Like "bog", you mean? Quite acceptable in this case.

But "greens", for example, will only ever be different shades of green. It will never be acceptable to refer to vegetables as "greens", even if they're green.

Just as "glasses" will only ever be vessels you drink out of, or magnifying instruments for the opera or the countryside but can never be spectacles.

Looking glass, however, originally referred to a hand held polished surface which showed the holder a reflection of their image, but has now come to mean any piece of glass - huge or tiny, with a silvered reflective back. So that's evolved and now means something different (You must never, of course, refer to a "mirror".)

One of the most hideous examples is the misuse of the word "home". You can be "at home", or "going home" as "home" is an abstract noun. But you can only build a house, or buy a flat (not apartment!). Most sadly, "home" has become, by common usage, a word used incorrectly to describe the physical building in which you live. "I've bought a new couch for my home". Quite beyond the pale. This is why you may visit an "historic house" or go to stay in a "country house" but a "stately home" does not exist.

I am very worried by the thought that McLaran Field might be partial to that vanilla slice.

Ahh...

Is this your dog?

Shucks . Did nothing but shout and demand ideas but didn't come up with many good ones myself. My poor little pig, for example. dum-dum was a bit of a hero, though.

I call my glasses/specatcles "bins". And my brother calls contact lenses "Duncans"; Duncan McKenzies -> lenses.

Crikey you must be mad, I am presently studying for my anatomy & physiology exam in May, it is a nightmare

She is.

"Gay" is a good one. I think that is acceptable now, but only in addition to the traditional meanings.

My hubby is shocking for that...the other week he said he had the Ertha's, I asked what that was he said the Ertha Kitts then went to the toilet

Oh! Cockney Rhyming and other slang is always OK! It's when people use substitute words to replace the originals and actually [imean[/i them that it goes a bit wrong. It's really just people trying to be pretentious during the 19th and 20th centuries and attempting to "distance" themselves from the lower classes by using their "new, superior" language. Unfortunately for them, the Upper classes never bought into it, were confident enough in themselves to carry on with the traditional lingo and now use the "new" language as the yardstick to measure the distance between them and the upstarts.

So, rather than bringing them closer to the aristocrats, the "new" English merely served to define the new middle class. The upper classes still use language as the main indicator of which class you are. Brilliantly - the working classes, whom the "middles" wanted to leave behind, now share the majority of their vocabulary with the aristos. That's why I'm fiercely protective of my working class words - I despise social climbing and snobbery.

Middle-middles really get on my threepenny bits, and steam up my bins.

Ah-HA!
That is you in the picture.