|!||Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.|
Does this article intro make sense?
Actually - does it? There was the Jefferson original Democratic-Republican Party - was he using incorrect grammar too? The question of "it's not the republicanic" party makes little sense - republicanic isn't a word. Furthermore the intro seems to suppose that the original term was Democrat - "proper nouns like "Democrat" are not converted into adjectives by adding "ic" as a suffix" - I believe Democrat was a term derived from the Democratic Party.--IDuan 00:59, 18 December 2013 (EST)
- It happens that the noun forms and adjective forms of words are sometimes different. I think the best example of this is that an adherent of the Catholic religion is called a Catholic, an adherent of the Methodist religion is called a Methodist (etc. etc.) but an adherent of the Jewish religion is called a Jew. Sometimes one changes the word and sometimes one doesn't. One doesn't go a "Jew delicatessen".
- I realize that this is a politically contentions issue. Democrats (that is, members of the Democratic party) sometimes claim that this is a deliberate misuse of the language, and I've heard some people threaten to retaliate by referring to the GOP as the "Publican party". (A publican is an old name for a saloonkeeper!) We don't need any of that silliness. Can we just accept that some people like it one way and some like it the other way, and some people question the motives of those who like it the other way? :-) This sort of thing happens. People get awfully worked up about issues like this. (Or whether Santa Claus is white :-) Just stop it, everyone! SamHB 01:30, 18 December 2013 (EST)