Vatta, I would suggest that comparing to "orientate" doesn't really help. Regarding "...it’s now so common, it’s unremarkable..." I would disagree. I realize that some sources do not object to "orientate", but some do as well. No sources object to "orient". I'm not saying that "orientate" is right or wrong, I'm simply pointing out that it's use is more controversial. Personally, I don't use it.

"Conversate" is not as widely accepted. It is considered slang by most, at least for now.

Actually, I think it would be fun to use "conversate" as a noun. Compare it to precipitate / precipitation. Precipitation can refer to the act of pricipitating and can also refer to the stuff itself that's precipitating (e.g., rain, chemicals falling out of solution, etc.). Precipitate as a noun means, specifically, only the stuff itself (the actual raindrops, the resultant chemicals, etc.). I say we should use "conversation" to mean that act of talking, and "conversate", as a noun, to mean the actual words or sentences, something like "HIs conversate was particularly well chosen." As a noun, it could be pronounced con-ver-sayt, or con-ver-sit, just like precipitate.

hot4teacher, after your last post, I thought I might be able to clarify a few things for you. Let me address a few of your comments:

When you said:

"At no point did I state that I was correct nor that anyone else was incorrect. I simply offered my opinion – which I am now somewhat reluctant to do, considering the amount of trolls who responded only to take shots at me.
I already modestly stated my level of education in English, which leaves me confused at attempting to understand why you think I’m being condescending or righteous – which is ironic."

Surely you haven't forgotton your very first post, have you? Here:

"For those whom [sic] are against the correct use of the English language, you are all idiots. Why would you use an incorrect spelling/form of a word if you know that it is incorrect and you know what the correct spelling/form is. It pisses me off when I hear someone say forums instead of fora (and to make my point even stronger, this word processor has found fora to be spelled incorrectly!). If you are going to speak English speak it properly."

So, the fact is, you did not just offer your opinion. Furthermore, you absolutely did say that you were "correct" and that, no, not "anyone" but everyone other than you was incorrect. What's more, you referred to the collective group of other posters on this forum as "idiots". Then you have the nerve to complain when others have pointed this out to you. Sorry, but if you feel that you are being characterized as condescending, it's because you have been. You are the one who has made this personal. Others are simply pointing it out to you, frankly, with a surprising amount of restraint. Even now, during your failed attempt at backpedalling, you've called your detractors "trolls". How about this? If you're going to participate in an intellectual debate, learn to present your arguments clearly. Recognize that they will come under scrutiny and accept criticism graciously. If you think the opposition is wrong, reposte with facts and research, not personal attacks. Just suck it up and stop being such a crybaby. What's truly ironic is not how you think you have been treated, but that your original premise is actually incorrect. From a descriptive point of view, fora is not in common usage. From a prescriptive point of view, there is no prescriptive rule that fora, or latinized plurals in general, should be preferred. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case as has been stated many times and backed up with authoritative sources.

Next, you have pointed out that your choice of name, hot4teacher has nothing to do with your sexual interest in teachers, but, instead, is because of your appreciation of a Van Halen song. Surely you realize that the Van Halen song is entirely about someone who has a sexual interest in his teacher? If the name is inappropriate, it really doesn't matter whether it's your personal interest or Van Halen's. The song is still glorifying teacher-lust. Personally, I'm not offended in the least by your choice of handle; I just wanted to point out the logic to you.

Last, please don't take anything I'm saying as a personal attack. I'm just letting you know what I have observed with the hopes of offering you some insight into what you seem to be experiencing. Perhaps if you tried a more collegial approach, you might have a more pleasant experience, here and elsewhere.

Oh, and thanks, John. I was just about to post "where is John the linguist when we need him?":) (assuming, of course, you're the same John)

Marilyn, I believe you are under a misconception. Regarding your statement: "... But this is a forum on correct grammar and usage as dictated by the rules, such as they are...", nothing could be further from the truth.

This is from the "about us" page of this very website: "...because the experts can never agree with one another...PainInTheEnglish.com encourages discussions of such gray areas of the English language, for which you would not find answers easily in dictionaries and other reference books..."

You will find many debates on this site between strict prescriptivists and studied linguistics descriptivists, sometimes inspired, sometimes tedious, but usually interesting. Yes, often someone studying ESL is obviously looking for the "rule" and instead gets a less than useful digression into the social implications of judging regionalisms or growing acceptance of subject-verb case mismatch, but the point is, this site is not about rules, but encouraging interesting discussions and debates we might all learn from.

OK, how about this one? I just called the IRS. While on hold, I heard this exact comment: "our customers are answered in the order received" not "calls" but "our customers." Doesn't that sound odd? I didn't know the IRS receives customers over the phone. I didn't think they'd fit through the wires.

I won't assert that it is always followed, but the prescriptive rule is that "lie" is intransitive and "lay" is transitive. As for the bit about "'lie' is for people, 'lay' is for things",well, I would not classify that as a general rule. It doesn't represent common usage, nor is it any kind of accepted prescriptive rule. Frankly, it doesn't even make much sense. I'd group it with other grammar myths like the prohibition on dangling prepositions.

Of course, it only adds to the confusion that the past tense of "lie" is "lay". Just for fun, it's "lie, lay, lain", to include the past participle, and, to compare, "lay, laid, laid."

Atomaton, regarding:

"The résumé is properly pronounced REZ-oo-MEY. That is, the emphasis is on the first AND the third sylable. (Which is why it has accents there.)"

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The acute accent in French has nothing to do with emphasis. It affects pronunciation. The sole purpose of the first accent is to change the pronunciation to "REY..." Without the accent it would be "REH..." as you have indicated. By the way, I agree with you; in English, the common and correct pronunciation is "REH-zoo-MAY". Perhaps that's why the spelling with only one accent on the second "e" is also considered correct.

By the way, somewhere along the way, I was taught that when spelling phonetically, a consonant sandwiched between two syllables is nearly always considered to be part of the second syllable. For example, in the very word we're discussing, it should be phonetically spelled "REH-zoo-MAY", not "REZ-oo-MEY". Does anyone have a similar recollection? Of course, dictionary.com spells it "REZ-oo-MEY".

While there may be times when "got" is inappropriate, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. It's a perfectly valid word, actually, a fundamental one, crucial to the language, like to be, to go, etc. Often, get and have seem to be interchangeable, but they do not mean the same thing. If you have something, it is in your possession. If you get something, then at one time it was not in your possession, but now it is. "Get" describes a change in state from not having to having.

Let's take "you have mail" vs. "you've got mail" as an example. The former means there is mail in your inbox. You are in possession of it. The latter means that there is new mail in your mailbox; that is, there is mail in your mailbox that wasn't there before. You received it. While both may be true, They do not mean the same thing at all. Consider this: if you've got mail, then, of course, you must have mail. On the other hand, if you have mail, you must have got/gotten it from somewhere, at least at some point in the past, so you've got mail. This entanglement is probably the source of some of the confusion, at least in part.

I'll bet Grammar Girl would have conniptions over "went AWOL."

Is it any worse than "go crazy", "go awry", "go nuts", or "go gaga over"?