...not to mention that "disenfranchise" is often simply wrongly used. It's an ugly word to be sure, but it would literally mean "to take the franchise away from someone who once had it." Yet it's usually not used that way at all; usually when people use it they're either using it on people who've never had the franchise, or worse, to describe people who just didn't get their way in an election.

You know what my biggest gripe with this sort of linguistic nonsense is though? The one that really sets my teeth on edge? "Sovereign nation." I'm tired of hearing critics of the Iraq war dramatically claiming we "invaded a sovereign nation." That's not the only place I see it but it's certainly common with that lot. My question being: is there some other kind of nation we could invade that you'd be happy with? Can we invade Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation for example?

Yes, it's arguable that there are non-sovereign nations. Scotland and England are arguably not truly sovereign (although they have a sovereign in their queen) but are rather part of the U.K. which is the truly sovereign entity. But I hardly think this would mean we'd be okay in attacking Scotland so long as we left the rest of the UK alone. And since Puerto Rico is not sovereign (it's part of the U.S. but lacks statehood) does that mean an attack on Puerto Rico would be just peachy? How about the Basque region of Spain, can we attack that because it's not sovereign?

Don't make me get linguistic on you, Ilyka. In language, two negatives do not equal a positive. Do you mean to say that "not uncommon" means the same thing as "common"?

Now, as for "disentangle," I can think of one great usage for it. Let's say you want to untangle something a second time. One can hardly add the "re-" prefix to "untangle." But "redisentangle"? Now that's morphologically pleasing!

In language, two negatives do not equal a positive.

Didn't say they did. "Dis-" and "en-" are neither two negatives nor two positives. They are very nearly opposites.

Do you mean to say that "not uncommon" means the same thing as "common"?

No, not at all, but read you some Orwell or, better yet, some Strunk & White. Phrases like "not uncommon" are to be avoided, because in English there is usually a word--a single word--that can be substituted for such double-negatives with no loss of clarity. I'm not one to beat this drum because I'm the worst abuser of such phrases; I love constructs like "not uncommon" or "not unusual" or suchlike. But I know even as I'm using them that they are undesirable, not preferred; and if I were submitting a piece to the so-called paper of record, don't think I wouldn't prune 'em (which last phrase uses too many negatives itself).

Now, as for "disentangle," I can think of one great usage for it. Let's say you want to untangle something a second time. One can hardly add the "re-" prefix to "untangle."

You can take the engineer out of the engineering discipline, but you can't take the engineering discipline out of the engineer. You and I and maybe 200 other people on the planet would care about this distinction.

Now quit fucking around and tell me how "untangle" (or, as Mark noted, even "detangle") wouldn't fit just as neatly (and more coherently) in the excerpted sentence, and be clearer on first read to the audience. Because that was my point.

My question being: is there some other kind of nation we could invade that you'd be happy with? Can we invade Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation for example?

Dean, I don't think it will come as a surprise to you that I get a fair ration of shit on occasion for not hating your guts; but my question is, how'm I supposed to hate a person's guts when he comes up with lines like that? I'd give the left one for a line like that.