[turaw]

Augh. Almost 100% unrelated to the article, but:

"There are ramshackle _cement_ rectangles squatting under rain clouds..."

It's concrete [1] not cement. Even the word cementing can mean "settle or establish firmly", which is what happens to the aggregate in concrete. Augh.

[1]: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-differen...

[pdabbadabba]

+1 for the information, but I don't think all the "Augh"s are warranted.

One of the widely accepted, dictionary definitions of "cement" is simply "concrete." (In fact, Merriam Webster has this listed as definition #1.) I understand that the terms have different technical meanings, but in common English they are simply synonyms.

E.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cement

There may be an opportunity for a Battle of the Dictionaries here, but I think this skirmish in the language wars may be over.

[turaw]

Fair enough :/ it just feels like 'misusing' words is disrespectful to their source, as though a lack of effort was taken to use it 'properly' (air quotes since those are highly subjective terms). In a detached sense, I suppose seeing semantic change [1] in action is neat, but it is still just the tiniest bit depressing.

edit: Ah! Also cool is dental cement [2] which is, as the name would imply, used in dentistry (but without any aggregate equivalent!).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_cement

[pdabbadabba]

Totally agree. Even if "concrete" and "cement" can "properly" be used interchangeably, I myself prefer to use words in a way that recognizes these sorts of distinctions. It keeps language more information rich and historically connected. (And keeps me from being looked down upon by well-educated people who, like myself, incline towards language snobbery :))