http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosquito http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mosca
Sorry about frustrating you, and i mean it.
Because one's the reason it got its name, and the other's day-to-day speech?
Sorry about frustrating you, and i mean it.
No worries, and I'm sorry if I caused anything on my part.
I read your comment as picking holes in an article purely for the sake of picking holes, which is something I find frustrating waaaaay out of proportion.
I did not want to pick holes, and it also bothers me sometimes, but the first sentence of the writing had a glaring error that caught my attention. I do think you tried to pick holes on my hole picking.
I linked you to the normative, actual definition of mosquito, because that's what you need to use to prove me wrong. Not the 1600 definition.
This is where you're going wrong.
Consider for example the word "Musket", you wouldn't be here debating that a musket is a fly, right?. Well, both share the same latin origin in musca, like mosquito. That's my point.
1580s, from Spanish mosquito "little gnat," diminutive of mosca "fly,"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mosquito
I genuinely dislike writing such harsh comments, and in this case have let the frustration of seeing this comment as the top-rated one on an otherwise discussion-worthy topic boil over.