at least the fist two books the main character ends up in handcuffs.

I considered dragging in some quips about Chinese words that contain the radical for a woman but it conveyed less of a salient point than I expected prior to looking.

Hehe, this came from the church. Their stupid propaganda. The subject is touched a bit in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, if you read it. The women (and wives, mothers in law, etc) were "officially" and "intentionally" associated (by the church, who promoted this phenomenon) with bad things, since Maria Magdalena (who may not, or may indeed have carried Jesus's child). Their propaganda, which unfortunately lasted, helped them to stay in power for centuries. No matter how much oppressed you are, just "turn the other cheek"... The woman is always associated with "left" and "bad", "sinister" ("sinistra"="left", but also "wife"), "famine" (french for wife is "femme"), etc, the woman stays "on the left" of her man (or father), as opposite to man, (Jesus sitting "on the right of his father"), left and right are associated to woman and man respectively, as well as to bad/evil (like in "leftovers") and good (like in "right"="correct") in the same time, in parallel, and this is in all Christian countries and groups (all around the Europe and Americas), but is missing from other religions groups. Think only to names they give to women/wives in different languages, for which exactly the same word have a bad meaning in a related language (where "women/wife" is actually called differently). Even in Russian (Slavic languages), they call it "jena", which came from an older word meaning "to embarrass" or "to bother" (we [URL="https://translate.google.com/#ro/en/jena"]still keep[/URL] the old forms in our language).

And to stay on topic with the title of the thread, I found the definition for the "shin bone". I didn't know what that means till few days ago, but then I found it out: it is that device that helps you find the furniture in the night, in a dark room...

:goodposting: +1

added:
Language is cruel
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/eight-words-sexism-heart-english-language"]Eight words that reveal the sexism at the heart of the English language[/URL][LIST][*]Mistress from: The female equivalent of “master”[*]Hussy is a contraction of 13th-century husewif – a word cognate with modern “housewife”[*]Madam: The female equivalent of “sir”[*]Spinster originally meant simply someone who spun yarn or thread.[*]Courtesan: female equivalent of “courtier” – someone who attends the court of a monarch[*]Wench: A 13th-century word meaning a female infant or a young unmarried woman [*]Tart: a 19th-century contraction of “sweetheart”[/LIST]

[QUOTE=LaurV;438563]The woman is always associated with "left" and "bad", "sinister" ("sinistra"="left", but also "wife"), "famine" (french for wife is "femme"), etc, the woman stays "on the left" of her man (or father), as opposite to man, (Jesus sitting "on the right of his father"), left and right are associated to woman and man respectively, as well as to bad/evil (like in "leftovers") and good (like in "right"="correct") in the same time, in parallel, and this is in all Christian countries and groups (all around the Europe and Americas), but is missing from other religions groups. Think only to names they give to women/wives in different languages, for which exactly the same word have a bad meaning in a related language (where "women/wife" is actually called differently). [/QUOTE]

In Old English an individual of the species is [I]man[/I], the male is [I]werman[/I] and the female [I]wyfman[/I]. The root is an old Indo-European word present in Sanskrit as मानव ([I]maanava[/I]) for instance. For some reason, Latin used [I]homo[/I] and Greek [I]άνδρας[/I] rather than [I]man[/I], but Germanic languages kept the older form.

The OE [I]wer[/I] is identical to Latin [I]vir[/I] but I'm not sure where [I]wyf[/I] came from, though it still exists in Modern English as wife. The prefix [I]wer-[/I], with its long vowel, still exists in Modern English in words such as werewolf. The prefix [I]wyf-[/I] shortened its vowel and lost the final consonant in Modern English to form woman. The short /i/ is still audible in the plural women but mutated further to a schwa in the singular.

As far as I know, [I]wyf[/I] had no perjorative nor [I]wer[/I] aggrandizing connotations in OE.

[QUOTE=only_human;438564]:goodposting: +1

added:
Language is cruel
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/eight-words-sexism-heart-english-language"]Eight words that reveal the sexism at the heart of the English language[/URL][LIST][*]Mistress from: The female equivalent of “master”[*]Hussy is a contraction of 13th-century husewif – a word cognate with modern “housewife”[*]Madam: The female equivalent of “sir”[*]Spinster originally meant simply someone who spun yarn or thread.[*]Courtesan: female equivalent of “courtier” – someone who attends the court of a monarch[*]Wench: A 13th-century word meaning a female infant or a young unmarried woman [*]Tart: a 19th-century contraction of “sweetheart”[/LIST][/QUOTE]I read the complete article and beg to differ with some of its statements. For instance, "wench" is still commonly used in the sense of "young woman", occasionally as a single word but very frequently in the term "serving wench", though the latter is a jocular archaism. The word "courtesan" is still used in the sense of a female courtier, though both terms are falling out of use with the decline in political power of royal courts..

[QUOTE=LaurV;438563]... "famine" (french for wife is "femme")...[/QUOTE]Are you sure about this?

I thought famine came via French from the Latin [I]fames[/I] and not from [I]femina[/I].

[QUOTE=xilman;438571]I read the complete article and beg to differ with some of its statements. For instance, "wench" is still commonly used in the sense of "young woman", occasionally as a single word but very frequently in the term "serving wench", though the latter is a jocular archaism. The word "courtesan" is still used in the sense of a female courtier, though both terms are falling out of use with the decline in political power of royal courts..[/QUOTE]
I accept those points. Hussy contains that wif. I found tart, from sweetheart, to be interesting partially because a different tart is added back in the name of a Valentine's candy called Sweet-Tarts.

added:
As far as wife, [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wife"]this[/URL] etymology site finds a pejorative in Dutch and German so I'm guessing that things might have been a little rough in English too in that I don't see why they would remain a bastion of respect. Not that I was there of course nor do I have the chops to say but Dutch and German grew pretty close to the apples that fall from the English tree.

[QUOTE=only_human;438573]...
As far as wife, [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wife"]this[/URL] etymology site finds a pejorative in Dutch and German
...[/QUOTE]I note the use of "passive" in the linked article : "passive partner in a homosexual couple". I thought only exclusive necrophiliacs would want passive partners :-) I suppose that "passive" is used as an euphemism for penetrated.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;438591]I note the use of "passive" in the linked article : "passive partner in a homosexual couple". I thought only exclusive necrophiliacs would want passive partners :-) I suppose that "passive" is used as an euphemism for penetrated.

Jacob[/QUOTE]
A dictionary of euphemisms would indeed be a Devil's Dictionary. I don't have access to the OED to check on this etymology site's 1883 attestation and a light search did not elucidate this matter. I am of the opinion that the Victorian era specialized in euphemisms and I do notice that the entry employed quote marks.

[QUOTE=only_human;438573]I
As far as wife, [URL="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=wife"]this[/URL] etymology site finds a pejorative in Dutch and German so I'm guessing that things might have been a little rough in English too[/QUOTE]You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Actually, I can comment and will. I'm not aware of a pejorative sense in English, though that is a statement of ignorance. My knowledge of other Germanic languages, especially Western Germanic such as Dutch or German, is too poor too allow me to comment with any authority.

[QUOTE=only_human;438573]Not that I was there of course nor do I have the chops to say but Dutch and German grew pretty close to the apples that fall from the English tree.[/QUOTE]I wasn't there either, but in this case I [i]very[/i] strongly believe that the languages developed independently. All three languages have borrowed greatly from each other in other respects.

I wasn't trying to defend a thesis statement, I just put up a article from the opinion pages of a newspaper and said "language is cruel." And the I summarized seven of the eight examples the author used. Then I stuck to my guns a bit but never tried to suggest that I was speaking from any authority except that I was trying to say without directly quoting that I found this to be suggestive:
[QUOTE]
Old English wif (neuter) "woman, female, lady," also, but not especially, "wife," from Proto-Germanic *wiban (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin, not found in Gothic.

Apparently felt as inadequate in its basic sense, leading to the more distinctive formation wifman (source of woman). Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "bitch." The Modern German cognate (Weib) also tends to be slighting or derogatory; Middle High German wip in early medieval times was "woman, female person," vrouwe (Frau) being retained for "woman of gentle birth, lady;" but from c. 1200 wip "took on a common, almost vulgar tone that restricted its usage in certain circles" and largely has been displaced by Frau.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092007/quotes?item=qt0488421[/url]
[QUOTE]McCoy: Perhaps, we could cover a little philosophical ground. Life
[pause]
McCoy: Death
[pause]
McCoy: Life.
[pause]
McCoy: Things of that nature.
Spock: I did not have time on Vulcan to review the philosophical disciplines.
McCoy: C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?
Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.
McCoy: You're joking!
Spock: A joke
[pause]
Spock: is a story with a humorous climax.
McCoy: You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?
Spock: Forgive me, Doctor. I am receiving a number of distress calls.
McCoy: I don't doubt it.[/QUOTE]

ball-and-chain->wife; wives->handcuffs
Mets Bucket Hat Guy Returns to "The Tonight Show" [URL="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9gmMCdBqesY"]video[/URL] duration 5:41
[YOUTUBE]9gmMCdBqesY[/YOUTUBE]
[URL="http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=295"]Peorative Words for Women[/URL]
[QUOTE]If I haven’t written on this topic before, I’ve discussed it for 30 years in my introductory linguistic courses. The fact of the matter is, English and most other Indo-European languages contains FAR more pejorative terms for women than for men. Notice that even two of the words for “lover” that Stephen cites, boy toy and pool boy, reflect pejoratively on the women who have them more so than on the toys and boys themselves. Gigolo is the exception because it refers to deceitful, unreliable men.

Let’s begin with a few relatively clean pejorative surrogates for woman: bimbo, cow, clothes-horse, crone, dog, fishwife, floozy, frump, hag, harlot, harpy, hussy, milf, moll, nag, prude, shrew, siren, skirt, spinster, tart, temptress, wench, witch, working girl. Prejudice against women is a flagrant characteristic of the English vocabulary.

There is no comparable list of pejorative words referring exclusively to men (i.e. not referring equally to men and women) that rivals this list. Of course, we can easily build a comparable list of pejoratives referring to homosexual men. However, they are accused precisely of being feminine by homosexophobes. This has long been an argument of the existence of a strongly male-dominated society.

Given this fact of English, why would we need a word referring to a male lover other than lover? Again, notice that a male lover is something to be admired unpejoratively while the pale penumbra of shame always hovers over the female lover.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://qz.com/432285/20-misused-words-that-make-smart-people-look-dumb/"]20 misused English words that make smart people look silly[/URL][LIST][*]Accept vs. Except[*]Affect vs. Effect[*]Lie vs. Lay[*]Bring vs. Take[*]Ironic vs. Coincidental[*]Imply vs. Infer[*]Nauseous vs. Nauseated[*]Comprise vs. Compose[*]Farther vs. Further[*]Fewer vs. Less[/LIST]
These days some books are freely available on the web as they are being written with portions of them occasionally bundled off as published commercial ebooks. In [URL="https://thegam3.com/2016/07/18/the-war-for-earth-4-8/#comments"]one such novel[/URL] that I am reading as it is being written I tried to help on nauseous vs. nauseated:
[QUOTE]Ross says:
July 19, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Love your work. Just want to state a preference for “nauseated” over “nauseous” in “He was nauseous.”[/QUOTE]

This other guy has a self-awarded something-is-wrong-on-the-internet mission:
[URL="http://mentalfloss.com/uk/people/27257/the-47000-wikipedia-edits-made-by-one-man"]The 47,000 Wikipedia Edits Made By One Man[/URL] – "We now know how to irritate Bryan Henderson – write 'comprised of' when you mean 'consists of'"

xkcd: [URL="https://xkcd.com/326/"]Effect an Effect[/URL]

Today in MIT Technology Review an article mentions a new paper published in ArXiv:
[URL="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602025/how-vector-space-mathematics-reveals-the-hidden-sexism-in-language/"]How Vector Space Mathematics Reveals the Hidden Sexism in Language[/URL]
[QUOTE]Back in 2013, a handful of researchers at Google set loose a neural network on a corpus of three million words taken from Google News texts. The neural net’s goal was to look for patterns in the way words appear next to each other.

What it found was complex but the Google team discovered it could represent these patterns using vectors in a vector space with some 300 dimensions.

It turned out that words with similar meanings occupied similar parts of this vector space. And the relationships between words could be captured by simple vector algebra. For example, “man is to king as woman is to queen” or, using the common notation, “man : king :: woman : queen.” Other relationships quickly emerged too such as “sister : woman :: brother : man,” and so on. These relationships are known as word embeddings.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]“One perspective on bias in word embeddings is that it merely reflects bias in society, and therefore one should attempt to debias society rather than word embeddings,” say Bolukbasi and co. “However, by reducing the bias in today’s computer systems (or at least not amplifying the bias), which is increasingly reliant on word embeddings, in a small way debiased word embeddings can hopefully contribute to reducing gender bias in society.”

That seems a worthy goal. As the Boston team concludes: “At the very least, machine learning should not be used to inadvertently amplify these biases.”[/QUOTE]
From the arXiv paper, looking beyond these results and teasing out other types of word relationships,
[QUOTE] For example, projecting all the occupation words onto the direction minorities--whites, we find that the most extreme occupations closer to whites are parliamentarian, advocate, deputy, chancellor, legislator, and lawyer. In contrast, the most extreme occupations at the minorites end are butler, footballer, socialite, and crooner.[/QUOTE]

non-herbal communication: speaking while not under the influence of marijuana

[CENTER]If you say
[B]Gullible[/B]
slowly
it sounds like
[B]Oranges[/B][/CENTER]

Butterfly: now as good or better than margarine or deep-fried flies.

Euripides: what an English-as-second-language speaker might say in inquiring about a pair of torn trousers.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;439645]Euripides: what an English-as-second-language speaker might say in inquiring about a pair of torn trousers.[/QUOTE]A classics professor goes to a tailor to get his trousers mended. The tailor asks: “Euripides?” The professor replies: “Yes. Eumenides?”

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;439662]A classics professor goes to a tailor to get his trousers mended. The tailor asks: “Euripides?” The professor replies: “Yes. Eumenides?”[/QUOTE]

ROFL! :tu:

Berate: This movie is not worth seeing.
(via [URL="https://plus.google.com/+LeighannLord/posts/2JHycuoRmHp"]this[/URL] Word of the Day quip)

Loose cannoli: commandeer a treat.
Lose cannoli: someone else got to it first