PS - while I would certainly accept that some have used African-American to mean 'descended from "black" slaves in the United States', it would be counterfactual to suggest that this is the sole or even the more common (or even a remotely common) definition. By far, common usage and every formal definition I have checked, is simply "American of African descent" with an occasional addendum of "especially of black African descent". Further, I have often seen the idea that African-American might refer to "descended from black slaves..." portrayed as itself a form of naive and provincial bigotry stemming from a stereotypical and false notion that all "blacks" in the US are descended from slaves, ignoring the rich and varied cultures and origins of African-Americans here (in all fairness, I must point out that the majority of African-Americans are descended from slaves, but that's still irrelevant).

Sigurd, re:

"... ‘African-American’ (hyphenated), which may also be written ‘Afro-American’... it’s better to just use the all-encompassing term ‘black’ instead of trying to be ‘politically correct’..."

Actually, it's my recollection that while African-American may mean the same thing as Afro-American, the term African-American was created specifically to replace Afro-American, the latter of which is considered politcially incorrect, and perhaps mildly offensive by some. Similarly and earlier, Afro-American was created to replace "black" which is also considered by some to be politically incorrect and possibly offensive (although I do frequently hear "black" from both African-Americans and non-African-Americans alike). You can certainly refer to anyone you like any way you like, but do realize that you may be perceived by some as insensitive or even bigoted. On the other hand, others may praise you for not giving into pressure to embrace politically correct flavors of the day. At the very least, it might be wise to know your audience before you speak. As the saying goes, "you pays your money and your takes your choice".

Loud, soft, quick, slow, fast (I guess there isn't a "fastly"), I'm sure there are more. All of these are frequently used adverbially (sometimes in combination with real, too!)

Will, surely, it was clear that I was offering off-hand speculation as to an alternate way of parsing, yes?

...restricted...

This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine labors over whether her new boyfriend is "spongeworthy".

Also, Sigurd, I'm with you on this one; if English were resetricted only to words that have been previously spoken or written, then there would be no language at all!

You know, I used to think of "hone in on" as some kind of metaphor, comparing the convergence of several possible paths on a single locus, with the sharpening of a blade, the thicker metal tapering to a fine edge. After reading this and researching further, I now think that such a comparison is utter nonsense. Clearly it's "home".

Personally, I have to weigh in with the text-ed (two syllables) set. I can't imagine why anyone would suggest otherwise. That being said, let me make a suggestion. I don't see anything wrong with someone pronouncing it "texed" (one syllable). It's not uncommon to hear someone pronounce the possessive "the Jones' "as "the Jones" (one syllable) rather than "the Jones-ES" (two syllables), especially if followed by further sibilance. I would suggest that it's no different than saying "wudja do?" when you mean "what did you do?" Clearly, there's nothing wrong with "wudja". It's said all the time by pretty much every English speaker. Even so, absolutely no one would ever claim that "what did you" is wrong and that "wudja" is the "correct" way to say it.

Ah, the ole' "empty set is a subset of every set" routine. Very clever, Mastermind. I like it.

Ok, this really shouldn't be all that hard to understand. While both words have more than one meaning, let's compare "to have" meaning "to possess", with "to get", meaning "to receive". "Got" is the simple past tense and as mentioned above, "have got" is the present perfect.

The present perfect is used to describe past events that happened at an unspecified time. E.g., "I have eaten breakfast already." is ok, but not "I have eaten breakfast at 9AM." It should be "I ate breakfast at 9AM."

When you say "I have got" something, it means that some time in the past, you received it. At one time you didn't have it, then at some later time, you did. There's nothing wrong, grammatically or semantically, with such an assertion.

When you say "I have" something, it means that you are in possession of it, nothing more and nothing less. There's nothing wrong with this either.

Now follow me on this: anything that you currently have, you must have got at some time or another. Even if you were born with a particular trait, you still received it at the moment of your creation (reincarnation notwithstanding). Conversely, everything you have got, you still have, unless of course, you've disposed of it somehow (in which case, you'd probably say "had got").

So, "I have" and "I have got" do not actually mean the same thing, but anything you can say one about, you can just as readily say the other about. They can be used interchangeably. Both are correct, but still different. Do people often say one when they really mean the other? Probably, but it really doesn't matter if they are logically equivalent.