Are ad hominem and ad personam arguments the same or is there a difference?

Bot:
Ad hominem and ad personam are both forms of fallacies that are used to attack the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. However, they are not the same thing. An ad hominem fallacy is an attack on the person's character, background, or personal attributes. For example, if someone says "You can't trust what he says, he's just a used car salesman," that is an ad hominem attack because it is attempting to undermine the person's credibility based on their profession rather than the argument they are making.An ad personam fallacy is an attack on the person's reputation or status. For example, if someone says "He's just a celebrity, he doesn't know anything about politics," that is an ad personam attack because it is attempting to undermine the person's credibility based on their fame rather than the argument they are making.In summary, while both ad hominem and ad personam are fallacies that attack the person rather than the argument, ad hominem attacks the person's character, background or personal attributes, while ad personam attacks the person's reputation or status.

Can you provide an example of an ad hominem fallacy and explain how it differs from an ad personam fallacy?

Assistant Poe:

Sure, here's an example to illustrate the difference:

Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Person A: "I think we should increase taxes on high-income earners to fund social programs."
Person B: "Well, you're just saying that because you're a socialist who wants to punish successful people."

In this case, Person B is attacking Person A's character by calling them a "socialist" in an attempt to dismiss their argument, rather than engaging with the actual merits of the proposal to increase taxes.

Ad Personam Fallacy:
Person A: "We should invest more in renewable energy to address climate change."
Person B: "Why should we listen to you? You're just some college kid who doesn't know anything about the economy."

Here, Person B is attacking Person A's status as a "college kid" in an attempt to undermine their credibility, rather than addressing the substance of their argument about renewable energy.

The key difference is that the ad hominem fallacy targets the person's character or personal attributes, while the ad personam fallacy targets the person's reputation, status or position. Both are fallacies because they try to discredit the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

Past Simple pronunciation

The pronunciation of the Past Simple made easy. In English, past tense verbs with an -ed ending are pronounced in three different ways: 

[t]
[d] or
[Id].


Why the Sound Changes

If you place your fingertips on the front of your neck, and pronounce the following pairs of words, you should feel some vibration on your fingers with one of them:
vow | fake (vvv | fff)
zebra | snake (zzz | sss)

The vibrating ones are "voiced" sounds. [v] [z].

When we pronounce "voiceless" sounds (such as /p/, /f/, /s/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/ or /k/), our vocal chords do not vibrate.

This vibration or lack of vibration then carries forward to the following sound in the word. Therefore, this vibration or lack of vibration explains why we pronounce the past tense of verbs in three voiced or voiceless ways: [t], [d] or [Id].

1) If the verb ends in /t/ or /d/, this will cause the past simple ending to be pronounced /Id/ (or /əd/).

Examples, wanted, visited, edited, ended, threaded (beads).

2) If the verb ends in a voiceless sound, such as /p/, /f/, /s/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/, /θ/, or /k/, the past simple ending is pronounced as the voiceless /t/ (with no vocal chord vibration) 

For example, stoppedn popped, talked, laughed, reached, kissed and washed.

3) If the verb ends in another voiced sound [b, g, ð, v, z, ʒ, dʒ, m, n, ŋ, r, l], cause the “-ed” ending to be pronounced as a voiced [d].

For example, Loved, rolled, cleared, banged, played, allowed, begged, breathed, raised, claimed, banned.

Colluvium, Alluvium, Diluvium etc

Wikipedia:

 The present consensus is that "alluvium" refers to loose sediments of all types deposited by running water in floodplains or in alluvial fans or related landforms.[...]. By the 19th century, the term had come to mean recent sediments deposited by rivers on top of older diluvium, which was similar in character but interpreted as sediments deposited by Noah's flood. With the rejection by geologists of the concept of a primordial universal flood, the term "diluvium" fell into disfavor and was replaced with "older alluvium". At the same time, the term "alluvium" came to mean all sediment deposits due to running water on plains. The definition gradually expanded to include deposits in estuaries and coasts and young rock of both marine and fluvial origin. Alluvium and diluvium were grouped together as colluvium in the late 19th century. However, "colluvium" is now generally understood to mean sediments produced by gravity-driven transport on steep slopes, while the definition of "alluvium" has switched back to an emphasis on sediments deposited by river action. There continues to be disagreement over what other sediment deposits should be included under the term "alluvium".

But there is also another definition of diluvium. Wikipedia again:

a term in geology for superficial deposits formed by flood-like operations of water, and so contrasted with alluvium or alluvial deposits formed by slow and steady aqueous agencies. The term was formerly given to the boulder clay deposits, which some early geologists supposed had been caused by the Noachian deluge, a concept known as flood geology or diluvialism.

In the late 20th century Russian geologist Alexei Rudoy proposed the term "diluvium" for description of deposits created as a result of catastrophic outbursts of Pleistocene giant glacier-dammed lakes in intermontane basins of the Altai.[...] The term "diluvium" in the meaning of A. N. Rudoy has become accepted, and the process of diluvial morpholithogenesis can be found in modern textbooks.

Then it gets more confusing with another -luvial word - Eluvium:  In geology, eluvium or eluvial deposits are those geological deposits and soils that are derived by in situ weathering or weathering plus gravitational movement or accumulation. See also Illuvium.

The process of removal of materials from geological or soil horizons is called eluviation or leaching. There is a difference in the usage of this term in geology and soil science. In soil science, eluviation is the transport of soil material from upper layers of soil to lower levels by downward percolation of water across soil horizons, and accumulation of this material (illuvial deposit) in lower levels is called illuviation. In geology, the removed material is irrelevant, and the deposit (eluvial deposit) is the remaining material. Eluviation occurs when precipitation exceeds evaporation. A soil horizon formed due to eluviation is an eluvial zone or eluvial horizon. In a typical soil profile, the eluvial horizon refers to a light-colored zone located (depending on context and literature) either at the lower part of the A horizon (symbol: Ae) or within a distinct horizon (E horizon) below the A, where the process is most intense and rapid. Yet some sources consider the eluvial zone to be the A horizon plus the (distinct) E horizon, as eluviation technically occurs in both. The strict eluvial horizon (E horizon) is typically light gray, clay-depleted, contains little organic matter and has a high concentration of silt and sand particles composed of quartz and other resistant minerals.

The Cousin Explainer

A useful tea towel:

source

Majority

Professor Paul Brians, Introduction to Common Errors in English Usage: majority are / majority is

“Majority” is one of those words that can be either singular or plural. Common sense works pretty well in deciding which. If you mean the word to describe a collection of individuals, then the word should be treated as plural: “The majority of e-mail users are upset about the increase in spam.” If the word is used to describe a collective group, then consider it singular: “A 90% majority is opposed to scheduling the next meeting at 6:00 A.M.” If you are uncertain which you mean, then choose whatever form sounds best to you; it’s not likely to bother many people. “Majority” should be used only with countable nouns: “he ate the majority of the cookies,” but not “he ate the majority of the pie.” Instead say, “he ate most of the pie.”

Exploitive vs Exploitative - What's the difference?

Exploitive is considered to be a synonym of exploitative.
As adjectives the difference between exploitive and exploitative is that "exploitive" means "to take advantage"/ "taking advantage of someone",
while "exploitative" is in the nature of exploitation; acting to exploit someone or something.

For examples, see here.

Grammarist however takes a different approach. 

The preferred form of the adjective meaning tending to make use of selfishly or unethically is exploitative, not exploitive. This preference is shown across all main varieties of English. A few dictionaries accept exploitive as an alternative spelling of exploitative, but most correctly acknowledge that the latter is the far more common form.

In edited publications there is generally a preference for exploitative rather than exploitive. If one examines the use of "exploitive" and "exploitative" in a large number of English-language works published in the 20th century, it seems that the longer form is now preferred by a huge margin.  In current news sources, for instance, the ratio is about 20 to one.

Quotations, Inverted commas

A short reminder:

American style uses double quotes (“) for initial quotations, then single quotes (‘) for quotations within the initial quotation.
American style:

“Economic systems,” according to Professor White, “are an inevitable byproduct of civilization, and are, as John Doe said, ‘with us whether we want them or not.’”

British style uses single quotes (‘) for initial quotations, then double quotes (“) for quotations within the initial quotation.
British style:

‘Economic systems’, according to Professor White, ‘are an inevitable byproduct of civilization, and are, as John Doe said, “with us whether we want them or not”’.

The above examples also show that the American style places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, even if they are not in the original material. British style (more sensibly) places unquoted periods and commas outside the quotation marks. For all other punctuation, the British and American styles are in agreement: unless the punctuation is part of the quoted material, it goes outside the quotation marks.

From https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-style.html
© 2020 thepunctuationguide.com