i hear ya my sister but, truthfully, i just had the difference between the two words pointed out by this here post. for which i should thank you so, "thank you." if it were me i'd want to be corrected but, as you say, gently and certainly aside from others.
i agree w/ mr. davidschroth, i believe you're using "mnemonic" in the wrong sense but i think neither are they homonyms as he suggests because they need to be either spelled the same or sound the same. adverse and averse sound similar but not they're certainly not the same sound.
even as i agree with you on my other shoulder i hear friends yell, living language, living language! so i suppose i should give them their due and voice. they site the concept that a living language evolves over time. words that once meant one thing morph over time and use to mean something else.
for examples look to all those appropriated words from german, french and native american languages we have peppered our "american english" with and shaped to our own purposes. know what i mean, vern?
if you follow this train of thought then you relax the rules if favor of the majority-preferred word and meaning combinations. if you have an aversion to red meat you become "adverse" to it. [groan] okay. if you insist on recycling "irregardless" [shudder] of the evidence it mostly doesn't work then that is your right. i guess.
but therein lay the slippery slope, don't it just? if we continue on that way who knows where we may end up? can you imagine text books written in 1337 5p34k? ridiculous!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-10 04:11 pm (UTC)i agree w/ mr. davidschroth, i believe you're using "mnemonic" in the wrong sense but i think neither are they homonyms as he suggests because they need to be either spelled the same or sound the same. adverse and averse sound similar but not they're certainly not the same sound.
even as i agree with you on my other shoulder i hear friends yell, living language, living language! so i suppose i should give them their due and voice. they site the concept that a living language evolves over time. words that once meant one thing morph over time and use to mean something else.
for examples look to all those appropriated words from german, french and native american languages we have peppered our "american english" with and shaped to our own purposes. know what i mean, vern?
if you follow this train of thought then you relax the rules if favor of the majority-preferred word and meaning combinations. if you have an aversion to red meat you become "adverse" to it. [groan] okay. if you insist on recycling "irregardless" [shudder] of the evidence it mostly doesn't work then that is your right. i guess.
but therein lay the slippery slope, don't it just? if we continue on that way who knows where we may end up? can you imagine text books written in 1337 5p34k? ridiculous!