Hate/Grammar War

[Cargést]

"Hate" is not a noun.

[Heydrich]

"Hate" is not a noun.

Just as the rules of nature do not apply to modern thinking, so too for grammar...

[kontinual]

"Hate" is not a noun.

Main Entry:
hate
Pronunciation:
\ˈhāt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>
2: an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

[Cargést]

Merriam-Webster, eh?

Enjoy your fundamentally incorrect Americanisms.

Funny story - I have family in America, and they banned the Merriam-Webster's dictionary.  Reason: "it's actually bullshit".

If Merriam-Webster says it's a noun, it's not a noun.

[Frostbitten]

hate = noun
to hate = verb
hateful = adjective

"Hate is evil, because Christ says so."
"I hate Christ."
"Christ is hateful."
etc.

-> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hate
-> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hateful

[Cargést]

Bloody hell, at least READ the links you post!

That "wiktionary" page even states that the secondary meaning of "hate" is as a stand-in for the noun of the verb "to hate" - hatred.

The noun is hatred.  "Hate" is a verb.

Noun

  Singular
hate

  Plural
hates
 

hate (plural hates)

Hatred.
He gave me a look filled with pure hate.

An object of hatred.
One of my pet hates is traffic wardens.

That last example is a colloquialism, completely idiomatic, thus proving that "wiktionary" is most likely as substandard as the Merriam-Webster bollocks spouted earlier on.

[istaros]

Noun or not, I find the inclusion of "willy" to be much more funny/bothersome.

[death metal black metal]

That "wiktionary" page even states that the secondary meaning of "hate" is as a stand-in for the noun of the verb "to hate" - hatred.

I'm going to agree with Cargest here. I cannot prove it, but the old school usage is for "hatred" to be the noun. I had at least one English teacher that would punch me in the balls if I used hate as a noun for diction rules alone.

Merriam-Webster is not ideal, but better than many options. While I recognize the English are basically a freak of nature by which homosexuals learned to breed, they are supreme in dictionaries:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, $110

I thoroughly recommend buying this. It will teach you more about language than you can imagine. The full dictionary, at something like 27 volumes, is beyond me too, but this is a good option. There's also a digital version that's probably floating around somewhere here if you look carefully.

[kontinual]

I'm sure that usage is commonly separated per Cargest's suggestions.  Regardless, this is what the OED returns for me:

[The OED is available to many library subscribers online.  A nice resource to have.]

hate, n.1

1. a. An emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence, hatred. Now chiefly poet.
Beowulf (Z.) 2554 Hete wćs on-hrered. c825 Vesp. Psalter cxxxix. 3 [cxl. 2] a ohtun heatas in heortan alne de. c900 tr. Bćda's Hist. III. xv. [xxi.] (1890) 222 He forseah & on hete hćfde a men. c1200 ORMIN 4454 iff u beresst hete and ni. c1205 LAY. 20441 Muchel hunger & hćte [c1275 hate]. c1250 Gen. & Ex. 3638 Wi-uten ate and strif. c1275 LAY. 8322 at after hate come loue. c1315 SHOREHAM 161 Thou areredst therne storm And alle thys hete. 1340 Ayenb. 8 Zenne of hate and of wree and of grat ire. 1382 WYCLIF 2 Sam. xiii. 15 With to myche greet haate. 1491 CAXTON Vitas Patr. (W. de W. 1495) II. 221b/2 A relygyouse that shall haue in a hate the delectacyons of the flesshe. 1513 DOUGLAS Ćneis XIII. Prol. 129 Thus sayr me dredis I sal thoill a heyt, For the graue study I haue so long forleyt. 1570 Satir. Poems Reform. xviii. 107 our Inobedience hes purchessit Goddis hait. 1667 MILTON P.L. VII. 54 Unimaginable as hate in Heav'n. 1777 SIR W. JONES Ess. Imit. Arts in Poems, etc. 195 Where there is vice, which is detestable in itself, there must be hate. 1877 MRS. OLIPHANT Makers Flor. i. 10 Generations which succeeded each other in the same hates and friendships.

    b. The object of hatred. poetic.
1592 SHAKES. Rom. & Jul. I. v. 140 My onely Loue sprung from my onely hate. 1594 MARLOWE & NASHE Dido III. ii, Here lies my hate, Aeneas' cursed brat. 1713 SWIFT Cadenus & Vanessa 505 Of half mankind the dread and hate.

[Heydrich]

Vulgarisms and various mutilations of the English language are so much a part of American(and other western) speech we would hardly be able to communicate with one another without them. Every time I hear someone speak of another being "discriminated against" I want to strike something. It was forever accepted that one may discriminate "between" two or more things...but how, pray-tell in deference to all the rules of the English language would one suddenly be able to discriminate "against" something? (Discriminate - v. To make a clear distinction, to differentiate)  We just make it up as we go along - and if enough half-educated dolts repeat anything enough times, viola! it becomes acceptable by herd consent!   
   

[NHA]

Its even more amusing how pop-politics likes to extend the list of phobias without any scientific basis.

[death metal black metal]

Now chiefly poet.

New reason to hate poets!

[JewishPhysics]

I hate you, I hate me
I hate priests, I hate nuns
I hate my enemies, I hate my friends
I hate religion, I Hate gods

I hate, hate, hate, hate
I hate children, I hate women
I hate men, I Hate dogs
I hate the past
I hate the present
I Hate the future
I hate cars

I hate money, I hate lust
I hate drinks, I hate drugs
I Hate addicteds, I hate lesbians
I hate gays
I hate to hate

[ASBO]

This thread is pointless. You're all right, and yet, no one has paid attention to the reverent aesthetics required. What is the best, most beautiful use of language? I won't put my opinion in here, that's too easy.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

Forget pointless grammar. Why do we speak? To communicate messages. Following grammatical rules can often add to the meaning of our message, but it is not essential. If you want to come of as a professional follow the rules to the core. Yet for the most part, its irrelevant. Language is an instinct, it grows and changes as we do. We don't need to map it out all the time. There is nothing wrong with making it up as we go, that is how its always done. The meanings of things can change, its never meant to be set in stone in absolute. Its ridiculous to do that.

Some people find a need to read all the rules of the English language and follow them. Why? Because some people need an ego boost by feeling superior by using the English language the "right" way. As if that ever existed.

Is it that baffling to think the usage of the word discriminate can change? Is it even bad at all? So what if masses redefine some words. This isn't an attack on "correct" grammar completely. I just don't think there is a point to always follow the rules of the English language if it does nothing to enhance

I totally disagree.  It's very important to understand the proper use and origins of words.  Nietzsche was trained as a philologist, not a philosopher, by the way.  In Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche shows the "evolution" of the words "bad," and "evil," and how they share a mutual antonym - "good."  By pointing this out, Nietzsche is able to build a foundation on which to critique slave morality.

Your line of thinking could result in a homogenization of language in which all words start to mean the same thing and thus we are able to express ourselves less specifically (that would be bad).  I think Schopenhauer said once the Latin language is forgotten, we will be nothing more than barbarians.