4 ms·
"biased". The word you want is "non-biased". I literally* don't understand how people mess this up. If you were talking about a list of projects that had not y
by acheron 13y ago
"biased". The word you want is "non-biased".
I literally* don't understand how people mess this up. If you were talking about a list of projects that had not yet been submitted to one of those lists, would you say they are "non-submit"? No, obviously you would say "non-submitted". If you were talking about books that had been printed by a publisher, would you say they are "publish"? No, you would say "published", because it's a past participle, and that is how we say past participles in English. This is not a prescriptive/descriptive thing: every English speaker over the age of 5 talks this way. But for some reason "bias", a completely normal verb, causes people to throw out everything they know about English.
So, stop it.
/rant
* Yes, literally.
- notthatimbias 13y agoJust to help you literally understand: People get this wrong because with many accents (most American regions among them) the "ed" in "biased" is almost silent when spoken aloud at conversational tempo.
- serichsen 13y agoThat is perhaps an excuse for people whose lips move when they are reading.
- ClayFerguson 13y agoI consider lip-movement during reading a mental disorder. It means your cerebral cortex is connected to your motor cortex in a flawed way. It's a significant 'brain wiring' issue, and would severely limit how fast one can read as well. It's not as bad as "mouth breathers" but close.
- bdcravens 13y agoAs long as we're being pedantic, in most cases, you'd use "unbiased", not "non-biased".