Em-dashes and spaces

Whether to use spaces around an em dash depends on the style guide being followed; however, the general rule is no spaces, as is common in book publishing and academic style guides like Chicago, MLA, and APA. The major exception is AP style and many newspapers, which require a space on either side of the em dash for readability in narrow columns. 

Consistency is key, so always follow the specific guidelines of your style guide. 

Style guide recommendations

No spaces: Most major academic and book publishers recommend using the em dash without spaces on either side. This is considered standard for most forms of writing.

Example: "The flight—which had already been delayed three times—was canceled."

Spaces around the dash: Newspapers, including those that follow AP style, typically use spaces around an em dash.

Example: "The flight — which had already been delayed three times — was canceled."

Why the difference? The spacing in newspapers improves readability in narrow columns, while the lack of space is often preferred for book publishing to create a more cohesive look. 

Tips for using em dashes with spaces

Be consistent: Whichever style you choose, apply it consistently throughout your document.

Consider context: The most important rule is to follow the style guide you are required to use (e.g., for a specific publication, academic assignment, or newspaper).

Think about a thin space: For even more professional typesetting, a very small "thin space" can be used on each side of an em dash instead of a full space. 

The Problem With Em-dashes

In some langauges, m-dashes are frequently used as punctuation marks. In English they are seldom used. BUT the (over)use of m-dashes is a commonly recognised symptom of a text being written by AI, and for that reason, should be avoided as much as possible in acadmic writing, they create a bad impression. I suggest removing as many as you can replacing them with other punctuation where it is possible.

 

"Cf."

"cf." is the abbreviation for the Latin word confer or conferatur, which both mean "compare". A common usage error is to use "cf." when "see" or "see also" is appropriate; "cf." should only be used to suggest a comparison, not simply to indicate another source.

Correct usage: The text before the citation is contrasted with the work cited after "cf." Example: "...while theory supports the claim (cf. Jones 1992)." Example: "...the shield lacked the 'umbo,' the metal-boss of Waltharius (cf. lines 772 and 776)."

Incorrect usage: Using "cf." to mean "see" or "see also" is considered an error.
Incorrect: "...while theory supports the claim, see also Jones 1992."
Correct: "...while theory supports the claim (see also Jones 1992)."

"Cf." should not be followed by a comma. It is generally followed by a semicolon or parentheses, not a comma, when introducing citations that are meant to be contrasted.

Punctuation: If using multiple citations after "cf.", a semicolon is used between them, not a comma. Example: "...the claim (cf. Jones 1992; Smith 2003)."

The use of parentheses is common with "cf." citations.

In Numismatic use, the abbreviation can have a similar meaning in discussing literature or opinions, or it can be used in references on the paper and/or online coin identification information to mean "comparable TO". It is common for abbreviations of listings in coin catalogues or sales from certain online auctions to be cited when identifying a particular coin as a duplicate copy of the same coin (for example a die-linked coin). If the specimen in question being described is not an exact match but comes close to a known source, "cf." may be used in the meaning "comparable/similar to".

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.”