Grover Cleveland was ONE president and counting him twice for being nonconsecutive about it is a stupid thing to do regardless of it being "the way we do it"
Grover Cleveland was ONE president and counting him twice for being nonconsecutive about it is a stupid thing to do regardless of it being "the way we do it"
You're viewing a single thread.
It's the language we use.
The right way is to say "30th presidential administration" not "30th president"
When you leave office the administration ends. Doesn't matter if that takes one term or two, or for FDR even more.
If that same person wins election after a gap, it's the same president, but a different administration.
This makes sense.
The joy of language...
If something sounds stupid and doesn't make sense how we use it, chances are because at some point everyone just shortened something because "everyone knows what I'm talking about".
Like, I'm sure there's already kids that don't know what LOL actually stands for, just that it means something is funny.
Etc and e.g. are already there.
No one does it better than the Brits tho. Cockney rhyming slang is just the most etymological fascinating shit ever. Like half the words in a sentence sound like random gibberish, but that's the entire point of it.
They do it because they don't want anyone to know what they're talking about, unless they already know what they're talking about.
At the end of the day, words just represent what we agree they represent.
But especially in English, that rarely makes logical sense when just looking at present usage.
Like, I’m sure there’s already kids that don’t know what LOL actually stands for
I don't even play it and I know that stands for League of Legends. Sheesh!
That's not even accurate either, since most if not all presidents have made changes to Cabinet officials and other key positions after being reelected.
When you get new tires on your car, do you tell people you got a new car?
Probably not related, but I tell people I got a new car when it was definitely certified pre-owned.
Nope, but that's a false analogy since the only part of the presidential "car" that's always the same in the second (or third or fourth) term is the driver.
Some presidents have replaced what amounts to most of the motor and the body for their subsequent terms, making it the second car for that driver but not a different driver.
You're treating this like an argument, so I don't see any point in trying to help you with this or anything else.
All you've done is try to argue that it makes perfect sense using false logic. If you think that's you somehow "helping me" and not an argument, I agree that there's no point in continuing.
Disagreement ≠ lack of knowledge or understanding.