Words you dislike? Or really like?

[Billy Dat]

"Turf" has evolved to have multiple meanings, just has just about every other word from Old or Middle English. To say it has just one meaning is flat out wrong; Merriam-Webster alone has four different noun definitions with multiple subsets of those four, along with two verb definitions.

And then there's TERF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

[Billy Dat]

I heard this one the other day and was reminded that I like it...


inchoate (adj) - just begun and so not fully formed or developed; rudimentary. "a still inchoate democracy"

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

And then there's TERF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

Now there's a word I don't care for.

[CrazieDUMB]

I noticed that I've been hearing "hesitancy" a lot more than "hesitation", and "resiliency" instead of "resilience". I prefer the latter in both cases.

I googled the difference, and for the first one I found this interesting bit from a site called "language lore":

In contemporary (media) speech, increasingly one hears the word “hesitancy” instead of the traditional “hesitation,” to the point where one almost never hears the latter. The question why has an answer rooted in the derivational history of the two items though their meaning is identical.

“Hesitation” is a deverbal substantive derived from the verb “hesitate” by adding the suffix {-ion} to the verbal root {hesitate-}. “Hesitancy,” on the other hand is deadjectival substantive derived from the adjectival root {hesitant-}. Since both adjectives and substantives are part of the category of nominals, a deadjectival substantive like “hesitancy” has a more immediate semantic force owing to its derivational history––a force missing from a substantive like “hesitation” that is deverbal. In short, the ascendancy of “hesitancy” vs. “hesitation” is to be accounted for by its greater derivational proximity in comparison to its deverbal counterpart.

This is an example that bears out the general analysis of semantic force in language as being invariably rooted in the language’s grammatical structure.

MICHAEL SHAPIRO

[Skydog]

I noticed that I've been hearing "hesitancy" a lot more than "hesitation", and "resiliency" instead of "resilience". I prefer the latter in both cases.

I googled the difference, and for the first one I found this interesting bit from a site called "language lore":

In contemporary (media) speech, increasingly one hears the word “hesitancy” instead of the traditional “hesitation,” to the point where one almost never hears the latter. The question why has an answer rooted in the derivational history of the two items though their meaning is identical.

“Hesitation” is a deverbal substantive derived from the verb “hesitate” by adding the suffix {-ion} to the verbal root {hesitate-}. “Hesitancy,” on the other hand is deadjectival substantive derived from the adjectival root {hesitant-}. Since both adjectives and substantives are part of the category of nominals, a deadjectival substantive like “hesitancy” has a more immediate semantic force owing to its derivational history––a force missing from a substantive like “hesitation” that is deverbal. In short, the ascendancy of “hesitancy” vs. “hesitation” is to be accounted for by its greater derivational proximity in comparison to its deverbal counterpart.

This is an example that bears out the general analysis of semantic force in language as being invariably rooted in the language’s grammatical structure.

MICHAEL SHAPIRO

It seems to me that in most cases the two words have different meanings. I think of hesitancy as a trait and hesitation as an act. “There was no explanation for his hesitancy” is a critique of attitude or style of play whereas “There was no explanation for his hesitation” is a critique of a particular (non-) play.

[brevity]

Great, a new vocabulary challenge. The next time I’ll use either “hesitancy” or “hesitation” will certainly give me pause.

[BLPOG]

Great, a new vocabulary challenge. The next time I’ll use either “hesitancy” or “hesitation” will certainly give me pause.

Sounds like some people have forgotten Marco's advice.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here's a phrase I hate - the exception that proves the rule.

So, in an argument with someone, they say something outlandish. I point out an obvious counterpoint. The response "well, the exception that proves the rule, see?"

I mean, WTF?

Anyone able to explain why this makes sense? I've done some cursory internet research, and the closest thing I can find to something that makes sense is a Black Swan event.

So, all swans are white. Then, a black swan is seen. The fact that it is such an outlier and a phenomenon "proves" that all swans are white.

But, of course, it doesn't at all. It proves the exact opposite.

Someone enlighten me please.

[BLPOG]

Here's a phrase I hate - the exception that proves the rule.

So, in an argument with someone, they say something outlandish. I point out an obvious counterpoint. The response "well, the exception that proves the rule, see?"

I mean, WTF?

Anyone able to explain why this makes sense? I've done some cursory internet research, and the closest thing I can find to something that makes sense is a Black Swan event.

So, all swans are white. Then, a black swan is seen. The fact that it is such an outlier and a phenomenon "proves" that all swans are white.

But, of course, it doesn't at all. It proves the exact opposite.

Someone enlighten me please.

The phrase makes sense, but almost everyone uses it incorrectly, leading to your confusing/frustration.

The correct meaning of the phrase is that an explicitly stated exception is proof that a rule exists; no exception would have to be made, absent an existing rule. Put differently, the existence of a rule can be inferred by the existence of an exception.

It's a statement about formal rules/processes, like legal rules or parliamentary procedure.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The phrase makes sense, but almost everyone uses it incorrectly, leading to your confusing/frustration.

The correct meaning of the phrase is that an explicitly stated exception is proof that a rule exists; no exception would have to be made, absent an existing rule. Put differently, the existence of a rule can be inferred by the existence of an exception.

It's a statement about formal rules/processes, like legal rules or parliamentary procedure.

Oh wow, this makes more sense than anything I've heard recently. Thanks so much. Sporks for literacy and logic!

[Billy Dat]

zhuzh - make something more stylish, lively, or attractive.
"the bag is a cool but economical way to zhuzh up many an outfit"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZQtEWtAwxc

[tteettimes]

I still like Ya’ll

[-jk]

I still like Ya’ll

"Y'all"

-jk

[budwom]

just learned that sui generis is NOT a pig call...who knew?

[OldPhiKap]

just learned that sui generis is NOT a pig call...who knew?

Try sui porkus.

[ClemmonsDevil]

"Y'all"

-jk

Yes. You all. Y'all.

[-jk]

Yes. You all. Y'all.

I know, right? "Ya'll" is short for "ya will".

-jk

[ClemmonsDevil]

I know, right? "Ya'll" is short for "ya will".

-jk

Hahaha!

[OldPhiKap]

“Youse guys”

[ClemmonsDevil]

“Youse guys”

Yutes. The yutes. The whaaaaaaat? Oh sorry. The youuuuuuuuuths.