The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Is this OK? Options
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:20:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
What time is this you have heard this song?
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:36:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
What time is this you have heard this song?


No, it doesn't make sense. You might say, "When did you hear this/that song?" The answer could be any time between a few minutes ago and years ago.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:40:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
FounDit wrote:
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
What time is this you have heard this song?


No, it doesn't make sense. You might say, "When did you hear this/that song?" The answer could be any time between a few minutes ago and years ago.


I suppose it's the same as "What number something is this?" It makes perfect sense in Russian though. Plus you can have: This is the first time I have heard this song. Why is it impossible to make it a question? It's weird.
thar
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:46:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 18,915
Neurons: 76,555
I don't think this means 'when?'.

I think this is 'how many times?'

Like the old "manieth" saga, this is not how you ask that question.
If you want an ordinal number you have to ask for a cardinal number -
how many times have you heard this song before?
This is the fifth time I have heard it. (ie, I have heard it four times before)

If that is what you meant. You can see by the different answers that your question is not how you phrase it in English, because it is not even clear what you are trying to say.

edit - answered before I saw your reply to FD.
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:53:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
thar wrote:

You can see by the different answers that your question is not how you phrase it in English, because it is not even clear what you are trying to say.



You have touched upon a very interesting point which relates to the correlation of a man's thinking and the man's language. Seems like what is missing in the language the man find hard (if not impossible) to understand. English lacks this useful idea. But I still don't think that you don't understand what the question means. I think you understand this:

This is the first time I have heard this song. (while you are listening it)
Now just imagine this sentence in an interrogative form.

PS: This is the fifth time I have heard it. (ie, I have heard it four times before) - It's more like mathematics.
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 10:08:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
If we had ten numbered books. Book 1, Book 2 etc. Then we randomly distribute them to the audience. Than we want to know who has which book. How could we ask about it?
thar
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 10:09:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 18,915
Neurons: 76,555
Yes, you can't ask an ordinal question. It just doesn't work.

If this is the fifth time, you ask
How many times have you heard it before?
The answer can be cardinal or ordinal:
I have heard it four times before.
This is the fifth time.

If it is fifth in the rankings, you ask
Where does it come in the list?
It is at number 5
It is fifth best.

If he is fifth in the race, you ask
Where did he come in the race?
He finished fifth.
(for low numbers you would say first, fifth, twentieth in a race - but if it is a mass race with many competitors you would not try to make a messy ordinal, you would go with 'he came in at number one thousand and twenty-two'.)

It is just not something you can ask, the "how manieth?" question. You ask the how many, and it is up to the responder to give you a cardinal or ordinal answer to the question.

You say I don't understand - can you clarify exactly what question you are trying to ask here - because as you can see, it isn't clear.

Romany
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 11:42:43 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,380
Neurons: 48,295
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Also: - it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender of a person.

It isn't just men who think - women and children do too. The language does not just belong to men. It is spoken by women and children too.It's not just men who presumably find this hard. Women and children would too.

This is such a very important facet of English - because men who express themselves only in relation to other men and dismiss everybody else in the world are called "misogynists" and are widely disliked. It is as socially unacceptable to be a misogynist as it is to be racist.

Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 12:08:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
Romany wrote:

This is such a very important facet of English - because men who express themselves only in relation to other men and dismiss everybody else in the world are called "misogynists" and are widely disliked. It is as socially unacceptable to be a misogynist as it is to be racist.


I think as long as a male wants to be a misogynist and doesn't cause physical sufferings to women he doesn't violate any norms. But there is something wrong. I never said "males"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/man

n. pl. men (mĕn)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 12:32:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 680
Neurons: 4,357
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
But there is something wrong. I never said "males"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/man

n. pl. men (mĕn)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.


That is how 'man' was used until a few decades. Nowadays,most of us do not use 'man' in this way.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:32:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 31,675
Neurons: 190,602
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/man

n. pl. men (mĕn)
1. An adult male human.
2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.

That quotation is lacking data - it is a cherry-picked definition. It's from the American Heritage Dictionary (which has a thirty-line discussion on that specific usage after the definitions).

The Collins English Dictionary shows that definition as "archaic".

man n, pl men (mɛn)
1. an adult male human being, as distinguished from a woman
2. (modifier) male; masculine: a man child.
3. archaic a human being regardless of sex or age, considered as a representative of mankind; a person
. . .


Besides any moral ideas - it's just bad grammar. It's an archaic usage.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 3:41:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
DragOn! What is "a cherry-picked definition"?
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:40:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 731
Neurons: 3,662
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
In our country every man (or woman, as the case might be) has the right to be a misogynist, just like every woman (or a man, as the case might be) has the right to be a feminist.

Most people are in the middle and just don't care about the views of guys who find themselves on any of the two extremes.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:16:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,699
Neurons: 467,514
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
DragOn! What is "a cherry-picked definition"?


You might have more than one definition to a word, phrase, statement, etc. You can then pick up the one, that suits best to your means.
That's a cherry picked definition. You can also cherry-pick only the best persons or things from a group, to suit your needs.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Romany
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 8:31:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,380
Neurons: 48,295
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
In our culture every person has the right to their own thoughts and opinions too - I think that's pretty basic as long as the concept of "Thought Police" lies still in the distant future!

But, for the orderly and harmonious functioning of society, expressing ideas which demean, degrade, impugn our fellow citizens are unacceptable and some fall into the category of "hate-speech" which is not allowed because it causes division, violence and acts which are most definitely against the rules of most populations.

Apart from the legal ramifications, deliberately saying things which will cause hurt or distress or feeling of worthlessness to others is selfish and nasty and serves no purpose other than to show the speakers meaness of spirit. It prevents friendship, trust, understanding and leaves the recipient feeling worthless and devoid of human value. Culturally, we find lack of respect, hatred and division an unsuccsful way forward for a usefull society.

This is the reason we don't flatly contradict others; it's why we don't give commands or orders such as "Give me that book." "Get out of my way" etc, which is why part of learning English is learning how we express ourselves.

Have you ever wondered why there are so few women left on this forum? Or why I seem to be the only person who keeps banging on about this on a regular basis? It's because women don't want to be part of a forum in which they know they are considered, like animals, to be "things" that you can abuse, hurt, put down, insult, just because, by a genetical process over which they had no control or choice, they were born with a vagina. Just as people have no control over whether they were born with blue eyes, or black skin or a tendency towards prostate cancer.

How do imagine I feel reading that Ivan thinks hating women is perfectly fine and logical and doesn't violate any norms? Pick that apart: It's "normal" to despise women just for being women.If that's so then women aren't worthy of respect - they aren't "normal" but inferior, unworthy of consideration, less than men. I am a woman. Thus Ivan, personally, thinks that the poster he knows only as Romany is not due respect but is inferior to him and all but two of the other regular posters here, unworthy of consideration by any of you, pretty much on a level with the animals a person "owns". He knows absolutely nothing about her achievements, her intelligence, her qualifications, her societal or academic standing; her knowledge or her feelings. It's enough to know she is a woman. Thats enough to dismiss her as a person.

So why do I stay? This is only a hobby, something to do in one's spare time. Why expose myself to this degradation? Why go to bed crying some nights because of comments on TFD. Why ignore my family who hate the way their mother is treated from time to time here?

Because despising me for being female is NOT normal. Because there are wonderful men on here who don't judge or dismiss me because of my private parts. Who DO see me as a person. Who respond to what I say and not what gender I am.

But mainly because the English Language is my work, my hobby, my passion, and if I can help the odd person here and there to speak, learn, or learn to love this language to which my whole life has been dedicated I'll continue to do so. And that's no something I have any control over either: it's part of what makes me, me.

And because I'm stubborn!
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:25:12 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 731
Neurons: 3,662
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Romany!

I do think you're exaggerating. I've been on this forum for several years, and I don't remember anyone saying anything that could be even remotedly interpreted as "treating women like animals", and all that...

The question that does at times come up is a rather technical one about the use of masculine singular pronouns as default pronouns where gender is not determined, i.e. when it's about an abstract one person of any or unspecified gender. Now everybody knows about the singular they, it's only that in some contexts it doesn't work well because they coincides in form with the plural pronoun, that's why the issue keeps being raised I guess.

I don't know Ivan Fadeev or his views any better than you do (I suppose), i.e. all I know is his posts on this forum. I noticed, however, that he didn't say he was a misogynist, all he said was that it was okay to be one as long as one didn't violate any laws. And with this I tend to agree. On the other hand, there are feminist movements, so what? It's their right. I don't care, as don't most other people as far as I can see. Certainly I do not despise women. I am personally pretty sure that although men and women are different, trying to determine which of the two genders is "better" would be as silly as trying to compare the beauty of a music with that of a night sky. And especially organising vocal rallies in support of one of the positions.

And I do think people on this forum appreciate and value other forum members regardless of their sex. I even don't know the gender of many, if not most, of the other members. What tells you that you and/or other women have not been treated equally here? I've never noticed anything like this.
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:39:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,380
Neurons: 48,295
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Kirill -

OK, that's fine: you're entitled to consider I'm exaggerating - you haven't lived your life as a woman. Nor do you know that covert misogynism can be just as damning as overt misogynism.

But I WAS shocked that Ivan thinks that hurting someone only counts if its physical - and that he thinks its fine if a person despises someone for no other reason than their gender. Knowing that he believes men have the right to hate/despise/disrespect me or any other woman on this forum makes me feel rather sick.
As it would if any woman expressed the thought that she had the right to mindlessly despise anyone who had a penis.

Shall we just leave it at that? He's said what he wants to say, I've said my piece; you've said yours.

The fact remains that we do NOT use the word "Man" to refer to women and children. It IS an error. It is NOT acceptable. It is NOT English usage.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 8:21:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 680
Neurons: 4,357
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:

The question that does at times come up is a rather technical one about the use of masculine singular pronouns as default pronouns where gender is not determined, i.e. when it's about an abstract one person of any or unspecified gender.


There is nothing technical about it. Man,men, he, him, his, etc were used as the default nouns/pronouns in the past. We now realise that this helped perpetuate the myth of males as the 'default gender', and implicitly superior. And so, we simply no longer accept this. As Romany wrote"The fact remains that we do NOT use the word "Man" to refer to women and children. It IS an error. It is NOT acceptable. It is NOT English usage."

Quote:
Now everybody knows about the singular they, it's only that in some contexts it doesn't work well because they coincides in form with the plural pronoun,


In such cases, we can make the noun plural or use some such forms as s/h or he/she. That's not so hard.


Quote:
that's why the issue keeps being raised I guess.


It keeps being raised only by:

1. some non-native speakers who don't understand the situation yet,
2. A minority of native speakers, almost exclusively male and usually getting on in years, who cannot or will not accept the progress that has been made, and continues to be made, in the way females have traditionally been regarded.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:23:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 731
Neurons: 3,662
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
BobShilling wrote:
some non-native speakers who don't understand the situation yet,

Thanks. I will think about it. Sometimes one does miss points related to another culture without physical presence in it, even though nowadays this is somewhat facilitated by internet and other forms of communications.

BobShilling wrote:

the progress that has been made,

Think

Don't you have a feeling that the "progress" has somewhat crossed a reasonable line? Legally, men and women have been equal for quite some time, and certainly this was a progress and absolutely the right thing to do. But you can't equate them in all conceivable ways. They are different creatures. None is superior to another, it's a fascinating interaction, an asymetric interaction.
BobShilling
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 11:51:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 680
Neurons: 4,357
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Don't you have a feeling that the "progress" has somewhat crossed a reasonable line? [/quote]

No.

We won't have reached a satisfactory situation until neither gender is disadvantaged in any way at all because of their gender. We are still a long way from that situation.
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Thursday, March 14, 2019 5:45:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
All the accusations here sound like a witch-hunt to me. I already explained that by using "man" I meant a human being not a male.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, March 14, 2019 8:28:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 31,675
Neurons: 190,602
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
All the accusations here sound like a witch-hunt to me. I already explained that by using "man" I meant a human being not a male.

The continued posts come because:
1. "Man" does not mean "a human being not a male" - that is an archaic usage and not part of modern English.
Your use of it was an error in English grammar.
2. When it was corrected, you continued to say you were right and the English language was wrong.

It would end if you simply accept that the definition you used was an archaic definition and rephrased your sentences as:
"You have touched upon a very interesting point which relates to the correlation of one's thinking and one's language. Seems like what is missing in the language one finds hard (if not impossible) to understand. English lacks this useful idea" (or any other amendment you would like to use).


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Romany
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2019 8:20:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,380
Neurons: 48,295
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Would also like to point out that to explain to someone where and why they have made an error is not an "accusation." The purpose of helping students to learn anything at all is to explain why errors in their thinking are, indeed, errors. It's explanatory, not accusatory.

The use of the word "witch-hunt" has a specific, historical meaning. It is currently being incorrectly used and popularised by someone who has no firm grip of the English language but is in the public focus. To pick up on this incorrect usage and to use it similarly - i.e. incorrectly - also constitutes an error.
Atatürk
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:56:25 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 775
Neurons: 2,707
Location: İstanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
Romany is absolutely right.

The problem is that we, non-native speakers, are not normally updated on the latest changes in the English language because we don't learn the language in an authentic environment. We've always been taught by our school teachers, textbooks, and dictionaries that one of the meanings of "man" is:

(OALD, 9th Edition).

"a person, either male or female

Example:

All men must die."

Labelled as: literary or old-fashioned.

But, "literary or old-fashioned" really doesn't imply that the word could be "disapproving", and our female learners may well use it without noticing its misogynistic overtones; so far so good.

Nonetheless, when we learn that the word could be disapproving in modern usage, we should dispense with it. Otherwise, we can rightly be seen as "racist, sexist, misogynist, etc".

Personally, I didn't initially know about Romany's gender until one of the members in a thread addressed her as "she". I'm still not completely sure if "Romany" is a person's name, male or a female name, or could be used for both genders, as is the case in some languages. I just know that "Romany" in this forum is a very well-educated woman and has always given excellent answers to my questions.

The world is full of differences (just look at your fingers), but that has no bearing on superiority or inferiority whatsoever.

Advice and classroom hints are one thing, grammar rules are another. Michael Lewis (1986)
Romany
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:42:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,380
Neurons: 48,295
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Ataturk -

Thank you - an opinion from another learner's point of view may go a long way to helping other Learners understand what we are saying. And please remember, we aren't all the prototypical Brits who only speak one language, either. Many of our regular native-speaking posters speak at least one more language, so have had experience of being learners as well as instructors - and what that entails.

One can't learn to speak a language fluently without learning about the Culture of that group of language-speakers. And, in our culture, it is also considered extremely rude to flatly contradict anyone. It's seen as aggressive behaviour. For someone to contradict someone who is trying to help them is seen as doubly rude. And for someone who is still battling with English to tell a native-speaker that their understanding of their own culture is not as valid as an opinion based on the learners ignorance of that particular culture, is, to quote a word I used previously, impertinant.

None of the cultural imperitives which we try to explain may apply in the learner's world. The learner may not hold that particular view. The learner might not agree with that view. But it is that view which determines the way the language is used. To try to hold the people who introduce this aspect of erroneous English responsible for it, and to argue against it, is futile.

And provides a great way to segue into another English idiom: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player."
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2019 3:53:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 31,675
Neurons: 190,602
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Romany wrote:
And provides a great way to segue into another English idiom: "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player."

That's one I hadn't heard.

I know it as "Don't shoot the messenger."

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
FounDit
Posted: Friday, March 15, 2019 3:57:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Wow. I hadn't read much more after the initial posts of this topic, but now that I have, I'm amazed at how it has been hijacked into a politically correct topic.


Ivan Fadeev,

Just to give you some background information on what’s happening here, you touched on an embedded social trend when you said the person speaking was a man. By saying that, you provided an opportunity to be attacked. I’ll explain.

For thousands of years, people have always noticed that there are three groups of humans: the strong, the weak, and those in between the two. The strong may consist of those who were physically strong, but also mentally strong. They consistently exhibited bravery, courage, fortitude, and persistence in the face of great danger. They stood against despots and dictators and they stood against those who tried to force them to go in directions they didn’t choose for themselves.

Many of our stories, legends, and myths have extolled the admirable trait of the strong defending, and sometimes rescuing, the weak. A great many of those who were helped appreciated the efforts made on their behalf; they admired the strong and wanted to become strong in themselves because this was an admirable thing to desire, and so this became a theme in a great many societies — to encourage as many as possible to become strong.

But while most in our societies supported the strong in their efforts, at the same time many of the weak resented being the weaker group. There was really nothing they could do about it because they were the weaker group, but it annoyed them just the same.

But just as there have been many strong people who oppressed the weak, there have also been many strong people who have defended the weak; and I don’t mean just women and children, but weak men also. Think of the heroes who saved, or rescued, whole towns and villages in some of our stories and myths.

But then we come to the societies of today. In an effort to provide freedom and equality to all, the strong listened to the weak and made accommodations for them. Groups that had traditionally been oppressed and held back were given a voice, and society listened. In just the last century, much has been changed to accommodate those groups, especially in the Western societies, but also in others around the globe; not enough yet, but it was, and is, happening.

Unfortunately for the strong of today, the weak have not appreciated being heard, have not appreciated being accommodated, have not appreciated the advancements that have been provided for them, have not made an effort to become strong in themselves, but rather, to remain weak.

Not only have they remained weak, but they now demand that the strong become as weak as they are. This is a very strange turn of events, and can be confusing until you see what is actually happening. Your example of using the word man as an example of who spoke the sentence in your post provides all the evidence necessary to see it.

Some here on the forum exhibit the tendency I mentioned to perfection. The fact that it may have been a man who said the sentence is irrelevant. It was the idea that you used the word “man” to mean all people. Whether or not that is what you intended is dismissed and not considered — it was found to be offensive. This is the attitude of the weak among us. Those who think like this, take offense, and demand that you change, and not just you, but everyone in the whole society.

You must think as they think. You must find the word as offensive as they do. You must become as weak as they are. They need not become strong, you must become weak. This has now become the basis for much of what is happening in many of our Western societies today. And it is the trend which the strong resist.

When we resist their attempts to change us, the weak cast insults to try to make us back down; to change our sense of self, to doubt ourselves, and in hurling their insults, they try to force us to please them. But they can never be pleased. Because they are weak, they live in fear and anxiety, so fear and anxiety are their constant companions. And they now use their weakness as a weapon in an attempt to force others to become like them.

That is why you are being accused of misogyny, why epithets such as racist, homophobe, and xenophobe are used. If anyone disagrees with their fears and sense of offense, that person must be labeled and insulted. If you don’t think as they desire about that word “man”, then you are said to “despise” women. You “hate” females and consider them the equivalent of “animals”. And it is especially true that in Western societies, few men, if any at all, would think of treating or portraying women as despised, hated beings, or the equivalent of animals.

They claim that everyone thinks as they do, but that is false. The use of the word “Man” to mean all humans has been in use for thousands of years. They have been offended by it in the space of a fly-speck of time. Not everyone is offended by the word. Besides that, you used the word “man” to mean a single human man, not the whole of Mankind. But this is what you get with fear, weakness, and immaturity.

The preach tolerance, but are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. They preach peace, but attack anyone who disagrees with them. They preach inclusion, but exclude anyone who disagrees with them. They preach love and compassion, but practice hate towards all who disagree with them.

The hope is to make you as fearful and anxious as they are, and motivate you to please them. But who wants to live in a society that is constantly trying to pacify and assuage timid, frightened people? Not I. So I remain strong, impervious to their insults, and continue to support the idea that the best society is a strong society. I encourage you to do the same, and it appears that you do. Mankind will become better when we all become stronger. History shows us that weak societies get overrun by the strong. But perhaps that’s the ultimate goal of those who promote such foolishness, and the weak among us are too timid and frightened to see that.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2019 12:55:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
Romany wrote:

The use of the word "witch-hunt" has a specific, historical meaning. It is currently being incorrectly used and popularised by someone who has no firm grip of the English language but is in the public focus. To pick up on this incorrect usage and to use it similarly - i.e. incorrectly - also constitutes an error.


Well, here it is

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/witch-hunt

An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

While I accept that MAN meaning a human being is an archaic usage to say that "witch-hunt" is a wrong expression is simply wrong. Any substantiated arguments that the phrase is wrong? I know its historical meaning but it doesn't hinder this expression to be correct nowadays.
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2019 12:56:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
FounDit! Thank you ! I got it.
Ivan Fadeev
Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2019 2:44:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/21/2015
Posts: 338
Neurons: 5,506
Back to the main topic.
I know that some natives accept "Which number president is X?"

What about:

Which number time have you heard this song now?
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2019 12:37:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,506
Neurons: 54,166
Ivan Fadeev wrote:
Back to the main topic.
I know that some natives accept "Which number president is X?"

What about:

Which number time have you heard this song now?


To ask this, we would ask, "How many times have you heard/listened to this song now?"


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.