If double-wall give STC N, triple-wall give STC 2*N ?
Peter G. McDonald
From reading I have done I am aware that it is possible to increase
sound transmission loss for a room by using a double-wall
(room-within-a-room, air-gap between rooms,
no structural attachment between inner and outter rooms) and that this
will produce a room with STC of N (where N depends on materials, size of
air gap, a bunch of other things). The impression I have so far is that
the first (inner) wall does some of the
sound absorbing, the air gap does a heap more, and the second (outer)
wall does some
more again. My question is, all things being equal, will a third wall
(eg. room-within-a-room-within-a-room) have twice the sound transmission
loss ability ?
ie. will the STC rating double ?
Having recently been quoted what I consider a very large amount of
money for an 100mm steel acoustic shell to be installed inside a room
built to domestic standards, I interested in exploring alternatives.
Assuming I can afford to "waste" the 12 to 18 inches on all walls and
ceiling/floor I think I can easily build a triple-walled room for
considerably less than I was quoted for the steel acoustic shell. Do I
have a hope of equalling it's
STC of between 45 and 50. My guess is yes, provided I'm careful. But
would appreciate your comments.
Cheers ... Peter
BJ Nash
<pm...@cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
> From reading I have done I am aware that it is possible to increase
>sound transmission loss for a room by using a double-wall
>(room-within-a-room, air-gap between rooms,
>no structural attachment between inner and outter rooms) and that this
>will produce a room with STC of N (where N depends on materials, size of
>air gap, a bunch of other things).
Snip
Here's a web site that may answer some of your questions
http://www.hufcor.com/acousti2.htm#LABTEST
Note this is NOT the "Soundproofing " website so many here have a
problem with seeing recommended because we "UGH" sell stuff!
Cheers,
bj
Bill Nash. Super Soundproofing Co
Quiet as a cat!
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.___.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `.``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
(((),-'' (((),' (((.-'
Http://www.soundproofing.org
SRF7
snip
>Having recently been quoted what I consider a very large amount of
>money for an 100mm steel acoustic shell to be installed inside a room
>built to domestic standards, I interested in exploring alternatives.
snip
>Assuming I can afford to "waste" the 12 to 18 inches on all walls and
>ceiling/floor I think I can easily build a triple-walled room for
>considerably less than I was quoted for the steel acoustic shell. Do I
>have a hope of equalling it's
>STC of between 45 and 50.
You can do it with a single wall if you're clever with a caulk gun.
Use a 2x6 for the bottom and top plates. Run 2x4 studs in the wall twice, one
set flush to the back of the 2x6, and one set flush to the front (offset to the
midpoint between the first set). The idea is for each side of the wall to have
an independant set of studs.
Frame wall sections on the floor, 5/8" drywall to one side. Get a case of beer
and drink while two thirsty buddies lift in place 3" off the existing wall.
Fill all gaps and holes with acoustic (non-hardening) caulk while buddies
drink.
Fiberglass batts (no paper, or paper side to the outside) between each set of
studs. 5/8" drywall on the inside... more caulk.
STC 46 to 52 depending on how much fiberglass you put in the cavity, plus
whatever the exisiting wall is doing. Not too shabby for 12" of perimeter
loss.
If you think you need more, some small amount of fiberglass on the existing
wall will dampen resonances in the cavity between it and the new wall. An
additional layer of 3/8" drywall on the interior will also help (added mass,
plus, the two sides of new wall will then tend to resonate at dis-similar
harmonics due to dis-similar density 5/8" vs. 5/8"+3/8").
You should take some of the money you saved and work on the door and ceiling
(floor?).
F. Alton Everest has a good book on budget studio construction that is
available at Amazon.com and elsewhere that has lots of info you would probably
find helpful.
Good Luck
Scott R. Foster
Schultz Foster Addison Real Estate, Inc.
(904) 354-1789 ext. #13
sr...@aol.com
Gordon Brown
<pm...@cs.rmit.edu.au> writes
> Having recently been quoted what I consider a very large amount of
>money for an 100mm steel acoustic shell to be installed inside a room
>built to domestic standards, I interested in exploring alternatives.
A 100mm steel shell? What on earth are you proposing to do inside this?
Four inches of steel strikes me as *serious* overkill for an acoustic
insulation material - although it could be handy if you intend to hold
rock gigs inside and the neighbours retaliate with a half-inch Browning!
--
Gordon Brown
Acoustics Enthusiast, ex-eater of T-bone steaks & oxtail stew, ex-drinker of
untreated milk, ex-owner of several very nice target pistols, living in the
land of the nanny state...where I'm now told that my blood plasma is unfit for
medical use, and not due to the alcohol content either....
Gary Sokolich
SRF7 wrote:
> If you think you need more, some small amount of fiberglass on the existing
> wall will dampen resonances in the cavity between it and the new wall.
As I have pointed out previously, your use of the term "dampen" with reference to
dissipative processes is incorrect. I do so again with the primary aim of alerting
those browsing the group, who may not be familiar with the scientific and
engineering literature, to your improper usage. I do so also to point out that the
appropriate authority on proper technical terminology is the body of scientific and
engineering literature, not a dictionary of colloquial usage. The body of
scientific and engineering literature consists of reputable text and reference
books, research articles published in reputable journals, and international
standards written by scientists and engineers who are recognized worldwide as
authorities in the field. With regard to this matter, the body of scientific and
engineering literature speaks unanimously and unequivocally; and what is says is
"damp, damped, and damping," not "dampen, dampened or dampening."
Peter Eisenhuth
read elsewhere, that where beer is concerned, the more the better! (Or was that for
creating a noise nuisance?).
pete
SRF7 wrote:
> >"Peter G. McDonald" <pm...@cs.rmit.edu.au>
>
> snip
>
> >Having recently been quoted what I consider a very large amount of
> >money for an 100mm steel acoustic shell to be installed inside a room
> >built to domestic standards, I interested in exploring alternatives.
>
> snip
>
> >Assuming I can afford to "waste" the 12 to 18 inches on all walls and
> >ceiling/floor I think I can easily build a triple-walled room for
> >considerably less than I was quoted for the steel acoustic shell. Do I
> >have a hope of equalling it's
> >STC of between 45 and 50.
>
> You can do it with a single wall if you're clever with a caulk gun.
>
> Use a 2x6 for the bottom and top plates. Run 2x4 studs in the wall twice, one
> set flush to the back of the 2x6, and one set flush to the front (offset to the
> midpoint between the first set). The idea is for each side of the wall to have
> an independant set of studs.
>
> Frame wall sections on the floor, 5/8" drywall to one side. Get a case of beer
> and drink while two thirsty buddies lift in place 3" off the existing wall.
> Fill all gaps and holes with acoustic (non-hardening) caulk while buddies
> drink.
>
> Fiberglass batts (no paper, or paper side to the outside) between each set of
> studs. 5/8" drywall on the inside... more caulk.
>
> STC 46 to 52 depending on how much fiberglass you put in the cavity, plus
> whatever the exisiting wall is doing. Not too shabby for 12" of perimeter
> loss.
>
> If you think you need more, some small amount of fiberglass on the existing
Gary Sokolich
of words, nor do they take a vote among themselves to establish a consensus.
Instead, they go to a higher source, and that higher source is the usage by
practitioners in the field. This is true whether the one is talking about anatomy,
science, medicine or the writings of Shakespear. So, unless you or someone else
can come up with examples of usage of the term "dampen" by credible practitioners
in the field, I would suggest that it is at least worth considering the proposition
that the editors of the dictionaries to which you refer are in error as far as the
technical usage of the term "dampen" is concerned. .
SRF7
>As I have pointed out previously, your use of the term "dampen" with
>reference to
>dissipative processes is incorrect. I do so again with the primary aim of
>alerting
>those browsing the group, who may not be familiar with the scientific and
>engineering literature, to your improper usage. I do so also to point out
>that the
>appropriate authority on proper technical terminology is the body of
>scientific and
>engineering literature, not a dictionary of colloquial usage
I most firmly disagree.
For convenient reference:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&term=Dampen
which lists as its source
(ftp://clarity.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/wn1.6unix.tar.gz)
From the link:
>Dampen v 1: smother or suppress; "Stifle your curiosity" [syn: stifle] [ant:
stimulate] 2: make moist; "The
>dew moistened the meadows" [syn: moisten, wash] 3: deaden (a sound or noise),
esp. by wrapping [syn: >muffle, mute, dull, damp, tone down] 4: reduce the
amplitude (of oscillations or waves) 5: quieten or
>silence (a sound) or make (an image) less visible [syn: muffle, mute, deaden,
damp, tone down] 6: check;
>keep in check (a fire) 7: lessen in force or effect; "soften a shock"; "break
a fall" [syn: damp, soften,
>weaken, break]
Definition #1 is "smother or suppress" (which strikes me as pretty
dissapative). Further, the listing contains other examples of the use of
"dampen" in a sense which is undeniably dissipative. The definitions #3, #4,
and #5, specifically refer to "sound", "noise amplitude", "oscillations" and
"waves". Moreover, your preferred term "damp", is listed as a synonym in
definitions #3, #5, and #7.
Clearly the word "dampen" does in fact apply to dissipative systems, your
objections notwithstanding. None of your contentions change the proper usage
of the word "dampen", or the simple fact that the appropriate resource for
resolving a question of word definition and usage is a quality unabridged
dictionary. I am not exactly sure what a "dictionary of colloquial usage" is
but a quality unabridged dictionary (as opposed to an abridged, "collegiate",
"desk reference", or "pocket" dictionary) endeavors to cover all proper usage
and word forms, including technical and scientific usages.
It was from just such a dictionary (Webster's Twentieth-Century Dictionary of
the English Language unabridged 1935 edition) that I verified the aptness of
the word form "dissapative", a word which your posts introduced to me. The word
form is precisely applicable to the topic. Thanks for broadening my
vocabulary.
I'm glad I have a good dictionary, or I might have mistakenly assumed that you
had made the word up. Perhaps you should get one as well.
I respect your desire to keep communications clear and understandable, but I
cannot agree with your argument that the adoption of a particular word form in
the vernacular of any field or discipline (scientific or otherwise) can, or
should obviate the legitimacy of alternate extant word forms or synonyms. This
would strike me as particularly off base when what you view to be the alternate
is actually the precedent form. The fact that top 40 DJ's call them "guitar
hooks" does nothing to denigrate the alternative use of the word "licks" by
slowly aging but tragically hip Jazz guitar players.
You might as well argue that "inflammable" doesn't mean "readily set on fire"
like the word "flammable" does because you happen to be ignorant of the former,
and familiar with the later. Taken to its absurd conclusion, such a position
is downright megalomaniacal.
Language is inherently interdisciplinary, and your ignorance of some element of
the language is not a cogent argument toward exclusive license, on your part,
to decide for the rest of us what words actually mean. Avoiding such
absurdities is, in part, the reason Dr. Johnson invented the dictionary in the
first place.
If your argument were merely that technical writers prefer the word "damp" in
the context of the dissipative process to the exclusion of the form "dampen", I
could concede the point and inform you that while "damp" may be preferred in
the context with which your most familiar, the fact of the matter is that
"dampen" is apparently the precedent form and has the same precise meaning(s).
Unfortunately this is not the case, and your position does not afford me the
pleasure of so simple a response, because you have repeatedly stated, as though
it were true, that the word "dampen" has no meaning or legitimate usage in
regard to the dissipative process. This is in fact false, and I post this
reply so that browsers who read this thread will not be misled by your firm and
repetitive incorrect assertion.
SRF7
>The people who edit the dictionaries do not sit in a room and dream up the
>meaning of words,
snip
Quite true Mr. Sokolich, they document these meanings for our convenient
reference. They have done so in the case in point. The issue is moot.
>I would suggest that it is at least worth considering the proposition that the
editors of the dictionaries to which you >refer are in error
Duly noted, but surely, equally worthy of consideration is the idea that the
dictionaries are right, and you are mistaken. I believe this is the case, and
that it arises from an irrationally narrow concept of correctness in word
usage, and stubborn desire to defend your original ignorance of the word's
actual meaning.
You have made the point that the word form "damp" is, to the best of your
knowledge, the exclusive word form in scientific writing (a field in which you
have extensive experience)... but lets move past that. The meaning of the word
"dampen" is not open to debate, or subject to your judgment. Our language
inherited it from Middle English, it has been in use in the dissaptive sense
for centuries (long before any of the "higher sources" to which you refer
existed including Shakespear), it is in common usage to this day, it is (as
best I can tell without the benefit of a 20 volume OED at hand) derived from a
Dutch word referring to mine gasses which caused people to choke, which was
coverted into a verb to describe the process of choking, or suppressing, and is
the precedant of the verb "damp".
Your objection to the word's meaning is irrelevant in the context of my writing
(the context in which you brought the topic up), and your repeated assertion
that it has no validity in the disapative sense is dead wrong.
>as far as the technical usage of the term "dampen" is concerned.
snip
I'm glad to see you're beginning to restrict your commentary to the field of
technical writing... if you keep this up, you actually have a point (a rather
fine distinction, but a point nonetheless). But, this isn't where you started,
nor is it where we've been. You have repeatedly stated that the meaning of the
word "dampen" is constrained by the field of your experience (technical
writing), and that it means "to make wet", and nothing else. This assertion is
false, and I respectfully suggest that a retraction on your part is in order.
Gary Sokolich
> I'm glad to see you're beginning to restrict your commentary to the field of
> technical writing... if you keep this up, you actually have a point (a rather
> fine distinction, but a point nonetheless). But, this isn't where you started,
> nor is it where we've been. You have repeatedly stated that the meaning of the
> word "dampen" is constrained by the field of your experience (technical
> writing), and that it means "to make wet", and nothing else. This assertion is
> false, and I respectfully suggest that a retraction on your part is in order.
A gross mischaracterization of the facts is a pretty bad substitute for a cogent
rebuttal.
The issue of technical usage is exactly where I started.
My comments have always been restricted to the issue of technical usage.
I have never asserted that "the word "dampen" means "to make wet" and nothing
else."
Perhaps my post (retrieved from the dejanews archive) of 1/12/99, in which I first
raised this issue will serve to refresh your memory.
SRF7 wrote:
> If I conceive the patch of foam as a structure (a mechanical construct) with 3
> dimensions (edges) in the context of whole room, then the notion that it might
> dampen the reverberation of the room (as a system responsive to a burst of
> sound) to greater degree than a 2 dimensional opening in the wall doesn't seem
> that strange anymore.
I assume that you mean damp. I believe dampen means to make slightly or moderately
wet.
Noral D. Stewart
acoustics and vibrations, and within the standards I know defining terms
in acoustics and vibration (the ASA and ASTM ANSI standards), the word
"dampen" is never used. The proper words in these standards and
authoritative texts are damp, damped, and damping. Also, most
acousticians rarely use these words in reference to sound absorption
effects. They are most commonly used in reference to vibration damping.
Those who have entered acoustics through an engineering or physics
education will usually have been introduced to the strict use of damp,
damped, and damping.
The only place I see "dampen" used regularly is by those from the audio
systems and studio worlds. They do usually use it in reference to the
effects of sound absorption. I do not know the origin of this. I agree
that it may be proper to refer to the effects of sound absorption as a
damping effect. I just do not see it normally discussed that way except
by those who also use the terms dampen or dampening. I would be
interested in a history of how this has developed.
I am not familiar with the standard terminology of the Audio Engineering
Society. Perhaps they have adopted the word dampen. I believe Dan
Queen is currently chair of AES standards. Perhaps a query to him would
be useful.
Noral Stewart
Ken Moore
<sr...@aol.com> writes
>[...]
>Clearly the word "dampen" does in fact apply to dissipative systems, your
>objections notwithstanding. None of your contentions change the proper usage
>of the word "dampen", or the simple fact that the appropriate resource for
>resolving a question of word definition and usage is a quality unabridged
>dictionary. I am not exactly sure what a "dictionary of colloquial usage" is
>but a quality unabridged dictionary (as opposed to an abridged, "collegiate",
>"desk reference", or "pocket" dictionary) endeavors to cover all proper usage
>and word forms, including technical and scientific usages.
This is a sufficiently rare usage not to get into Chambers. This
dictionary, published in Scotland, normally gives US and Commonwealth
variants of English, but has "damp" for "reduce the amplitude" (inter
alia) and "dampen" only for "stifle (fig)".
>It was from just such a dictionary (Webster's Twentieth-Century Dictionary of
>the English Language unabridged 1935 edition) that I verified the aptness of
>the word form "dissapative", a word which your posts introduced to me. The word
>form is precisely applicable to the topic. Thanks for broadening my
>vocabulary.
Chambers gives only the spelling "dissipative". Are you sure?
>I'm glad I have a good dictionary, or I might have mistakenly assumed that you
>had made the word up. Perhaps you should get one as well.
Webster's original aims included showing that the US form of English was
different from the UK variety (eg more efficient in spelling). Of
course it's a big country, and it may not worry you that using W. puts
you at risk of confusing the rest of us.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
SRF7
>This is a sufficiently rare usage not to get into Chambers. This
>dictionary, published in Scotland, normally gives US and Commonwealth
>variants of English, but has "damp" for "reduce the amplitude" (inter
>alia) and "dampen" only for "stifle (fig)".
Interesting... I'm not familiar with Chambers, I bet its has some great words
in it. Do they have an online reference?
Perhaps, this is an indication that Scots are among the "higher sources" Gary
mentioned should be relied on for determining word meaning. ;-]
>Chambers gives only the spelling >"dissipative". Are you sure?
Nope... my bad, its a typo. Gary spelled it correctly however, so it did serve
to allow me easy confirmation in a dictionary.
>Webster's original aims included showing that the US form of English was
>different from the UK variety (eg more efficient in spelling).
Yes that is my understanding. I believe originally Webster (the man) set out
to catalog English as used in the US... an effort to legitimize Americanisms I
suppose. Though I think this first aim was diluted as the years went by to a
broader goal of simply being a very good dictionary. I am given to understand
that the firm is generally held to have achieved this level for some number of
years, but has more recently fallen below first tier standards. I recently
heard the comment that the last really good American made dictionary was
Webster's 2nd International unabridged... I don't know the date, and couldn't
verify the accuracy of the statement (overheard in a used bookshop).
>Of course it's a big country, and it may not
>worry you that using W. puts
>you at risk of confusing the rest of us.
Not at all, I like to save confusing everyone till all else fails. As I stated
in the prior thread, I wouldn't venture a stance on derivation, precedence, and
preferred usage in any context absent a look at the OED listings at the very
least. I merely stand on the point that when I go looking the word up in my
dictionary, and online, I find references such as the one I posted which
clearly do apply to dissipation, and even list damp are a synonym in this sense
of the word.
Gary Sokolich
SRF7 wrote:
> I merely stand on the point that when I go looking the word up in my
> dictionary, and online, I find references such as the one I posted which
> clearly do apply to dissipation, and even list damp are a synonym in this sense
> of the word.
Then, this is an interesting case indeed. Here we have two words, which are
purported to be synonyms in terms of their technical usage, yet one of them is
rarely if ever found in the scientific/engineering/technical literature spanning
the 150-year period of modern scientific thought.
Ken Moore
<sr...@aol.com> writes
>Interesting... I'm not familiar with Chambers, I bet its has some great words
>in it. Do they have an online reference?
Maybe, but I don't know it. I have been buying paper versions at c. 10
year intervals for the last 30 years.
> Perhaps, this is an indication that Scots are among the "higher sources" Gary
>mentioned should be relied on for determining word meaning. ;-]
Well even some English people acknowledge that the best English is
spoken in Aberdeen.
>[...]
>Yes that is my understanding. I believe originally Webster (the man) set out
>to catalog English as used in the US... an effort to legitimize Americanisms I
>suppose. Though I think this first aim was diluted as the years went by to a
>broader goal of simply being a very good dictionary.
I don't own Webster, but merely note that none of the frequent
references to it which I have read on the Internet has suggested that it
claims to be a dictionary of all varieties of English, including UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
SRF7
>Then, this is an interesting case indeed. Here we have two words, which are
>purported to be synonyms in terms of their technical usage, yet one of them
>is
>rarely if ever found in the scientific/engineering/technical literature
>spanning
>the 150-year period of modern scientific thought.
>
>
Perhaps this is not so odd... I find nothing surprising about the idea that
scientific/engineering/technical literature has pro forma constructs that
rarely appear, or don't apply outside the context of the discipline. It would
be no different than examples one finds in military communcations (FUBAR, Zulu
Time, recon, etc.) and classified ads (OBO, exec cond, lv msg, etc.)
Collaterally, it is reasonable to expect that sientific/engineering/technical
literature favors, or might even exclusively use, a particular word or phrase
or acronym which in other context might be reasonably be referred to by any
number of alternative terms without confusion or error.
Gary Sokolich
SRF7 wrote:
> Perhaps this is not so odd...
Then you will undoubtedly have no trouble pointing out several other instances in
which two words are purported to be synonyms in terms of their technical usage and
in which one of them rarely if ever appears in the scientific/engineering/technical
literature.
Gary Sokolich
SRF7
>Then you will undoubtedly have no trouble pointing out
> several other instances in which two words are purported
> to be synonyms in terms of their technical usage and
>in which one of them rarely if ever appears in the
>scientific/engineering/technical literature.
Changing the subject is a pretty childish way to go about pretending you have a
point.
But I guess you "gotta run what you brung".
Here is where you started:
>>>Gary Sokolich <wgs...@earthlink.net>
>>>I assume that you mean damp. I believe dampen means to make slightly or
>>>moderately
>>>wet.
The statement is dead wrong. I pointed this out to you (via email), yet you
persisted in asserting that if one uses the word dampen, then one must be
referring to moisture. Amazing - get a dictionary!
Your next shot was some snide comment about dehumidifiers (I guess you still
hadn't bothered to pick up a dictionary)… then came this:
> Gary Sokolich <wgs...@earthlink.net>
>As I have pointed out previously, your use of the term "dampen" with reference
to
>dissipative processes is incorrect.
In point of fact this is not at all what you had said previously. You had
stated plainly that your opinion was that the word "dampen" means to "make
slightly or moderately wet", and that I was incorrect to use it under a
different meaning. A simple declaration of opinion, albeit an incorrect one.
By this time you had apparently realized that you were wrong in the first
instance, so you started trying to change the subject, by pretending that the
topic was: "What precisely are dampen's other meanings, and do they apply
specifically to dissipation".
You even emailed me to lay down the challenge of demonstrating that definitions
existed which specifically referred to sound absorption.
This was easily done. But instead of simply admitting your mistake (together
with explaining that in the literature with which you had the greatest
familiarity the form "damp" was exclusively used), you start changing the topic
again.
Here's what you come up with next:
>> Gary Sokolich <wgs...@earthlink.net>
>>as far as the technical usage of the term "dampen" is concerned.
You made a succinct, straight forward, false statement about the meaning of a
word. Upon being corrected, you started to pretend that the discussion had
always been about the extent to which one of the several definitions applied to
a specific physical process... in other words, you started debating the details
of a word usage, that you had just got finished stating didn't exist.
Once the applicability of this word in the context of dissipation had been
demonstrated you change gears and start pretending that what we are discussing
is which word form (damp or dampen) predominates in
scientific/engineering/technical literature.
Predominates? Where in the hell did you get that? Why would dampen appear in
any literature with a word meaning that didn't exist?
According to you:
>>>I believe dampen means to make slightly or
>>>moderately
>>>wet.
First: "dampen" is incorrect if used for a meaning other than moisten.
Next: "dampen" doesn't mean dissipative.
Most Recent: "dampen" is not the form used in technical writing
I email you to point out that changing the subject is an illogical form of
argument, and all I get back is:
>wgs...@earthlink.net (Gary Sokolich)
>You're right. I'm nothing but a dishonest, deceitful, lying scumbag.
>After all, what do you expect. Most of my friends and associates have MDs,
>Ph.Ds, and PEs. Some of the worst have all three.
What in the hell does the fact you know people who are educated have to do with
anything?
Retarded children are often surrounded by doctors, why am I not surprised that
you are as well. All I've asked you to do is stick to the point, and drop your
snide attitude. All I've gotten in return is bullshit.
Well you wanted a debate, and you wanted to bring here… for the life of me I
don't see the upside.
You are intellectually dishonest. I have taken note of your vehement refusal
to accept my use of the word dampen and have given the matter (and you) more
consideration than is deserved. Suffice to say I have no interest in
subscribing to your limitations. The validity of taking advantage of word
usage outside the realm of your experience may be a practice unfathomable to a
man of your scope, but it ain't wrong.
Nigel Orr
wrote:
>Well even some English people acknowledge that the best English is
>spoken in Aberdeen.
English? Hardly ;-)
>I don't own Webster, but merely note that none of the frequent
>references to it which I have read on the Internet has suggested that it
>claims to be a dictionary of all varieties of English, including UK,
>Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
http://www.sapphireswan.com/webguide/wg/dictionary.htm
has some useful dictionary lookups- I'll let someone else reply with
what it says about dampen :-)
Nigel
Please Check AntiSpam for email replies...
Angelo Campanella
>Then you will undoubtedly have no trouble pointing out several other instances
>in
>which two words are purported to be synonyms in terms of their technical usage
>and
So please to tell me what are "stats" and what is "stat",
or what does "stat" mean?
I don't watch the soaps so much that I can clearly comprehend such
meanings..
Ang.
Whatagy
>
>has some useful dictionary lookups- I'll let someone else reply with
>what it says about dampen :-)
>
I did look it up and it looks all wet to me. But regardless of that:
I don't like to get into the middle of "discussions" such as these, but I have
to agree with the usage of damp, damping, damped or damper. If you say
"dampen" do I know what you mean? Of course I do given the context of the
discussion. Does the fact that I recognize its usage make it correct? No.
Just because a dictionary lists a meaning for a word does not make it correct.
Most dictionaries list irregardless as a usable word mostly because its common
usage has driven it into being, doesn't make it correct.
Let's argue, excuse me, discuss, something else.
Rodney
Gary Sokolich
> Does the fact that I recognize its usage make it correct? No.
> Just because a dictionary lists a meaning for a word does not make it correct.
> Let's argue, excuse me, discuss, something else.
> Rodney
Agreed.
.