Author Topic: I hate the word "anathema" (Read 12344 times)

superboyac · « **on:** November 07, 2013, 05:36 PM »

I just can't stand that word. From the first time I heard it and all the years since. Whenever it is used, it always sounds like something wrong just happened in grammer. It sounds like you are saying "an athema". And no matter what context you use it in, as soon as it is said, the listeners can only think about this awkward word and it's a complete distraction. I may remove it from my vocabulary forever.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2013, 05:50 PM »

Then just delete anathema.exe - This is the software section...

superboyac · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2013, 05:57 PM »

Then just delete anathema.exe - This is the software section...
-Stoic Joker (November 07, 2013, 05:50 PM)

whoops! i forgot i was initially going to post about the new ridiculous mascot MS chose (the anime chick, so lol!)

mouser · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2013, 06:10 PM »

boo.

I think it's a good word.

Deozaan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2013, 08:20 PM »

It sounds like you are saying "an athema".
-superboyac (November 07, 2013, 05:36 PM)

That would certainly make for an interesting conversation:

athema: (n) A ceremonial knife, specifically a sharpened condor or llama bone. SAI

40hz · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2013, 08:31 PM »

It's an ok word. But it's overused - and misapplied more often than not.

I personally want the word 'entitled' removed from the American-English language.

panzer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2013, 03:23 AM »

Why? It's a good book:
http://www.amazon.co...henson/dp/006147410X

Renegade · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2013, 09:07 AM »

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2013, 11:31 AM »

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!
-Renegade (November 08, 2013, 09:07 AM)

Yes, I see...

To superboyac the word anathema is an abomination, an outrage, an abhorrence, a disgrace, an evil, a bane, a bugbear, a bête noire. It is something that he vehemently dislikes.

It is... Aw hell I really don't have to explain where this is going do I?!?

superboyac · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:54 PM »

lol... just had to say it that's all. it's not the word, it's just the way it sounds.

superboyac · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:54 PM »

People, people, people!!!

Superboy is right!

Anathema is anathema!
-Renegade (November 08, 2013, 09:07 AM)

Yes, I see...

To superboyac the word anathema is an abomination, an outrage, an abhorrence, a disgrace, an evil, a bane, a bugbear, a bête noire. It is something that he vehemently dislikes.

It is... Aw hell I really don't have to explain where this is going do I?!?
-Stoic Joker (November 08, 2013, 11:31 AM)

you know...i didn't even realize the pun i was making!

cmpm · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2013, 05:34 PM »

how about

mastication

I don't like the word,
don't like seeing others do it,
especially on tv shows and commercials.
I don't even like seeing me do it!

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2013, 11:37 AM »

I just hope superboyac is not a hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian?

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #13 on:** November 10, 2013, 09:02 PM »

I just can't stand that word. From the first time I heard it and all the years since. Whenever it is used, it always sounds like something wrong just happened in grammer.
-superboyac (November 07, 2013, 05:36 PM)

Well of course it did! Your Gram'ma and Kelsey Grammer are upset!

Muphry's Law:
When someone complains about spelling or grammar, woe betide them if they make a spelling or grammar error in their rant!

Edvard · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2013, 07:23 PM »

I like the word; so descriptive and to-the-point when applied properly to the appropriate subject.

Double-up on "properly" and "appropriate". When was the last time you excommunicated a heretic?

And double-kudos to your punny bone if it's your dog's name. Hint: look it up

J-Mac · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2013, 12:21 AM »

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim

superboyac · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2013, 01:48 PM »

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim
-J-Mac (November 15, 2013, 12:21 AM)

yea, i agree with this one too. i even remember having at least 3 conversations in my life plus at least two instructors in school going over this. lol

Deozaan · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2013, 06:36 PM »

I would like either "flammable" or "inflammable" removed. Both mean the same thing, which is downright silly IMO. So dump one of them, please! Inflammable is too often misused for nonflammable. Stupid, confusing words!

Jim
-J-Mac (November 15, 2013, 12:21 AM)
yea, i agree with this one too. i even remember having at least 3 conversations in my life plus at least two instructors in school going over this. lol
-superboyac (November 15, 2013, 01:48 PM)

I was also confused by these terms for a long time as a child, but it actually makes sense if you consider the words they're based on. One says "This thing is flame-able." The other says "This thing is inflame-able."

Flame: "The visible part of fire; a stream of burning vapour or gas, emitting light and heat."
Inflame: "To set on fire; to kindle; to cause to burn, flame, or glow."

It's also interesting to note that someone can become inflamed (figuratively speaking), and if they are easily inflamed, you could appropriately call them inflammable. That wouldn't work with flammable. Since that word always refers to literal fire/burning.

J-Mac · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2013, 09:55 PM »

Yeah... but native English speakers have enough difficulty with these two synonyms disguised as antonyms. Imagine trying to learn English and tackling these two words!

Jim

Edvard · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2013, 11:50 AM »

So, according to the root meanings of "flame" and "inflame", then "flammable" means "if you manage to catch this on fire, it will burn with flames", but "inflammable" means "burnable to varying degrees, but visible flames not explicitly required"

Interesting...

J-Mac · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2013, 12:21 PM »

Both words mean "capable of burning". No other real difference. In the US manufacturers are required to use only the word "flammable", but any products already labelled with "inflammable" do not have to be changed. It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent. 2) 'into, in, on, upon' as with income, intake, implant. Most of the time the difference is fairly clear, but not so with "inflammable".

Thought this was funny:

[attachimg=#1][/attachimg]

Jim

superboyac · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2013, 07:45 PM »

Both words mean "capable of burning". No other real difference. In the US manufacturers are required to use only the word "flammable", but any products already labelled with "inflammable" do not have to be changed. It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent. 2) 'into, in, on, upon' as with income, intake, implant. Most of the time the difference is fairly clear, but not so with "inflammable".

Thought this was funny:
(see attachment in previous post)
Jim
-J-Mac (November 16, 2013, 12:21 PM)

lol!

Deozaan · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2013, 12:47 PM »

It is really just an instance where the prefix "in" is really out of place. "in" as a prefix has two meanings: 1) 'not' or 'lacking' as in inedible, illegal, implausible, irreverent.
-J-Mac (November 16, 2013, 12:21 PM)

Only one of those examples starts with "in-" as a prefix.

And that image is wrong. Invaluable doesn't mean very valuable. It means you can't place a value on it. It's priceless. ("Priceless" is another word that I often was confused about its meaning as a child. I confused it with worthless.)

How about this one?

a- as a prefix usually means "without" or "not", such as amoral or asexual.

But once again, when referring to fire, it just means there's definitely fire: aflame