Are these two words synonymous or is there any nuance between these two words? Though they are used synonymously in sentences and also followed by the same preposition "for". I want to be expertly responded to these nuances with reference to their adequate collocations.
Learn English – What’s the difference between notorious and infamous
differences
Related Solutions
The two words are pretty much synonyms in all contexts, but if a distinction can ever be made, perhaps leafage sometimes alludes slightly more to the individual leaves (albeit, collectively). I don't advance this possibility particularly strongly, because I don't think I really believe it myself.
Thus you might see leafage pattern used relatively more often to refer to the "average" pattern on each leaf, as opposed to the foliage pattern referring to the overall disposition of leaves on the plant. By "relatively" there, I mean after allowing for the fact that "foliage" is much more common in the first place.
The general advice would simply be; forget about using the word "leafage". There are no contexts where "foliage" would actually be wrong, and using the uncommon word may stand out as "odd".
We should distinguish between different lexical meanings of each word, since each meaning will have different grammatical and semantic requirements. Based on my own understanding, for the basic meaning of "speak" and "talk", "speak" refers to the actual act of saying something, and corresponds to the intransitive version of "say", whereas "talk" refers to the act of engaging in communication with others. This difference explains many of your examples, but not all, since some appear to arise due to different lexical meanings.
Examples of the distinction between basic "speak" and "talk"
"speak up", "speak out", "speak clearly", "speak confidently/authoritatively": These show that "speak" has to do with the act of saying something.
"actions speak louder than words", "speaks to the heart", "the clock spoke": Similarly these refer to things figuratively saying something. "talk" would be inappropriate here because these things are not having any conversation.
"speak for everyone": This refers to being a representative voice, so "talk" doesn't work.
"grammatically speaking", "so to speak", "speaking of", "talking about": "speak" refers to the actual verbalization, hence "speaking of X", while "talk" refers to the communication, hence "talking about X".
"talkative": It means "like to talk" or "talks a lot", which is about communicating with others.
"speak to", "talk to": Usually there is hardly a difference, but the distinction becomes clearer in certain situations. Anyone can "speak to the king" if given the opportunity, but to "talk to the king" suggests further that it is a conversation and not just one-way. In contrast, "speak with" conveys the sense of both speaking to one another, so I doubt it is distinguished from "talk with" in actual usage.
"spoke about X", "talked about X": "spoke about X" conveys just the speaking, while "talked about X" conveys speaking to others. But for this example both convey the same thing when taken in context.
A few examples of other lexical meanings
"spoke wise words", "speak English", "speak the truth": It is a different meaning of "speak" that is transitive. Nevertheless, there seems to be still a relation to the above distinction. We can say "talked to them in words of wisdom" and "talk to them in English".
"I'm talking grammar here": A transitive meaning of "talk". This can be used in place of "grammatically speaking", but conveys talking to the audience about grammar rather than simply stating something.
"give a talk", "give a speech": The noun "talk" just happens to be spelt the same as the verb.
By the way, I just found out that http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speak mentions roughly the same distinction as I did, but I disagree with what it says about telephone calls. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking to talk to someone on the phone. I don't even think it is less formal today.
Best Answer
Infamous is strictly negative. Even if it is about fame, this is always negative fame. It's almost never used figuratively, or tongue-in-cheek. It's negative fame, be it due to bad failures, or due to evil conduct.
Notorious is more often than not used as a more neutral "famous" - used in contexts, where you want to limit the positive connotation be it not to sound overly flattering or as tongue-in-cheek expression of limited praise. You can be a DJ notorious in clubs of your city, a notorious speaker at Sci-Fi conventions, a notorious hacker with three hundred security advisories published to your name. These don't strictly imply what you do is wrong, they just say you are widely recognized, and simultaneously don't try to trump up your achievements.
Notoriety is more about insistence, being known for repeating your activity, without actually creating anything very notable, while fame or infamy may be about popularity possible to gain with a single truly spectacular performance. Notorious is often used humorously, due to lack of inherent positivity (presenting a positive fame in mock sinister light) and implied insistence, stubbornness (becoming known despite failure to achieve genuine fame, implying poor quality of "production", insufficient to be called "famous".)
As result, fame and infamy are "stronger" than notoriety, and notoriety is more neutral.
Edit: an example of this usage for Mary-Lou.
The notorious Robert Downey Jr. known for his role of Iron Man, takes the character of Tony Stark, the incorrigible playboy genius philantropist billionaire out of the stage and adopts it as his own. Asked by a reporter, "Tony, could you... sorry, Robert..." - answers, oozing humility, "No, Tony is fine. Tony is perfectly fine." He hides snacks all over the movie stage and pulls them out during filming, taking wild liberties with the script and causing woe both to other actors and the director (and allegedly not just for "artistic license", but simply because he doesn't bother to learn his proper script!) Take the scene from "Avengers" when he serves peanuts to other members of the team, it's completely spontaneous.
[now, there is no doubt Robert Downey Jr. is simply a famous actor, but his antics, ego, and style make the word 'famous' simply miss the point - he's not loved for being a famous actor, but for being the notorious Tony Stark.]