[esteemer]

Umm, aversion = a fixed intense dislike/hatred.

So, aversion and hate aren't exactly the same.

Got my Grammar exam tomorrow. Wish me luck please.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

hate and aversion are two different things. in any case, "is averse to" sound more correct to me.

\i don't have an aversion to cats: quite the opposite! I'm not averse to better street cleaning in my area.

One of our scholars might be able to say why both those are correct, but they are not quite interchangeable.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by Blue Thunder

no, they are similar; hate is probably a stronger version of aversion .

To me hate is an emotional response. Aversion is often well calculated. Also, you can hate anything you want, but You can only be averse to something you are exposed to.

I hate honor killings, I can't say for sure if I am averse to it.

@Thad, looks like one qualifies a verb/action, while the other qualifies a noun.

[anku94]

A dictionary defines 'hate' as 'intense dislike' and aversion as 'dislike'.

It's like 'Taylor Swift has an aversion to paparazzi' vs 'Taylor Swift hates Kanye West'.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

@Thad, looks like one qualifies a verb/action, while the other qualifies a noun.

I thought something like that that too --- but it may be just idiom or convention that they are used that way around, rather than a rule.

[condor]

Guys, I have not gone through this thread in it's entirity, so I dont know if this has been asked before :

Which is the correct usage : "Proper English" / "Correct English" / "Grammatically Correct English" ?

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

To me hate is an emotional response. Aversion is often well calculated. Also, you can hate anything you want, but You can only be averse to something you are exposed to.

I hate honor killings, I can't say for sure if I am averse to it.
....

Ooops...I did not know that we were trying to redefine the English language here, based on what you and me felt. I thought that we were just supposed to clarify on what is the right usage, based on authoritative/correct sources (dictionary/books/etc.).

Sorry. my bad.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by Blue Thunder

Ooops...I did not know that we were trying to redefine the English language here, based on what you and me felt.

now that you are nitpicking, I never said "I felt". "To me" can be interpreted as AFAIK. Which is merely opening my understanding for furher questioning.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by condor

... Which is the correct usage : "Proper English" / "Correct English" / "Grammatically Correct English" ?

I'd say, "Good English", but that is just my personal take.

Few of us Brits speak or write really grammatically correct English, and it hasn't even really been taught properly in UK for a couple of generations. It is learners of foreign languages that get to study the structure of languages, and that may be true of those who learn English as a foreign language too. Out of the "United Kingdom", I'm told told that the Irish have the best command of English!

There are also "rules" in English that many of us think are absurd, like the split infinitive. We should not say "To boldly go". Why? Because "to go" is one word in Latin, and so the classicists tell us not to split it in English. To my mind that is absurd, as we don't speak Latin!

[carboy]

I have recently seen some usage in Radio & TV news of the word "Fiscal" as a noun - for e.g. we expect a growth of x% this fiscal.

Is this correct - fiscal is a noun - so it should be "fiscal year" or "fiscal policy". IMHO, using fiscal as a noun is incorrect.

[Thad E Ginathom]

It is not correct. I think it might be American usage, though.

[condor]

Thad E Ginathom : I'd say, "Good English", but that is just my personal take.

Good is not necessarily Correct. It may be good, but it may not be close to exact / correct, yet.

[Thad E Ginathom]

A long time ago, I heard an interview with a jazz musician. He was asked if he ever made mistakes on stage, to which he replied, "Of course! But there are two kinds of mistake in music: the ordinary kind, and the kind that don't sound good".

English is like that. We can be bowled over by a novelist's style and skill, whilst, in another frame of mind, we could take a red pen to their grammatical errors and find the book to be full of them. I guess this may be true of other languages as well, but being linguistically challenged, I can't tell.

By the way... Today's The Hindu has a picture of "vehicles wading" in a flooded street. In a poem, that might be just fine, but in ordinary text it "don't sound good"!

[tifosikrishna]

Digression.

Sometime back I was checking the correctness of the phrase "book reads well" and stumbled on this very interesting discussion.

The book reads well. - UsingEnglish.com ESL Forum

Some of the regulars in this thread will find it interesting.

regards
tifosi.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Wow... getting that analytical about the language makes my head hurt!