As for the first, here, I've done it for you: Online Etymology Dictionary
And for the second: well, if the mere facts I've just linked aren't good enough for you. I'm a Professor of English. I hope you're suitably impressed.
I certainly struggled to do so from that sentence! Oh, alright, I get the gist, but seriously... I don't think you need to try QUITE so hard!Yeah, reportive in that we don't always get connotation from whatever is essential in understanding what a word means wholly.
You are being a little pedantic, but I'll just have to deal?[/QUOTE]
I was being somewhat ironic actually
It's hard to argue the case for reconstituting the language unless you're going to insist on a parochial definition, but I'm pretty doubtful that the usage you refer to is by any means universal in the US either. Anyway, even if we accept that it is the most popular US usage, to take this as a case for accepting it as correct is merely following the ad populum fallacy. As long as the essential distinction remains (even if only in use among a better- informed minority) it is worth making for the edification of those who wish to join that minority. If the currently correct US usage becomes obsolete over time (as I can appreciate may hapen, particularly if not enough people who are capable of appreciating the difference adhere to it) then we will have yet another source of transatlantic confusion. Yay for progress!