Brus, if I may suggest, using "which" instead of "that" really doesn't clear up any ambiguity suggesting that the Air Force has lost a beach. Instead, I would suggest the following phrasing: "the castaways found a jet pack that the Air Force had lost, washed up on the beach."

Oh, and while we're at it, I think that in this case, "that" is preferred over "which". Traditionally, "that" is used in a restrictive sense, while "which" is used in a non-restrictive sense. Presumably, the Air Force has lots of jet packs. The one mentioned is a particular jet pack, identified restrictively, as having been lost, so "that" would be appropriate.

Brus, thank you. Peccable. What a wonderful word. I put it right up there with ruth (contrasted to ruthless of course).

The notion that the single "c" requires an "ee-" pronunciation is not a standard English pronunciation rule. In the variants of econo... ecolo... etc, the first e may often be pronounced with many options, including "ih-", "eh-", "uh-" (well, really "shwa"), and, yes, "ee-". Actually, in all of the dictionaries I've checked, the "ee-" pronunciation is not even listed in mostof the variants, and then, when it is, always the last pronunciation. They are pronounced the same as the double c, not out of ignorance, but out of correctness.

I'm not sure I really understand your colleague's complaint. If one uses "literally" in contrast to "figuratively" or "metaphorically", then I would think that the common use for it in place of actually is completely correct. I would only object to someone saying, say, "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse", since, clearly, they could never actually be that hungry. Even then, I still wouldn't say it's wrong. It's just a little exaggeration, poetic license, or perhaps irony.

Hairy Scot, to be honest, I'm a little confused by your original question. From my perspective, a shithouse, non-euphemistically, can only be thought of as an outhouse, a small stand-alone building. A urinal is an actual bathroom fixture into which one only urinates (or, I suppose, technically, a building that houses one, but I've never heard this spoken). Neither of these is routinely referred to as a bathroom, head, lavatory, toilet, rest room, john, library, reading room, loo, little boys' / girls' room, privy, smallest room in the house, necessarium, sandbox, etc.

Are you specifically asking for euphemisms for shithouse and/or urinal, or are you asking for euphemisms for bathrooms in general?

It seems to me that those opposed to over-exaggeration are all commiting the same logical fallacy. While not always stated exactly this way, I suspect all the arguments against are various versions of this: "There are no degrees of exaggeration. Either you are exaggerating or you are not". Such a statement is merely an assertion without any justification.

Let's break this down:

A = "There are no degrees of exaggeration"
B = "Either you are exaggerating or you are not"

I believe the underlying reasoning goes something like this:

A is true. The reason A is true is because, clearly, B is true. Or, to put another way, B implies A.

Here's the problem with this reasoning. B doesn't imply A. The following statement is just as valid:

"There are many degrees of exaggeration. Either you are exaggerating or you are not"

The statement "Either you are exaggerating or you are not" is obviously true; In fact, it is a tautology. As such, it proves nothing about whether exaggeration exists in degrees or only in superlative absolutes.

As an example, let's take being tall. Some people are taller than others. Some are very tall. Some are a little taller than average. There are infinite gradations of tallness. What if I said "there's no such thing as being very tall. Either you are tall or you are not"? Clearly that would be a foolish assertion. I could be very tall, a little tall, too tall. I could be overly tall. I could be, er, under-tall (say, 6 foot 2, but still not tall enough for the NBA), etc. That being said, the statement "EIther you are tall or you are not" is completely correct. It just happens to have no relevance.

Let's take another example: "You can't be a little pregnant. Either you are pregnant or you're not." For the sake of argument, let's say that both statements are correct and that there are no degrees of pregnancy. The truth is that the second statement, "either you are pregnant or you're not" is still irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with whether there are degrees of pregnancy. If it were possible to be "a little pregnant", then being a little pregnant would still be being pregnant, and the second statement would still be true.

I can be a little tired, a little hungry, a little late, and yes, that means I'd be tired, hungry and/or late.

I can exaggerate a little, a lot, too much, or not enough. Those that disagree are certainly free to do so, but simply stating it doesn't make it so. Nor does stating it more emphatically. It's just begging the question.

Also, comparing exaggeration to other words whose nature is superlative proves nothing. Clearly such words exist. Listing them doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Compare the French question constructions of either inverting subject and verb, or preceding sentence with "est-ce que". Usually either is correct.

In "The black and the white dresses were very becoming", using multiple articles makes it clear that there are black dresses and there are white dresses, not individual dresses that are black and white (striped, spotted, etc.). In "The political, economic, and social spheres...", there are no modifiers and, therefore, no potential ambiguity; thus, one article suffices. I noticed you used the words "grammar guide", I would put the emphasis on the word "guide". That which is ambiguous isn't necessarily ungrammatical. I guess I didn't say anything that wasn't already said, but perhaps I was a bit more concise. At least for now, I don't feel the need to smith any more words.

Ok, while we're at it, how about "we"? I think there should be separate words for "we" that mean "they and I, but not YOU", and "you and I but not they", and "all of us". Come on now. surely, none of your are really serious that we need to (or even can) revamp all English pronouns to suit your particular pet peeves. If ambiguity were a yardstick for evaluating grammar, we'd have plenty more problems to deal with.

And AnWulf, usually, those who make such a claim don't fully appreciate the claim's ambiguity. More often, they mean the particular collegiate dictionary they have on their particular shelf, never even realizeng that it may differ from others and changes daily, or even imagining that the OED is up to, what, twenty volumes now, I think.