No. they were not filtered but there were not found any olden document or explanation about the history of that word. Basically I didn't see there any date.
No one bastardized anything. And any offense is due to a misinterpretation of the English language. Adding the suffix ite is a normal configuration in the English language. @Mans is complaining about an English suffix without comprehending it has nothing to do with not using the Farsi word.
It was there. All you have to do is search for the string "1728" in the page. But if you did that, you'd find the evidence. So I don't think you'll do that.
quoting from the site (http://www.enacademic.com/), after typing 'Shia' and '1728'. I guess that's the answer. It was first coined in the 1620s. It's also the same as 'Shiite', with 'ite', according to the same site as being... Bolded is mine. In conclusion, 'Shiite' refers to someone who is part of the Shi'a sect of Islam. 'Sunnites' refer to someone who is part of the Sunni sect of Islam.
Replying to myself: I'm going to try to keep reciting to myself "Martian pesticides, Martian pesticides, Martian pesticides" to remind myself that you can't persuade a person away from beliefs that they are determined to hold. I should know this. I grew up with this. People believe what they need to believe. The percentage of the time that their belief is influenced by whether the belief is true or false is not nearly as large as one would think. But I just keep pounding my head on the same brick wall all the same. Martian pesticides, Martian pesticides, Martian pesticides...
I just want to take this opportunity to say thanks for letting me go on a research binge. Been a while since I've done that. I felt like I was back in college again researching for a paper, and that was a very good feeling. I've also learned new things today, things I would have otherwise remained ignorant of were it not for this thread.
I accept and confess that I did mistake because of misgiving of a small blog. The date of the article in the blog was about 2005.
@ChickenFreak - if you're going to walk away, you have to walk away. Unwatch the thread and don't go back. Sometimes, we just have to agree to disagree.
In case you wanted to see it I've screenshotted the chart here https://www.writingforums.org/gallery/albums/ngram.902/ Ngram is a Google project where you can essentially search for a keyword in the 5 million books they have, and a graph is produced showing the usage of the word over the years. You'll have to take my word for it that Google provides the extracts to prove the graph is true!
That's the skill that I'm saying that I have yet to fully master. As I've whined before, I spent decades, in childhood and adulthood, trying to get my mother to absorb ANY FACT WHATSOEVER from an explanation from me, with my mother actively asking and asking and asking questions, and determinedly failing to understand. Once in a while she would apparently understand (thus giving the pig his truffle) and then immediately switch the conversation to an unrelated topic and say something to make it clear that she had "lost" her understanding of something else. She did this to everyone, not just me--it defined her conversation style and was her way of getting attention in conversation. But I guess what would cause an adult to roll his eyes and go talk to someone else, tends to instead embed itself in a child's brain. When that's offered as your primary and perhaps only interaction with your parent, you're not going to walk away. It's a hard habit to break. I'm working on it.
I had a boss like that, and he had a powerful enough position in the company to be dangerous. When I made a case to senior management that his plan to outsource our department's function to some start-up service company in India couldn't possibly work, using the facts he had refused to comprehend, and they believed me, he tried to sabotage my reputation and I quit (best career decision I ever made). Can't do that with Mom, I guess.
Sometimes, not always mind you, one needs to reassess the problem. We tend to treat everything as a knowledge deficit. One need merely provide the correct knowledge and the problem should be solved. Think instead that some problems are not solved by providing correct knowledge. If that is the case does it mean the problem is unsolvable? Sometimes. But then what is the barrier and can we address the barrier instead of only providing knowledge? Sometimes you can.
@GingerCoffee - true. Once we have provided the knowledge that we are able to provide, and the problem has not been resolved, we need to accept that perhaps it will not be.
But have you ever considered taking that one step further and reassessing the crux of the problem? It's a bit more applicable to other things than straight beliefs, but the point is still the same. I teach some workplace safety classes. All the information in the world will sometimes still have no impact on on-the-job accidents. If you tell people what they need to do to be safer and you see they don't do it, you reassess the problem because it wasn't a knowledge deficit. I believe the same principle applies to beliefs. Granted the solutions are much more complex and may only impact the persons who have yet to adopt the false beliefs. Nonetheless, sometimes, for example, it is a simple matter of getting to the false underlying premise that the false belief is based on.
Sure. And nearly all the time, the "crux of the problem" (delicately put!) is outside of my control or influence. And I usually find in such cases that pursuing the matter further will only lead to further alienation as well as frustration on my part. People are only capable of learning when they are open to it. If their minds are closed (and that's a door that's locked from the inside), all the reasoning and facts will come to nothing.
