Vim sans Vigor

A few days ago, I came to realize something: Nobody says Vim on its own.

In my experience, and that of a few people whom I've since consulted, people don't say "vim" without coupling it with "and vigor."

Merriam-Webster defines "vim" as robust energy and enthusiasm, and notes its first known use in 1843.
It comes from Latin, "vis," meaning strength.  Their webpage says nothing about using it in combination vigor, instead including it among the synonyms which I found encouraging.  Not only is "vim and vigor" just kind of silly, but it's redundant.

I say that we should bring vim back, and give vigor a break.  In addition to helping you look like a smartypants, you might be able to educate somebody who thinks it can only be used with "vigor."

Spread the word, with vim!

Atomism took some nerve.

So, atomism.  Yes, this is something that I think about even though it was proven obsolete This is an ancient Greek concept for the makeup of objects and substances and such. It's generally attributed to Democritus, and sometimes also his alleged teacher Leucippus, but I don't recall ever reading anything written by Leucippus, and from what I've retained of my ancient philosophy course there may be some question about his existence.

Because all of this ancient Greek business happened before the sciences were well-defined, all of the math and sciences fell under the "Philosophy" umbrella, which makes sense because the majority of folks working on any kind of science were mainly sitting around thinking about things.

An atom was originally posited to be the smallest possible particle, and therefore indivisible.  A series of other philosophers added onto this basic concept with thoughts on the different types of atoms to explain different substances (hint: they were all wrong).

I feel like this kind of speculation is both foolish and commendable, in that it requires a lot of guts/balls/gumption/whatever to hypothesize about the physical world without any means of proof or references other than analogy, and perhaps knowing that somebody else would eventually be able to see what the facts were (what sorts of tiny things there were, how they fit together, etc.) 

Of course, you might respond to me with the idea that any philosophical speculation is in exactly the same precarious position.  I would however, have to draw the line between theorizing on the physical world versus theorizing on more abstract concepts (e.g. ethics, epistemology, etc).
While there may in fact be a future invention to objectively measure, say, a full catalog of what someone knows, I must say that as it has not yet come about, it requires (required?) a great deal more planning than, say, the tools that allowed for the first inspection of an actual atom.  

To clarify, I will run with the epistemological issue.  I find myself concerned with the added difficulty of the jump from brain composition to composition of thoughts, which may be a speed bump in solving that particular problem, or may turn out to be insurmountable.  These potential barriers lead me to believe that we may be arguing these topics forever, though Democritus probably thought that his concerns were just as murky and unanswerable.

(Note: I'm really going to post more again.  I had a pretty strange Winter, but I'm back.)

Less Vs. Fewer.

Welcome to grammar lesson two in the Nerdhappiness series on appropriate use of terms.

For our previous look at the nuances of "i.e." and "e.g.", click here.  This clarification may be a bit simpler than that, however it may be more important given the more frequent use of comparisons in speech and writing. (For example, people would say "less" and "fewer" significantly more frequently than they might choose to say "i.e." or "e.g."  Most folks that I know would choose "like " or "such as" instead.)

Over time, these two terms are being blurred together more and more.  I find that kind of annoying.  

My colloquial understanding has always been that "less" is to be used when you're talking about unknown amounts of a substance, while "fewer" is appropriate when you know the exact quantities of whatever you're describing.
For example,  "Susan has three fewer apples than Nate," and "there is less water in my bottle than in yours" are both correct.  
Imagine those statements with "less" and "fewer" switched. How awkward is that?

Upon some research, I have found that "fewer" refers to number, while "less" refers to scale. Which is than what I had previously thought.

M-W.com provides the following examples:
"Their troubles are fewer than ours," meaning "Their troubles are not so numerous as ours."
"Their troubles are less than ours," meaning " Their troubles are not so great as ours."

I like the revised definition better. It still accounts for my previous notion, but  it's more elegant.  So, remember. Fewer => Number, and Less=> Scale.

i.e. you're doing it wrong.

I've recently had revealed to me that I have a new pet peeve. It's simple, but bears clarification. The conflation of the expressions "e.g." and "i.e." has really been getting to me lately.
Standard American English requires that a comma follow both abbreviations when they are used mid-sentence. It is my understanding that there is no such requirement when using British English.

e.g. stands for "exempli gratia," which is Latin for "good example."

Simply, you use it when you're giving an example of something you've already been talking about.

"I really hate artificial chocolate milk, e.g., Yoohoo. That stuff's shelf-stable."

i.e. stands for "id est," Latin for "that is." I prefer to think of it as being short for "in essence."
"i.e." should be used when you want to be more specific or clarify a point.

"Two wheeled, pedal-propelled vehicles, i.e., bicycles, are environmentally friendly."

Note: i.e. does not stand for "in example." The incorrect belief that it does indicate an example may be the source of this whole problem.

However, this does not explain why people would use e.g. when i.e. would be appropriate. Any thoughts on that, other than "they don't care" would be welcome; I'm aware that people generally don't care about language.