Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

1.

We use this expression commonly, but there's no single word to denote "and/or".

If you say, Gods and heroes, that means both. Gods or heroes, that means one or the other but NOT both. There is no single word we can insert to indicate that it could be one but also possibly both.

You might argue "and/or" is a word. A new word. But it is rejected in formal writing, where such distinctions would be the most useful. So much for that.

2.

"Whose" for non-people

Ex: He opened the door, whose rusty hinges creaked.

The above is technically grammatically incorrect as door is a non-person and thus can't be modified by whose, but there is no thats or whiches to introduce a clause indicating possession by a non-person noun.

If you ask an editor how to fix the example sentence they'll just tell you to write it differently so there's no possessive clause or split it into two sentences.

What garbage. Why don't we have a word for that?

In the case of the door, it is possible for non-person nouns to possess something. For example, the door's hinges is a valid construction.

Apparently you can't just make words, or there's two we would've had.

1. We use this expression commonly, but there's no single word to denote "and/or". If you say, Gods and heroes, that means both. Gods or heroes, that means one or the other but NOT both. There is no single word we can insert to indicate that it could be one but also possibly both. You might argue "and/or" *is* a word. A new word. But it is rejected in formal writing, where such distinctions would be the most useful. So much for that. 2. "Whose" for non-people Ex: He opened the door, *whose* rusty hinges creaked. The above is technically grammatically incorrect as door is a non-person and thus can't be modified by whose, but there is no thats or whiches to introduce a clause indicating possession by a non-person noun. If you ask an editor how to fix the example sentence they'll just tell you to write it differently so there's no possessive clause or split it into two sentences. What garbage. Why don't we have a word for that? In the case of the door, it *is* possible for non-person nouns to possess something. For example, the door's hinges is a valid construction. Apparently you can't just make words, or there's two we would've had.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

How do you say "the day after tomorrow" in english? The japanese have a word for it.

[–] • 2 pts

the day after tomorrow

The word "overmorrow" has fallen out of use.

[–] • 1 pt

Thank you professor

[–] • 0 pt

You can repay me by using the word, "whelmed" as often as you can in conversation. People use over- and underwhelmed all the time, but not whelmed.

[–] • 0 pt

fell out of fashion in English if you use 'overmorrow' people will look at you strange, still exist in other languages übermorgen, L'apresDemain or PasadoMañana

[–] • 1 pt

Shadenfreude used to be an example of this, it is now in the English lexicon.

The remarkable thing about English is how quickly is accepts words from other languages.

Which is why is has the largest lexicon in the world.

[–] • 1 pt

In boolean logic, OR means the same as and/or. Many people who program carry that over the regular day speech, mostly to fuck with people.

[–] • 0 pt

It's because language has been largely used for mind control. If it were truly only for communication, none of these issues you are pointing out would still be.