@Thucy,

That's not really true, about there being no difference between a dialect and whatever somebody is saying.

It *is* a subtle point, but the truth is, I can tell the difference between when somebody speaks the same dialect as I do and is starting to introduce a dopey phrase, and when somebody speaks a different dialect. Most people can. It's unjust to be annoyed at somebody because they say "wheres" instead of where. It's not stupid to be upset at Fox News when they say "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber." It's clear to everybody that the latter is stupid jargon, not anybody's dialect.

"It *is* a subtle point, but the truth is, I can tell the difference between when somebody speaks the same dialect as I do and is starting to introduce a dopey phrase, and when somebody speaks a different dialect." That's the point I tried to make earlier, but then I stopped caring about this thread so never elaborated.

Wait, is "homicide bomber" a thing people say? Wouldn't that be, you know, a regular bomber? Most bombs seem to have killing people as a general goal. Sure, some destroy things instead.

In general, I'm okay with a term if I know what the person is trying to say. I can't say I would easily be able to identify what a "homicide bomber" is supposed to be.

phil,

Yes, for awhile at least (I'm not sure if they still do it), FNC used "homicide bomber," as a synonym for "suicide bomber," because they were afraid that "suicide bomber" somehow "glorified" the bomber in the eyes of some. It's stupid for all the reasons you say, and several more.

Another distinction worth making here, by the way, is somebody's actual natural dialect versus "dialects" whose only speakers are those who adopt them as a kind of in-group affectation. The latter often tend -- coincidentally -- to be exceptionally annoying.

JamesYanik: Yeah, here we are in a thread talking about communication, and you want to pretend what you wrote says something it doesn't. You said "it's not racist in the least" - which in most people's English means "it's very rarely if ever".

It doesn't take dialect to miscommunicate, if you want to. :-)

@smeck "The fallacy of this line of argument is that it ignores that people complaining about words, and decrying usages they dislike, is *part* of language evolving, and always has been. Who knows what ghastly constructions we would still be left with if not for the yeoman's work of the tasteful dead?"

That is a fine riposte, but alas your OP was not complaining that certain phrases were merely annoying or dislikable. He attempted to claim some authority for the rightness of his preference over these newly created 'pseudo words' - as if all words did not begin just like this.

If he had said 'i dislike these word uses, because i'm not used to them, and we should all say nice things' then he would not have seen the criticism i laid before him.

When it comes to word choice, you are free to question someone's choice of words as per a description. However to appeal to grammar in doing so is oppressive and artificial. But if you want to make the claim that speaking a certain way furthers a certain wrongheaded idea, you can do so. It's not exactly the same thing.

I might dispute the use of the term terrorist as applied to people who are actually freedom fighters for example. But this is different than saying that someone who splits infinitives is stupid, for example.

"That is a fine riposte, but alas your OP was not complaining that certain phrases were merely annoying or dislikable. He attempted to claim some authority for the rightness of his preference over these newly created 'pseudo words' - as if all words did not begin just like this."

Orathaic,

Actually, that's exactly what I think he was doing -- saying he disliked certain things. I didn't take the word "misuse" as an expression of some kind of authority. But in any event, it seems we've located the source of our disagreement -- differing interpretations of OP's point.