I've never understood "dinner" vs "supper" in England.
In the U.S., they're synonymous.
When I was visiting my mom and British stepdad in London, the phone rang in Alan's bookroom (He was an antiquarian bookseller), and someone asked if he was there, and then asked when he'd return.
I said that I didn't know, but that he'd surely be back at dinner.
The guy said, "Dinner???! !"
I quickly said, "Supper", hoping that was the right word.
And, Mr. Chichikov, how big a deal is it really if a significant number of people use a word contrary to some "official" standard. If usages didn't change, then you might be speaking Chaucerian. Going back to the hypothetically-inferred Proto-Indo-European, and before, one reason why languages diversified was because each generation wanted to use new usages.
In one of the Nero Wolfe stories, someone in Wolfe's office says to him, "You fat pig, I never should have contacted you!"
The narrator, Archie Goodwin says something like, "Wolfe was moving his little finger in quarter-inch circles on the arm of his chair. That man had just made an enemy for life--He'd used "contact" as a verb."
I used to dislike "access" as a verb. But why shouldn't it be used as one?
Chichikov, we have enough flamewarrior-behavior at Politics, Philosophy & Religion. Let's not bring it here too, ok?
Alright, one thing I'll never accept: The double-is: "The thing is-is..."
Michael829
Michael829
_________________
Michael829