Poll shows Americans aren't happy with Obama

Hmm, do you think that's how it's generally used though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, do you think that's how it's generally used though?

It's used in many different ways though.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=difference%20between%20rich%20and%20wealthy

http://www.millionaireacts.com/2801/the-difference-between-being-rich-and-being-wealthy.html
http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/do-you-want-to-be-rich-or-do-you-want-to-be-wealthy.html/?a=viewall
http://nextshark.com/mindset-difference-between-being-rich-and-being-wealthy/

And so on..

Originally posted by psmith81992
It's used in many different ways though.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=difference%20between%20rich%20and%20wealthy

http://www.millionaireacts.com/2801/the-difference-between-being-rich-and-being-wealthy.html
http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/do-you-want-to-be-rich-or-do-you-want-to-be-wealthy.html/?a=viewall
http://nextshark.com/mindset-difference-between-being-rich-and-being-wealthy/

And so on..

Yeah, of course. But still, it feels like most people use rich and wealthy interchangeably.

Really the important thing is to know definitions ahead of time to ensure communication is possible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, of course. But still, it feels like most people use rich and wealthy interchangeably.

Really the important thing is to know definitions ahead of time to ensure communication is possible.

I agree. I do think rich and wealthy shouldn't be used interchangeably because I've always thought the two had different meanings. Wealthy is also rich, rich is not also wealth, etc.

Rich and wealthy are obviously synonyms. Anyone who doubts that needs to acquaint themselves with a thesaurus.

Originally posted by Star428
Rich and wealthy are obviously synonyms. Anyone who doubts that needs to acquaint themselves with a thesaurus.

A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language

Emphasis mine. There are enough people on this planet that use it the way I've described, that it isn't so cut and dry.

"Nearly the same" is good enough for me. 😉

Quibbling over semantics is kinda pointless. They mean the same thing to me. 👆

Originally posted by Star428
"Nearly the same" is good enough for me. 😉

Quibbling over semantics is kinda pointless. They mean the same thing to me. 👆

And the entire point is those words don't mean the same to others.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I consider rich and wealthy on different stratospheres.

Seems like you're making a variation of the distinction between old money and new money, and there is a need for such a distinction, but I'm not sure if "rich" and "wealthy" is a good one as the two terms are commonly understood to be the same thing.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's your personal definition, in practical terms they mean the same thing.

Seems like you're making a variation of the distinction between old money and new money, and there is a need for such a distinction, but I'm not sure if "rich" and "wealthy" is a good one as the two terms are commonly understood to be the same thing.

That is my personal definition, and the definition of a lot of other people. It has nothing to do with old money vs. new money.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That is my personal definition, and the definition of a lot of other people. It has nothing to do with old money vs. new money.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But what's the basis? Literally the only difference between the two words is that wealthy comes from Old English and rich comes from French. Why can't rich be the bigger one and wealthy stand for people who "merely" have a couple million?

If you do enough of a google search, you'll see that there's enough information to make the two words different in a way. Other people use them interchangeably.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If you do enough of a google search, you'll see that there's enough information to make the two words different in a way. Other people use them interchangeably.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That doesn't really answer my question.

I don't know what the basis is. At some point I started differentiating between the two and then I realized I wasn't close to being alone.

So collective arbitrariness? If it seems like I'm being an ass, that's not my intent, I'm simply curious at how these things come about (philology is a hobby of mine).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So collective arbitrariness? If it seems like I'm being an ass, that's not my intent, I'm simply curious at how these things come about (philology is a hobby of mine).

I don't think it's arbitrary because quite a number of people see a difference, whether it's being able to create something out of nothing, or continuously make money, etc. To me wealthy has always been superior to rich.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't think it's arbitrary because quite a number of people see a difference, whether it's being able to create something out of nothing, or continuously make money, etc. To me wealthy has always been superior to rich.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But you can't articulate why one word is chosen to signify greater possessions, and otherwise the words are the same, so it must be arbitrary.

I suppose so. It's a societal thing I guess.

I'd like to know why it is. It's very interesting--usually the Anglo Saxon word is given less intense connotations than the Latinate equivalent. It would be interesting if someone did a study.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd like to know why it is. It's very interesting--usually the Anglo Saxon word is given less intense connotations than the Latinate equivalent. It would be interesting if someone did a study.

I agree but the fact that there's SO many articles articulating the difference (or 3 or 4) between the words, means that that they really are seen as independent of each other.