Debates
28 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe world "arrognant" is obviously a typo. How contrary must you be to mention a typo and then call a person clueless? Everybody makes mistakes like that.
When is it a good thing to invent new words?
If somebody who is clueless invents the word "arrognant", is that an example of begging the question?
In any case, from a linguistical perspective, language constantly morphs and new words are invented daily. It isn't good or bad. Language has a natural need to try and expand and to fit modern definitions of the life around us.
Originally posted by DraxusGood point. I kind of like "Arrognant". It can come to mean something like "captured in a caste system; unable to think without the BBC" or something like that. It does have a certain ring to it. 🙂
The world "arrognant" is obviously a typo. How contrary must you be to mention a typo and then call a person clueless? Everybody makes mistakes like that.
In any case, from a linguistical perspective, language constantly morphs and new words are invented daily. It isn't good or bad. Language has a natural need to try and expand and to fit modern definitions of the life around us.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe BBC just told me to be happy in my lower middle class status. Am I arrognant? This is confusing.
Good point. I kind of like "Arrognant". It can come to mean something like "captured in a caste system; unable to think without the BBC" or something like that. It does have a certain ring to it. 🙂
Originally posted by shavixmirCollateral damage is not a new euphenism. It's just a good old time ass whooping! Hide behind your own civilians and watch 'um fry. And the best thing it that according to the rules of warfare, it's completely Legal!
Collateral damage is quite a new euphenism.
We used to say: "Slaughtering innocents."