Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
Perhaps you should provide a reference to a dictionary that supports your definition.
Can you remember the two words I could not find a definition for?
I'm not going to tell you. It's up to you to remember what they are.
And post this dictionary definition you provided, please.
And source the dictionary.
That said - I know that language evolves and adding a prefix to the beginning of a word can make a new one.
That does not mean it always should.
One word that always grates when I hear it is "proactive".
It is a redundant prefix. Pro means for, or in favour of and forward.
This means the literal definition of the word is "In favour of being active", or "Forwardly active".
You are either active, or you are not. Being in favour of being active is pointless, and the time when you decide to be active is irrelevant.
My pet peeve suffix is when people add "ly" to Unique to make "uniquely".
I'm infuriated that word did not have a red squiggly line, because it should.
Unique is singular. Nothing is "very unique" in the way that a pot plant is not "very a table".
It is or it is not.
I hope I don't get a G=G+1 for going off topic.
The Middle East ain't as rivetting for some as it is for others.
You won't find me touring religious sites and sights looking like a lost sheep to be fleeced.
I already gave you a dictionary definition, that proves your statement "it not a word" is false because my use of what I call a "word" fits the definition. For you to have any status in this argument you have to find a definition that my "word" does not fit, which is why I asked, and probably why you can´t give a straight answer.
Put simply: if euphony, cacaphony, and euphenism, etc. are words by the same definition cacphenism is also a word by the standard definition of such.
The reason for the "G" respone is that you have not answered my point regarding your misuse of the word "euphenism".
"does not mean it should" is a symptom of your analretentativeness because it also does not mean that it shouldn´t. Interesting that you have just undermined your original point when you admitted it was a word. where in your previous post you said it was not such, implying that in your infinite wisdom you could not find it in a dictionary meaning it does not exist - another example that you seem to know little as to the functions, purposes, etc. of dictionaries and how they come to exist.
As to your unique / uniquely point, again you don´t understand they way adverbs such as "-ly" work. In all Germanic languages, the unit "ly" is simply a derivitive of "like" So in your example while we agree that "unique" means one of a kind, by definition "uniquely" means "like one of a kind", e.g. similar to. For example if one is uniquely beautiful, since beautiful is not measurable the context is compared to some set of people defined or implied, not that in global terms she is beautiful.
Given you handicap regarding English, I am not surprised that you have such a problem communicating, because you seem to have a "uniquely" personal dictionary and/or grammar - so you have to go around making up rules about thingssuch as "not a word" and what you consider improper adverbial endings.
Here are some examples of your problem in other languages:
Unique (Eng) = únic (Cat)
Uniquely (Eng) = única (Cat) = only (Eng)* = unicament (cat)
Uniquely (Eng) = únicamente (Esp)
Uniquely (Eng) = einzigartig (Ger)
* what is ironic about your arguement if unique as one of a kind can not have
uniquely, why does "only" which like "uni" meaning one not allow this contraction meaning "onely"? Answer in all of the above is that your understanding of "-ly" is either false or incomple. Judging by your previous language misunderstanding, my interpretation is that either your teachers were of the 2+2=4 absolutist type, and did not give you any information beyond what was necessary to pass some standardized test, or your need for absolutes, causes you to filter out less then absolute meanings from their teaching.
So for the above part, already answered ... (second part is new so you probably should have put it in a different post as off topic to the first part.
I suspect I would not see you like a "lost sheep" The problem is that most religious sites are so fake and/or commercialized, or packed with lost sheep, they are best observed off season, even then there is a problem.
Several weeks ago I was an Capadocia visiting a historic monastery dating from the time when Romans were still persecuting christians. The scene was beautiful, white with snow and a lot of volcanic cones, that had been hollowed out to make cells, kitchens, dining rooms, chapels. One of my students wanted her picture taken with the monastery to her back. Unfortunately there was a bus load of tourists, who showed no respect for the fact that I was obviously posing the student to get the shot she wanted. Instead of going to the right or left of me and the student, they kept standing, walking, `posing right in the middle of my shot - judging by their conversations they had no clue as to the significance of the site, they just wanted an "I was there" photo to impress the folks back home. I ended up taking 4 shots, of which only one was not messed up by some intrusion. Examples
See how annoying that is?
You are called into the forum, expecting a response to what may , or may not, have been a thoroughly researched post.
Instead you get this stupid little macro.
Imbecil! Unicamente means solely or only and is NOT the equivalent of unique(ly).
you really need to concentrate on 1 language and try to get it right.
Di (amina046) said:
1 in 5 Europeans say secret Jewish cabal runs the world, survey finds Same number say Jews exploit the Holocaust, 1 in 4 say Israel's policies make them understand anti-Semitism, in survey of 16 countries in Europe
I'm just happy we're not as anti-semitic as those horrid US blacks.
This from the very reliable anti-racists of the ADL (Anti Defamation League) - http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_print.asp - dead link but this text appears (with approval?) in Google hits:
... Confirming the three previous studies, black Americans remain considerably more likely than white Americans to hold anti-Semitic views. In the 1998 survey, blacks (34%) are nearly four times as likely as whites (9%) to fall into the most anti-Semitic category.
The overall level of anti-Semitism among African-Americans (34%) compares to 37% in 1992. This very slight decline in acceptance of anti-Jewish stereotypes has been significantly slower among blacks than among whites, expanding the racial gap in attitudes toward Jews in 1998.
Impact of Education in the Black Community
The current survey reaffirms the strong correlation between education level and acceptance of anti-Jewish stereotypes among African-Americans.
Among those blacks without any college education, 43% fall into the most anti-Semitic group. This number drops to 27% among African-Americans with some college experience, and stands at 18% among blacks with a four-year college degree.
The overall level of anti-Semitism among all these groups is down from 1992. At the same time, it should be noted that black Americans at all education levels are significantly more likely than whites at the same level to accept anti-Jewish stereotypes. http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_print.asp
I cannot prove or disprove what the ADL is claiming - except that African-Americans are said to complain about racism a lot - almost exclusively in reference to white people.
Maybe the real crime of Blacks is not treating Jews any different from any other white people!
These polls appear which indicate that Anti Semitism is alive and kicking , evey pollster has their own spin on why Anti Semitism is thriving , but if it never goes away then it is seemingly carried forward Generation to Generation then it can be seen to carried forward father to son etc
I have previously used this video before but it makes a point https://www.youtube.com/embed/yAeWyGGTdEE?rel=0
Finally it wont go away , the Anti Jewish sentiment is now so deeply engrained in Western Culture it cant be erradicated , it is century upon century of refining , changing , mutating and being rehashed , its message never changes , its script does