Is it correct to say "sensical"
uri
correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
mm
wrote:
>How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense. Is it
>correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
Nonsensical comes from nonsense. There is no similar word that
comes from sense.
It makes no sense. It's senseless.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
angelgl...@yahoo.com
> How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense. Is it
> correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
That's a curious fact about English: there are many words that appear
commonly mainly in the negative rather than positive form, though if
you're eccentric as I am, you go out of your way to use words like
"peccable" instead of the more common impeccable. Usually dictionaries
include these negative forms you write of under "non" or "im," negative
morphemes in English. We may want to start a thread of all uncommon, but
valid, positive forms of these negative words: peccable, maculate (I
think Mr. Eliot uses "maculate" in one of his poems).
As for your original question, I'd say you're looking for a word like
plausible, possible, or logical: "That's logical," "That sounds logical"
(even though the word is not being used in the strict, analytic, sense).
Then there are related forms in the opposite direction: adding a
negative morpheme in front of words that usually don't receive them. Two
of the most famous examples include the Gospel song, "Will the Circle Be
Unbroken" (commonly identified with the Carter Family, though I think
it's more traditional than that) and the modern soul hit by Toni
Braxton, "Unbreak My Heart." We might want to start a thread on that too!
Mark Brader
> How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense.
"Sensible" is the word you want.
> Is it correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
You might say it as a joke if someone else had just said the thing was
nonsensical, and then it would be understood. But it's not a normal word.
--
Mark Brader | "Oh, especially if it's accurate. There's nothing worse
Toronto | than *accurate*, ill-informed, irresponsible press
m...@vex.net | speculation." -- Lynn & Jay: "Yes, Prime Minister"
Nick
>
> That's a curious fact about English: there are many words that appear
> commonly mainly in the negative rather than positive form, though if
> you're eccentric as I am, you go out of your way to use words like
> "peccable" instead of the more common impeccable. Usually dictionaries
> include these negative forms you write of under "non" or "im," negative
> morphemes in English. We may want to start a thread of all uncommon, but
> valid, positive forms of these negative words: peccable, maculate (I
> think Mr. Eliot uses "maculate" in one of his poems).
In a similar vein, I found myself commenting some code today and wanting
to say the opposite of "most reecently used". "Least recently used"
seems odd, because of the "recent" bit - it's like saying "least
nearest" to mean "furthest away".
Remote is the best I can come up with, but is much more clearly a "time
as distance" metaphor and would be confusing in the context.
At the moment it's feeling to me that "recent" doesn't have a simple
opposite.
jinhyun
> How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense. Is it
> correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
'Sensical' is not a word. But it is a little difficult to recommend
'sensible' as the correct word at the moment. 'Sensible' has come to
be extremely subjective. Sometimes, people will say of a person 'He's
sensible' simply to mean 'He's all right. I like him' A 'sensible'
opinion may simply be the opinion of a person you like and respect
generally even if you don't understand the opinion. 'Plausible' is
probably the best word for what you have in mind but not in every
context(An explanation/theory may be plausible but not an idea), and
some words have better repute, 'scientific' and 'logical' for example.
But in workaday contexts, you can't beat expressions like 'That makes
sense' or 'That made more sense'
Nick Spalding
<5c2fe3d2-fb56-4a90...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:36:40 -0700 (PDT):
Sensible works all right in the sort of context where nonsensical also
occurs.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
jinhyun
> jinhyun wrote, in
> <5c2fe3d2-fb56-4a90-881c-d04700b7f...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
I agree that far. But something isn't 'sensible', 'plausible',
'logical', 'scientific' etc just because it isn't nonsense.
CDB
> How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense. Is
> it correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
No. You could use "sensible" in some contexts. Merriam-Webster's
Online Dictionary has "4: having, containing, or indicative of good
sense or reason : rational, reasonable <sensible people> <made a
sensible answer>".
You might want to be a little careful with the word: I have a feeling
that its application to a thing came about by transfer from the person
who produces the thing: a sensible choice is the kind of choice made
by a sensible person.
Is there a particular phrase you want the word for? If you post that,
with some context if possible, people will be able to tell you how
well it works.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>In a similar vein, I found myself commenting some code today and wanting
>to say the opposite of "most reecently used". "Least recently used"
>seems odd, because of the "recent" bit - it's like saying "least
>nearest" to mean "furthest away".
It depends what you want the phrase to mean. To me, in this
context, "least recently used" suggests the oldest in a list of
recently used items. It would not be synonymous with "the item
last used the longest ago". If a full history list of "when last
used" is maintained the "recently used" list would be a subset
containing the n items at the newest end of the list.
Having said all that, the phrase "least recently used" is open
to other interpretations.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>How is it correct to say in one word that something makes sense. Is it
>correct to say "it is sensical" as derived from "nonsensical"?
Is "sensible" close enough?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Pat Durkin
<angelgloww2000*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g889jp$ati$1...@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw...
A friend and I had a long-standing game of "Aha! Another lost
positive!". We included the suffix "-less, (and -lessly)".
jtvi...@gmail.com
John Dunlop
That's not the OED, but it's in the OED too -- "sensical", that is.
The OED records usage; it doesn't license it. It's up to you whether to
use a word or not. If you think your audience will appreciate
"sensical", why not?
--
John
Joy Beeson
> It's in the OED.
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/sensical
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Quinn C
It's not unuseless.
--
The notion that there might be a "truth" of sex, as Foucault
ironically terms it, is produced precisely through the regulatory
practices that generate coherent identities through the matrix of
coherent gender norms. -- Judith Butler
misza...@gmail.com
Peter T. Daniels
> Lol.
Now that would be an example of excessive snippage.