<p>
[quote]
And as we all know, CC posts are inarguably serious academic writing. Please excuse my starting a sentence with 'and'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How did I know this was coming? Since the poster did not know the distinction, 'nauseous' would inevitably appear as clumsily used in some academic paper. It is better to inform him now than have him learn the hard way.</p>
<p>Sometimes the hard way can be funny</p>
<p>You're all making me nauseous :)</p>
<p>I apologize. My pedantic urges often spin me out of control.</p>
<p>"How did I know this was coming? Since the poster did not know the distinction, 'nauseous' would inevitably appear as clumsily used in some academic paper. It is better to inform him now than have him learn the hard way."</p>
<p>Oh so patronizing. How do you know the user did not know the distinction and was not instead merely using the word as (as has been established) it is now used the vast majority of the time in casual speech? And given your tone, I am sorry but I find it hard to believe that you were actually just trying to be a good samaritan and not showing off your grammatical superiority.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ow do you know the user did not know the distinction and was not instead merely using the word as (as has been established) it is now used the vast majority of the time in casual speech?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My assumption was supported by sound induction.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sorry but I find it hard to believe that you were actually just trying to be a good samaritan and not showing off your grammatical superiority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not care about whether you believe me. I am not here to prove anything to you.</p>
<p>By the way, the difference between 'nauseous' and 'nauseated' would not point to a "grammatical (or syntactic) distinction," but rather a "semantic" one. Oh wait, I will stop patronizing. You already knew that... right? Yes, right, of course you did.</p>
<p>haha well parried... i hope you're posting in as good humor as i... and believe me or not i actually did know the above and merely misspoke (just finished a linguistics class incidentally).</p>
<p>o..m..g</p>
<p>i cannot stress enough how unnecessarily negative people are to eachother on these boards. </p>
<p>I just had a so-called flame war with some Columbia grad because of his elitist attitude. Why does this continue to arise? </p>
<p>no one f'uck!n cares if its nauseous and nauseated or whatever words you want to scrutinize. it's not a senior thesis, for x sakes</p>
<p>No offense intended here npeds, but I think your over-the-top use of language might have a tendency to alienate people.</p>
<p>aka you are a nerd</p>
<p>Well, he did say he's worse than me...Nerds unite!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, he did say he's worse than me...Nerds unite!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed! Wooooooooo.</p>
<p>One word for you two: UChicago</p>
<p>
[quote]
One word for you two: UChicago
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are not the first to tell me that, actually.</p>
<p>The count is now at seventeen persons.</p>
<p>you've actually counted?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>I abhor having to cooperate with the "10 Character Rule" by including a "[filler]" for my post. This complaint, however, is much more eloquent.</p>
<p>grandiloquent is more accurate</p>
<p>
[quote]
grandiloquent is more accurate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...or perhaps magniloquent? Hahahaha.</p>
<p>haha, whatever floats your boat, big guy</p>
<p>Darn, I didn't apply to UChicago. Didn't know it was the haven for geeks. Now, everybody tells me to go to Brown or Bennington/Bard/Vassar because I'm frankly weird, but I don't do the party thing. That puts me in a rather bad spot.</p>
<p>I was hoping somewhere like Brown, with a reputation for its liberalism, would tolerate my weirdness. But if I'm actually going to be berated for being different than the party-going masses, as seems to be happening on this board, it probably isn't the place for me.</p>