Things that drive me nutz ...

[jwocky]

Okay, my English is not perfect, I will admit at first to that. Still, being a writer, there are some things, I just can't hear without cringing. Here are some examples

I take something for the flu
Really? I can assure you, the flu is well and alive, the flu doesn't need any chemical support. You are the one who feels bad because the flu is so well and alive. You want really to take something against the flu! So, unless you are a ahrdcore political correct liberal and wants to make the flu love you ... take something against it, I beg you!

to make peace
You can't make peace. You can, between two parties, reach a state of mutually accepted co-existence, you can, if there are enough common interests, create even a state of synergy. Those situations automatically lead to peace. But if you can't create at least the first of such states, there is no peace. End of the story. What you mean, according to Merriam Webster is

Simple Definition of surrender

: to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed

: to give the control or use of (something) to someone else

: to allow something (such as a habit or desire) to influence or control you

Peace, according to Merriam-Webster is

Simple Definition of peace

: a state in which there is no war or fighting

: an agreement to end a war

: a period of time when there is no war or fighting

So please stop to call "surrender" "peace", it is the wrong use of words.

fact
all too often, people use the word "fact", when they actually mean "conviction". Whicvh then, when confronted with real world facts, make them following their conviction, not the facts. When hard pressed, they search refuge to other wrong-used words. For example calling the mentioning of facts a "rant" to distract from the fact, that they just were hit by facts.

Language, for a writer is a wonderful thing. Surely, there were writers who use language to sell ideologies, there were politicians who tried to establish them selves as writers to sell ideologies. And there were, alas, also writers enough who used language quite careless. Still, there is one thing about language, a writer learns quite fast: Wording things the wrong way to make a certain impression is always a dangerous thing to do. You can write "black is white", but people don't buy it and you get some harsh critiques. So please, stop torturing the poor language, it won't change anything, but it makes some statements less cringe-worthy.

[FL2070]

The thing that drives me nuts most is people complaining about the things that drive them nuts all the time.

xC

[Lydiot]

Are you sure you're not confusing "make peace" with "make peace with", the latter being a set phrase that's been around for a long time and which doesn't mean "surrender"....?

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: I am sure because "make peace with" is just a more specific form of "making peace" which additionally describes with whom. It's nothing but an additional dative object for further specification. The meaning of "peace" remains unchanged. So, whether you use it correctly in its meaning or not still depends on the context.

[Lydiot]

"Make peace with" is a set phrase. If I "make peace with" someone it doesn't mean "I surrender".

[jwocky]

Lydiot: Please look up in the dictionary. If you make pece by giving someone control over something that is dear to you, you actually surrender to make the other guy stop bullying you. See the Merriam-Webster entries. And only because people think "make peace with" is a set phrase, it doesn't mean, you should use it wrong, be it for lack of knowledge about the meaning of the words or as political correct propaganda effort.

[Lydiot]

Lydiot: Please look up in the dictionary. If you make pece by giving someone control over something that is dear to you, you actually surrender to make the other guy stop bullying you.

That's one example of using "make peace". But even just looking at that example the two terms are actually not mutually exclusive. You can end up in a situation where there is peace by surrendering. Logically then you have reached/made peace through surrender.

See the Merriam-Webster entries. And only because people think "make peace with" is a set phrase, it doesn't mean, you should use it wrong, be it for lack of knowledge about the meaning of the words or as political correct propaganda effort.

Can you give an example of a to you correct use of "make peace with".

[jwocky]

I coul, but I prefer to make it a little game. See the following statements and tell me in which ones you think, I used "make peace with" correctly:

1.) In 1865 the Union and the Confederation made peace with each other
2.) In 1945, the Allies and the German Reich made peace with each other
3.) In 1274, the Hittite Empire and Egypt's king Ramesse II made peace with each other
4.) On September 4, 476, Odoacer made peace with the Roman Empire
5.) On September 4, 476, Romulus Augustulus made peace with Odoacers revolting soldiers

So, now a lot of empty lines and then, the answer



















































































1.) In 1865 the Union and the Confederation made peace with each other
Is NOT a correct use of "make peace" NOR of "make peace with". TheConferderation was defeated to the point, they couldn't continue the war and had to surrender. Thus, the correct wording woud be
"In 1865, the Confederation surrendered to the Union"

2.) In 1945, the Allies and the German Reich made peace with each other
Same thing in 1945. There was no negotiation, there was some talk about the conditions which were answered by the allies with "unconditional surrender". It was a surrender, just that.

3.) In 1274, the Hittite Empire and Egypt's king Ramesse II made peace with each other
This is actually a CORRECT use. The military conflict that had led to the battle of Khadesh was ended without any side actually defeated because any territorial win would have been useless for Egypt while the Hittites only promised not to break into the lands of Egypt (which at the time included the Sinai and provinces into the Souther end of the Euphrate-Tigris region). So technically, this is one of the rare occasions in history, someone actually "made peace with" someone else.

4.) On September 4, 476, Odoacer made peace with the Roman Empire
Well, Odoacrer had beaten the Empire and send the Roman Emperor to the exile. So there was no synergy, no ambivalence, it was simply, Odoacer forced the Roman Empire in a defeat so completely, they didn't even need to surrender anymore because there was nothing left that could surrender. It was a hostile take-over. And interesting enough, Odoacer was then the one who refused to call himself "king" and tried to run some kind of pseudo-Roman country there.

5.) On September 4, 476, Romulus Augustulus made peace with Odoacers revolting soldiers
Well, yes, that is just 4.) from the other side. Romulus Augustulus was the emperor sent into exile (actually to the Villa of Lucullus). He had no choice, there was no negotiation, Odoacer simply orders some of his soldiers to grab the emperor and drag his sorry ass away.

[IAHM-COL]

Can you give an example of a to you correct use of "make peace with".

I try! I try! I try!

(Dont' guarantee it works, but I try!

***












Curtis, Bugman, Stuart, Hooray, and Thorsten should make peace with the fact that FGMEMBERS is here to stay, and thus should make peace with the fact that it is best to find mechanisms that ensure a great synergy of the FlightGear Flight Simulator, with its massive de-facto content provider.

I presume if they make peace with those facts, then they would benefit largely of those repositories, and the community could empower itself of such synergy.

[jwocky]

Nice! Because of the "should" it is entirely correct use because if they would as they should, all would profit and nobody would need to be beaten up to the level of being unrecognisable.