I think there may be a cultural, rather than a linguistic issue, here. Americans in their usual self-promoting way may present their opinions are facts (... and that's a fact"). That may be a debating device to win the argument, make themselves look good etc. Exaggerating in this way does not necessarily mean that they do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. --- On Mon, 1/2/10, Evan Read <eread@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Evan Read <eread@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: atw: Re: Correct usage conundrum: 'Match to' vs 'Match with' To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Received: Monday, 1 February, 2010, 1:58 PM When do American's mix up the words fact and opinion? Could you use them in sentences with their American meanings? Thanks. Evan. On Mon Feb 1 12:52 , 'Geoffrey Marnell' <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> sent: .. >As for your US correspondents who mix up the meanings >of "fact" and "opinion", well, there will always be people who use language >unconventionally (deliberately or through ignorance). They're not, though, >using >language incorrectly. They are simply not using it as the majority of English >speakers use it, at present. It's much like "regular" and "frequent". These >were >once distinct words. Now there is a such a critical mass of folk using >"regular" >to mean "frequent" that the words are in transition, and best avoided until a >single strong primary meaning re-appears. Maybe "fact" will mean "opinion" in >100 years. Who knows. But there will be other words to take its >place (maybe some still to be invented). Note Richard Dawkins's invention >of "theorum" in his latest book. A useful little word. I hope it takes >off. > >Cheers > > > >Geoffrey >Marnell >Principal >Consultant >Abelard Consulting Pty >Ltd >T: +61 3 9596 >3456 >F: +61 3 9596 >3625 >W: www.abelard.com.au >Skype: >geoffrey.marnell > > > > >From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine >Kent >Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:03 PM >To: >austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: atw: Re: Correct usage conundrum: >"Match to" vs "Match with" > > > > >So >can we now use alternate instead of alternative? > >I >agree with Geoff, but there are SOME examples of just plain “incorrect” usage, >which result in a degradation of the language and the nuances we can express >using language. > >I >have just had an argument on an American based forum where I have tried to >explain that opinion is opinion and fact is fact, as most on the forum do not >seem to grasp the difference between the two. Should we drop “fact” from >the language, because some cannot differentiate between fact and opinion. > I have tried to explain the difference between intellectual debate where >divergent ideas are openly discussed, and abuse where people are insulted for >their ideas. Should we drop “debate” from the language because all >intellectual debate is now seen as personal abuse? > >Perhaps >we should have an unwritten rule that we adapt the language any which way we >like, as long as we do not lose meaning and subtlety in the process. But >then, one person’s meaning and subtlety is different (to/than/from) another’s, >so who is the arbiter of loss of meaning and subtlety? > >Christine > > > > ************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7