thanks for clearing that up! It's true, all your comments are paragons of clarity and completeness, and any misunderstanding on the part of the reader rests solely with them.

It seems you are confused? "Chow" is food, "ciao" is bye. Yes, they are pronounced the same. "See-ay-oh" is not the pronunciation, or phonetic spelling, of either word... So it was unclear to me what you were referring to.

I just wasn't sure what you were referring to with "see-ay-oh". I think "chow" just means food, it doesn't mean goodbye ;-)

Sorry, "prae" is a prefix. Even in Latin, the word praescribere did not mean "before writing."

First of all, variations in the pronunciation of a single word are a matter of accent. "Dialect" describes a language, not a word, and implies differences in vocabulary and grammar in addition to accent. There are, of course, variants of Italian... But it's imprecise, especially when debating what is and isn't…

I'm not sure where your information comes from, but it's imprecise to the point of being incorrect. Both words describe a person in a position of authority with respect to accounting and financial controls. While "comptroller" is often used in government contexts and "controller" in private corporations, the terms are…

Flounder is a word with a different definition. "Founder" is not a pronunciation of "flounder."

They aren't two different words. They are just the original and a later, fucked up spelling of the same word. Common usage of the error made the original (in English) spelling a niche word.

Chow and ciao?

This is the only "correction" I wasn't familiar with, and I have never heard anyone ever pronounce dour as tour with a D.

Hi, not all Italians pronounce things the same way. Something can be "authentically Italian" without sounding like it was said by someone fresh off a plane from Milan.

Virtually no one without philosophy (specifically logic) training gets this right.

Clever, did you pick the name just for this comment?

Its a toomah

Its not an English mishmash of disparate latin roots, its a bastardization of a Latin word (praescribere).

Kinda like the people who say "pharmist" or "pharmorist" or just "doc."

Appreciate the long response. Bottom line for me - being intoxicated has to cut both ways. If he is still responsible for what he does while drunk, so is she. She wasn't passed out or violently assaulted. If two people participate actively in sex while drunk, it is absolutely incredible to me that anyone would…

So you're saying you agree that if two people are sloppy drunk and they have sex, the man is always guilty of rape? Why is he "responsible for where it goes" and she isn't? If neither have the capacity to consent because both are drunk, why is there a crime at all? If there is a crime, shouldn't they both be guilty of…

Nope, but the WSJ post provides some at least facially independent description of the process: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/06/02…. They found him "culpable" in a sexual assault because a three person panel determined that the girl had reached a level of intoxication rendering her unable to consent. (From other…

that's the most bullshit policy I've ever heard of.