"intraday" or "intra-day"
Danny
and while performing my duties, I've come across "intraday" and
"intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to believe are correct. I
understand that the prefix "intra-" indicates within, while what "day"
indicates is obvious.
Although I'm aware of the discourse community theory as it relates to
usage, I would like, for the sake of consistency, to settle on one...I
would rather use "intraday."
I would like to hear from others about my decision that both are
correct. My only reason to believe that intraday isn't correct is the
example "email," which I adamantly replace with "e-mail."
Let me know what you believe and what you would do if you were
presented with my situation.
Thanks.
UC
Danny wrote:
> I currently copy-edit and proofread for a financial services company,
> and while performing my duties, I've come across "intraday" and
> "intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to believe are correct.
Neither term is correct.
'Intra' is Latin and should be used with the Latin term for 'day',
'diurnal'.
intra-diurnal and inter-diurnal
"Inter and intra diurnal variations of DNA, RNA and protein synthetic
activity in newborn, infant and young adult mouse livers."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=135983&dopt=Abstract
HVS
> I currently copy-edit and proofread for a financial services
> company, and while performing my duties, I've come across
> "intraday" and "intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to
> believe are correct. I understand that the prefix "intra-"
> indicates within, while what "day" indicates is obvious.
-snip-
> Let me know what you believe and what you would do if you were
> presented with my situation.
Getting the "I'd try not to use it at all" out of the way first, I'd
use "intra-day".
The reason is because when I saw "intraday" in your post, my eye
linked "tra" and "d" (rather than "d" and "ay"), and it made me
wonder what the devil the word might be. ("Intrad"? What's that? A
typo for "intray"? Oh, I see: "intra-"...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
UC
HVS wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006, Danny wrote
>
> > I currently copy-edit and proofread for a financial services
> > company, and while performing my duties, I've come across
> > "intraday" and "intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to
> > believe are correct. I understand that the prefix "intra-"
> > indicates within, while what "day" indicates is obvious.
>
> -snip-
>
> > Let me know what you believe and what you would do if you were
> > presented with my situation.
>
> Getting the "I'd try not to use it at all" out of the way first, I'd
> use "intra-day".
>
> The reason is because when I saw "intraday" in your post, my eye
> linked "tra" and "d" (rather than "d" and "ay"), and it made me
> wonder what the devil the word might be. ("Intrad"? What's that? A
> typo for "intray"? Oh, I see: "intra-"...)
>
No, 'intra-diurnal', not 'intra-day'.
'Semi-conscious' or 'half-awake', not 'semi-awake'. We don't generally
mix Saxon with Latin.
tinwhistler
Danny wrote:
[snip]
> Although I'm aware of the discourse community theory as it relates to
> usage, I would like, for the sake of consistency, to settle on one...I
> would rather use "intraday."
>
> I would like to hear from others about my decision that both are
> correct. My only reason to believe that intraday isn't correct is the
> example "email," which I adamantly replace with "e-mail."
>
> Let me know what you believe and what you would do if you were
> presented with my situation.
This excerpt from OED2 supports your preference for "intraday" (no
hyphen):
1972 Korea Times 16 Nov. 3/5 The Dow topped 1,000 on an intraday
basis-a compilation of the day's highs for all component issues.
I've seen the term used this way many times, and wouldn't hesitate to
use it in such form (one word, no hyphen) if I were presented with your
situation.
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
UC
Absolutely not. 'Intra-diurnal' only, or "same-day".
Likewise with "semi-annual" = "twice-yearly" or "twice-a-year", versus
"bi-annual" = "every-other-year". You don't generally mix Latin with
Saxon.
tinwhistler
UC wrote:
[snip]
>
> Absolutely not. 'Intra-diurnal' only, or "same-day".
Well, descriptivists have overwhelming evidence of the prevalence of
"intraday:"
2,849 hits for "intraday" at Google-News:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=intraday&btnG=Search+News
eg:
Reuters - Dec 27, 2006
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied on Wednesday, with the Dow reaching
a record intraday high, as positive news for Ford Motor Co. and other
automakers, ...
Absolute prescriptivists are rather like ostriches, IMHO.
Robert Bannister
> On 28 Dec 2006, Danny wrote
>
>
>>I currently copy-edit and proofread for a financial services
>>company, and while performing my duties, I've come across
>>"intraday" and "intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to
>>believe are correct. I understand that the prefix "intra-"
>>indicates within, while what "day" indicates is obvious.
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>>Let me know what you believe and what you would do if you were
>>presented with my situation.
>
>
> Getting the "I'd try not to use it at all" out of the way first, I'd
> use "intra-day".
>
> The reason is because when I saw "intraday" in your post, my eye
> linked "tra" and "d" (rather than "d" and "ay"), and it made me
> wonder what the devil the word might be. ("Intrad"? What's that? A
> typo for "intray"? Oh, I see: "intra-"...)
>
I thought it was pig-latin.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> This excerpt from OED2 supports your preference for "intraday" (no
> hyphen):
>
> 1972 Korea Times 16 Nov. 3/5 The Dow topped 1,000 on an intraday
> basis-a compilation of the day's highs for all component issues.
>
> I've seen the term used this way many times, and wouldn't hesitate to
> use it in such form (one word, no hyphen) if I were presented with your
> situation.
I find that example almost incomprehensible. Did they mean "daily
basis"? Why do some businesses think it necessary to invent new,
pointless words?
--
Rob Bannister
tinwhistler
Robert Bannister wrote:
[snip]
> I find that example almost incomprehensible. Did they mean "daily
> basis"? Why do some businesses think it necessary to invent new,
> pointless words?
They meant "during-the-day" basis, not looking at the closing market
quotations for securities (or indices thereof) but at the peaks and/or
troughs during the day. The 1972 citation in OED2 bespeaks a certain
age, although you might still want to call it "new." (My usage of
"and/or" was deliberate -- prescriptivists go wild with it despite its
apparent utility.) Any occasional reader of the Wall Street Journal or
any other financial periodical has seen countless usages of "intraday"
for decades.
UC
tinwhistler wrote:
> UC wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Absolutely not. 'Intra-diurnal' only, or "same-day".
> [snip]
>
> Well, descriptivists have overwhelming evidence of the prevalence of
> "intraday:"
So fucking what? You can FIND almost anything! THE QUESTION IS WHAT
SHOULD YOU USE, innit? It is a long-standing principle of English
(generally) NOT to mix Saxon and Latin in compounds. Thus the Latin
prefix 'il' goes with the Latin 'literate' to form 'illiterate', the
Latin 'im' ges with the Latin 'modest' to form 'immodest', whereas the
Saxon prefix 'un' goes with 'learned' to form 'unlearned' and with
'harmed to form 'unharmed'. Of course there are exeptions, so don't
write back with exceptional examples (such as 'television', which mixes
Latin and Greek).
This compound ('intraday') is needless and violates that general
principle. 'Daily' is the word that should be used. Pompous bloated
ignorant toadies write this kind of excrement.
> 2,849 hits for "intraday" at Google-News:
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=intraday&btnG=Search+News
>
> eg:
> Reuters - Dec 27, 2006
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied on Wednesday, with the Dow reaching
> a record intraday
'Daily' is the word that's needed here, not 'intrday'.
UC
They went to college and suffered at the hands of academics (spit).
>
> --
> Rob Bannister
Mark Brader
> > basis-a compilation of the day's highs for all component issues.
> I find that example almost incomprehensible. Did they mean "daily
> basis"?
Of course not: if you read the complete sentence you see that it
explains exactly what was meant by the phrase.
That explanation surprised me, though. It seems to me that that
computation would better be described as computing the Dow "on an
intraday-high basis". I would expect "on an intraday basis" to
refer to computing it from the prices of all component issues at
the *same* time during the day. But perhaps the other interpretation
is accepted jargon; I wouldn't know.
The reason this is relevant in the first place is that stock prices
and indexes, especially in a historical context, are often quoted
on the basis of the daily closing price (i.e. each day's last trade),
and it's important to know that that's not what's going on.
--
Mark Brader "They are taking to the new methods
Toronto like a duck takes to stock trading."
m...@vex.net --Mark Leeper
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Don Phillipson
news:1167344367.3...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> I currently copy-edit and proofread for a financial services company,
> and while performing my duties, I've come across "intraday" and
> "intra-day," both of which I'm inclined to believe are correct. one...
> . . .
> I would like to hear from others about my decision that both are
> correct.
Our opinions weigh little compared with a reliable
style sheet for the sort of English used in financial reports
or financial journalism (and I am sure there must be such
a style sheet.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
UC
Mark Brader wrote:
> > > 1972 Korea Times 16 Nov. 3/5 The Dow topped 1,000 on an intraday
> > > basis-a compilation of the day's highs for all component issues.
>
> > I find that example almost incomprehensible. Did they mean "daily
> > basis"?
>
> Of course not: if you read the complete sentence you see that it
> explains exactly what was meant by the phrase.
>
> That explanation surprised me, though. It seems to me that that
> computation would better be described as computing the Dow "on an
> intraday-high basis".
"Daily high", in English.
Danny
certain I didn't ask to be subjected to a primer in Philology and
Etymology. (Those of you I am referring to know who you are.)
True, Latin should probably only be used with Latin and English with
English...but it's not an absolute; moreover, I mentioned discourse
community theory, which should have prompted you to understand that
certain words are used to communicate ideas and events that may not be
understood by different communities.
There are many words that are an amalgam of Latin and English words,
say for instance "egomaniac." "Maniacus" is the Latin word for
"Maniac," but the "us" was dropped, or so it would seem.
"We don't generally mix Saxon with Latin." Who's "we"? Maybe you and
others like you don't, but the rest of the English-speaking world does,
unless you're not referring to Old English.
Also, I didn't ask for a definition.
I am scanning my original post for a hidden message that states my
desire to be exposed to the Etymology of the word and to be invited to
the Ivory Tower for a thorough digital browbeating; I could not find
one. Please don't misunderstand me. Impractical, other-wordly, and
intellectual things have there place, but not where my question is
concerned
The helpful posts:
1. Yes, you're right, I'm sure to some "intraday" might be confusing as
to where there should be a break concerning pronunciation, but not
within the discourse community my job is specific to.
I ended my original post with "Let me know what you believe and what
you would do if you were presented with my situation." Therefore, as
far as I can tell, one of you would replace "intraday" or "intra-day,"
in every instance, with "intra-diurnal." I am relatively young
considering the age of my co-workers, but I think I can say, without
hyperbole, that you would be fired immediately and probably be forced
to undergo some variation of psychoanalysis.
However, I can see where I may have miscommunicated; therefore, I will
rephrase my question, which some of you have answered, but I would like
variation. Between "intra-day" and "intraday," which would you use and
why?
So far, the consensus, among those who answered the question, is
"intraday."
UC
The answer is 'daily' or 'intra-diurnal' (the latter primarily in
scientific contexts). 'Intra-day' in any form is absolutely
unacceptable under any and all circumstances, regardless of what you
may find among the 'ignoranti'.
I have given you an expplanation as to why it is unacceptable. Language
has rules, and the rules apply in this case.
You came here asking for help from experts. The reason that 'intra-day'
is unacceptable may not be apparent to those who are not thoroughly
grounded in matters linguistic. You asked the question, I gave you the
answer, the correct answer. Don't try now to tell me that it does not
apply, because it does, whether you like it or not.
Would you say 'imharmed'? I doubt it.
The answer is 'daily' and no other (except in scientific contexts).
nanc...@verizon.net
Danny wrote:
> I am scanning my original post for a hidden message that states my
> desire to be exposed to the Etymology of the word and to be invited to
> the Ivory Tower for a thorough digital browbeating; I could not find
> one.
It was the part where you put "alt.usage.english" in the "Newsgroup"
section of your post.
HVS
Pat Durkin
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167354813....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> tinwhistler wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > Absolutely not. 'Intra-diurnal' only, or "same-day".
>> [snip]
>
>
>>
>> eg:
>> Reuters - Dec 27, 2006
>> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied on Wednesday, with the Dow
>> reaching
>> a record intraday
>
> 'Daily' is the word that's needed here, not 'intrday'.
But doesn't "daily" imply a single datum, taken each day? I think that
"intraday" assumes measurements or data taken at various points during a
day's trading (since I have only seen it used in financial reporting).
Your example of the medical use was good, but, let's face it--medicos do
many strange things with language, primarily for speaking among
themselves. There was also, in your example, no attempt to link the two
parts into a single word. In your paraphrase you added the hyphen.
Well, I am assuming you cut and pasted the medical report.
UC
Pat Durkin wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167354813....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > tinwhistler wrote:
> >> UC wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely not. 'Intra-diurnal' only, or "same-day".
> >> [snip]
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> eg:
> >> Reuters - Dec 27, 2006
> >> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied on Wednesday, with the Dow
> >> reaching
> >> a record intraday
> >
> > 'Daily' is the word that's needed here, not 'intrday'.
>
> But doesn't "daily" imply a single datum, taken each day?
Not to me. "Daily data" is different from "daily datum", no? I'd like
to see the whole thing to address this better.
> I think that
> "intraday" assumes measurements or data taken at various points during a
> day's trading (since I have only seen it used in financial reporting).
"Data drawn throughout the day/at different times of the day" seems
good enough.
Danny
questions?
Danny
this isn't one of them.
My last question was "Between "intra-day" and "intraday," which would
you use and
why?" You did not answer that question, expert. What about the instance
of egomaniac?
Concerning what's right and wrong, try to remember about a discourse
community and forget what you know, or what you think you know, about
the English language.
Please answer the aforementioned in kind. I apologize for the ad
hominem arguments, but sometimes I just can't resist. I was hoping to
illicit a similar response.
Steve Hayes
>Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
>questions?
No more than the Spanish Inquisition.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Oleg Lego
>On 29 Dec 2006 18:12:12 -0800, "Danny" <A.pse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
>>questions?
>
>No more than the Spanish Inquisition.
I didn't expect that.
Default User
> Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
> questions?
Hmmm, a top-poster AND and rude. That adds up to:
*plonk*
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Amethyst Deceiver
>Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
>questions?
Learn to quote correctly, stop top-posting, and stop being pompous
yourself. You could learn a lot in aue, but I suspect you don't want
to.
--
Posting at the top of an article because that is where your cursor
happened to be is like crapping in your pants because that is
where your arse happened to be.
UC
Danny wrote:
> Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
> questions?
>
The answer to the question is NEITHER.
NOT 'intra-day' and NOT 'intraday'. None of the above is acceptable in
ENGLISH.
Do you grasp that or not? The pompous assholes are the ones who started
using this 'word'.
Don't come here asking questions about ENGLISH and then disagree with
the answers! You're in no position to question or argue.
the Omrud
> However, I can see where I may have miscommunicated; therefore, I will
> rephrase my question, which some of you have answered, but I would like
> variation. Between "intra-day" and "intraday," which would you use and
> why?
>
> So far, the consensus, among those who answered the question, is
> "intraday."
I'm a little late to this party, having been away rotating in Spain,
but I prefer "intra-day" since the word without the hyphen looks like
something else. But if "intraday" is in daily use in financial
journals and you are writing for the same audience, I would stick
with that.
--
David
=====
UC
intra-mural
intra-uterine
intra-oral
intra-cellular
intra-articular
intra-abdominal
intra-aortic
intra-amniotic
intra-cranial
Notice anything about these words? They're all Latin, because 'intra'
is Latin. There is no 'intra-belly' or 'intra-head'; it's
'intra-abdominal' or 'intra-cranial'. 'Intra-day' is absolutely
unacceptable, an abomination.
Mike Lyle
Danny wrote:
[...]
> Please answer the aforementioned in kind. I apologize for the ad
> hominem arguments, but sometimes I just can't resist. I was hoping to
> illicit a similar response.
Oh, boy!
Before the storm breaks (if anybody feels like it), do note that: a)
group this in post-top usually don't we; b) we come here for fun, not
as your employees, and you have to take the rough with the smooth on
Usenet; and c) you've just rather asked for it.
Oh yes, nearly forgot: it's a perfectly fair question, so, d), for a
specialist audience I'd stick with the form which seems to be generally
accepted (I guess "excepted" is elicit), and if everybody around you is
doing it I'd probably use "intraday", even though I don't like it for
the reasons others have already mentioned. Very familiar expressions --
as I know you know -- generally lose their hyphens. If it's for a
non-specialist readership, I'd be inclined to keep the hyphen, since we
civilians aren't familar with the term, and breaking it up would make
it a bit easier to understand.
--
Mike.
UC
No. Absolutely, unequivocally, not. No such usage, neither 'intraday'
nor 'intra-day' is allowable under any circumstances. It is crap
English that sounds like a foreigner's woeful attempts to coin a word.
Respectfully decline, and explain to these nitwits that the word is
unacceptable because it is not English!
Robert Bannister
> No. Absolutely, unequivocally, not. No such usage, neither 'intraday'
> nor 'intra-day' is allowable under any circumstances. It is crap
> English that sounds like a foreigner's woeful attempts to coin a word.
> Respectfully decline, and explain to these nitwits that the word is
> unacceptable because it is not English!
>
I've come across fairly frequent use of intradepartmental by our IT
department. (As I went to send this, I noted my spelling checker didn't
even hiccough over intradepartmental).
--
Rob Bannister
the Omrud
>
> the Omrud wrote:
> > Danny <A.pse...@yahoo.com> had it:
> >
> > > However, I can see where I may have miscommunicated; therefore, I will
> > > rephrase my question, which some of you have answered, but I would like
> > > variation. Between "intra-day" and "intraday," which would you use and
> > > why?
> > >
> > > So far, the consensus, among those who answered the question, is
> > > "intraday."
> >
> > I'm a little late to this party, having been away rotating in Spain,
> > but I prefer "intra-day" since the word without the hyphen looks like
> > something else. But if "intraday" is in daily use in financial
> > journals and you are writing for the same audience, I would stick
> > with that.
>
> intra-mural
> intra-uterine
> intra-oral
> intra-cellular
> intra-articular
> intra-abdominal
> intra-aortic
> intra-amniotic
> intra-cranial
>
> Notice anything about these words? They're all Latin, because 'intra'
> is Latin. There is no 'intra-belly' or 'intra-head'; it's
> 'intra-abdominal' or 'intra-cranial'. 'Intra-day' is absolutely
> unacceptable, an abomination.
I noticed your other 20 posts in the same vein. Repetition doesn't
make you right. Sometimes you just have to go with the native
speakers, and ignore any logical arrangements you think you might
perceive in English.
--
David
=====
the Omrud
> No. Absolutely, unequivocally, not. No such usage, neither 'intraday'
> nor 'intra-day' is allowable under any circumstances. It is crap
> English that sounds like a foreigner's woeful attempts to coin a word.
> Respectfully decline, and explain to these nitwits that the word is
> unacceptable because it is not English!
How do you feel about television?
--
David
=====
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I suppose I should not mention intranet and extranet?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
UC
I cannot imagine a native speaker came up with this.
>
> --
> David
> =====
UC
I already mentioned this before. It's Greek and Latin, not Latin and
Saxon.
>
> --
> David
> =====
Robert Bannister
Be fair. He said don't mix Latin and Saxon; no word about Latin and Greek.
--
Rob Bannister
Archie Valparaiso
<rob...@it.net.au> wrought:
Nah, be unfair. He called it "unacceptable" -- a classic acceptable
Saxon/Latin mix if ever there was one.
--
Archie Valparaiso
the Omrud
So Greek and Latin is OK but Latin and Saxon is an abomination?
Do you seriously think that any significant percentage of English
speakers have the slightest idea which words came from which sources?
The vast majority would not understand what we are discussing.
--
David
=====
the Omrud
I merely posed a question. He's answered it - apparently it is not
obscene to mix Latin and Greek.
--
David
=====
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> had it:
Mixing Latin and Greek (with a pinch of Australia) would yield "Leek
(au) Gratin".
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> had it:
>
>>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>> > UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> had it:
>> >
>> > > No. Absolutely, unequivocally, not. No such usage, neither 'intraday'
>> > > nor 'intra-day' is allowable under any circumstances. It is crap
>> > > English that sounds like a foreigner's woeful attempts to coin a word.
>> > > Respectfully decline, and explain to these nitwits that the word is
>> > > unacceptable because it is not English!
>> >
>> > How do you feel about television?
>>
>> I already mentioned this before. It's Greek and Latin, not Latin and
>> Saxon.
>
>So Greek and Latin is OK but Latin and Saxon is an abomination?
Unequivocally, Omrud, as I'm sure UC would agree.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
UC
But it is an old one, and accepted. The Germanic 'un' is more widely
used than the Latinate 'in', 'il', and 'im'.
>
> --
> Archie Valparaiso
UC
Right. They're not experts. We are.
>
> --
> David
> =====
UC
Note that 'unbelievers' (Saxon) are called also 'infidels' (Latin).
There is no Latinate word for "The faithful", but one who runs around
on his spouse is callled 'unfaithful'. There is no noun for it related
to either 'faithful', but the practice is referred to as 'infidelity'.
It would be expressed as "the unfaithful spouse" or "the cheating
wife", etc. We don't combine the Saxon 'un' with the stem 'fidelity;
it's 'infidelity'. We can have 'adherents', 'votaries' to a religion,
as well as "the devoted" ; the latter can also refer to a faithful
spouse: "the dovted wife/husband". English is sometimes a hodge-podge
of Saxon and Latin roots.
Robert Bannister
> So Greek and Latin is OK but Latin and Saxon is an abomination?
>
> Do you seriously think that any significant percentage of English
> speakers have the slightest idea which words came from which sources?
> The vast majority would not understand what we are discussing.
>
I suspect that quite a few do. Perhaps they don't consciously think
"Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, French", but I think they may well group
words of a type together: eg words with ps, ph, y in a strange place, x,
etc. belong in "that" group. Especially with prefixes: be-, for-, fore-,
with-, etc. may sound vaguely more English than con-, pre-, pro-, etc.
For the many of us who have studied languages, it is obviously difficult
to judge, and I'm not sure how one would go about testing it, but I
would suspect that if my theory is correct, people would be slightly
better at guessing Anglo-Saxon versus other differences than any other,
whereas they might not be able to tell whether a word belonged in a
Latin/French group or a Greek/utterly foreign group. I am quite sure
such people would not be able to pin labels like "Anglo-Saxon", "Latin"
or "Greek" on such words, but may well, subconsciously group them.
You might ask why. I suggest that that is one way people attempt to
speak/write formally: eg by using "commence" instead of "begin".
--
Rob Bannister
UC
I was referring more specifically to the Saxon 'un' as opposed to the
Latin 'il', 'in', 'im', etc.
Dick Chambers
A little experiment, for fun only:-
What is your guess for the ultimate source languages of:-
run
rumpus
action
hate
impale
impel
succeed
supersede
precede
underwrite
right
rectify
colon
colony
hippopotamus
elephant
wolf
imperative
good
bad
indifferent
mediocre
average
odo(u)r
perfume
stink
smell
cataract
viaduct
academic
philosophy
engineering
catarrh
guitar
lasso
naughty
viper
serpent
snake
asp
adder
torus
hexagon
square
circle
tube
pipe
No answers provided.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
UC
Dick Chambers wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote
> > the Omrud wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So Greek and Latin is OK but Latin and Saxon is an abomination?
> >>
> >> Do you seriously think that any significant percentage of English
> >> speakers have the slightest idea which words came from which sources?
> >> The vast majority would not understand what we are discussing.
> >>
> >
> > I suspect that quite a few do. Perhaps they don't consciously think
> > "Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, French", but I think they may well group words
> > of a type together: eg words with ps, ph, y in a strange place, x, etc.
> > belong in "that" group. Especially with prefixes: be-, for-, fore-, with-,
> > etc. may sound vaguely more English than con-, pre-, pro-, etc.
> >
> > For the many of us who have studied languages, it is obviously difficult
> > to judge, and I'm not sure how one would go about testing it, but I would
> > suspect that if my theory is correct, people would be slightly better at
> > guessing Anglo-Saxon versus other differences than any other, whereas they
> > might not be able to tell whether a word belonged in a Latin/French group
> > or a Greek/utterly foreign group. I am quite sure such people would not be
> > able to pin labels like "Anglo-Saxon", "Latin" or "Greek" on such words,
> > but may well, subconsciously group them.
> >
> > You might ask why. I suggest that that is one way people attempt to
> > speak/write formally: eg by using "commence" instead of "begin".
>
> A little experiment, for fun only:-
> What is your guess for the ultimate source languages of:-
> rumpus Saxon
> action Latin
> hate Saxon
> impale Latin
> impel Latin
> succeed Latin
> supersede Latin
> precede Latin
> underwrite Saxon
> right Saxon
> rectify Latin
> colon Latin
> colony Latin
> hippopotamus Greek
> elephant Greek
> wolf Saxon
> imperative Latin
> good Saxon
> bad Saxon
> indifferent Latin
> mediocre Latin
> average Saxon
> odo(u)r Saxon
> perfume Latin-via French
> stink Saxon
> smell Saxon
> cataract Greek?
> viaduct Latin
> academicGreek
> philosophy Greek
> engineering Latin
> catarrh Turkish?
> guitar Italian
> lasso Spanish
> naughty Saxon
> viper Latin
> serpent Latin
> snake Saxon
> asp Latin
> adder Latin
> torus Greek
> hexagon Greek
> square Saxon
> circle Latin
> tube Latin
> pipe Saxon
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote
>
>>the Omrud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>So Greek and Latin is OK but Latin and Saxon is an abomination?
>>>
>>>Do you seriously think that any significant percentage of English
>>>speakers have the slightest idea which words came from which sources?
>>>The vast majority would not understand what we are discussing.
>>>
>>
>>I suspect that quite a few do. Perhaps they don't consciously think
>>"Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, French", but I think they may well group words
>>of a type together: eg words with ps, ph, y in a strange place, x, etc.
>>belong in "that" group. Especially with prefixes: be-, for-, fore-, with-,
>>etc. may sound vaguely more English than con-, pre-, pro-, etc.
>>
>>For the many of us who have studied languages, it is obviously difficult
>>to judge, and I'm not sure how one would go about testing it, but I would
>>suspect that if my theory is correct, people would be slightly better at
>>guessing Anglo-Saxon versus other differences than any other, whereas they
>>might not be able to tell whether a word belonged in a Latin/French group
>>or a Greek/utterly foreign group. I am quite sure such people would not be
>>able to pin labels like "Anglo-Saxon", "Latin" or "Greek" on such words,
>>but may well, subconsciously group them.
>>
>>You might ask why. I suggest that that is one way people attempt to
>>speak/write formally: eg by using "commence" instead of "begin".
>
>
> A little experiment, for fun only:-
> What is your guess for the ultimate source languages of:-
How far back do you go with "ultimate"? Just at a very quick and not
very thinking pass, I identify the following as "English" or Anglo-Saxon
in their roots at least:
> underwrite
> right
> wolf
> good
> stink
> snake
> adder
I'm not sure about:
bad, smell, naughty
although they have an English "feel" to them. No doubt I missed some
obvious ones.
--
Rob Bannister
Danny
wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 18:12:12 -0800, "Danny" <A.pseudo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
> >questions?
>
> yourself. You could learn a lot in aue, but I suspect you don't want
> to.
>
> --
> Posting at the top of an article because that is where your cursor
> happened to be is like crapping in your pants because that is
> where your arse happened to be.
I posted at the top of the article to respond to everyone. I'm
responding to you, so I'm typing at end of your last response. Do you
get it? "Learn to quote correctly,...." Would you like to explain that
one?
Danny
I agree with "a," "b," "c," and "d." Thanks for your candor. I can
take the truth as long as it is the truth. Much thanks, Mike.
Danny
> Danny wrote:
> > Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
> > questions?
>
>
> NOT 'intra-day' and NOT 'intraday'. None of the above is acceptable in
> ENGLISH.
>
> Do you grasp that or not? The pompous assholes are the ones who started
> using this 'word'.
>
> Don't come here asking questions about ENGLISH and then disagree with
> the answers! You're in no position to question or argue.
Why am I not in a position to argue? Please explain.
I disagreed with your answers because they were not answers to my
questions. My last question was "Between "intra-day" and "intraday,"
which would you use and why?" It wasn't "Between "intra-day" or
"intraday," which would you use, or would you ramble on about the
details of language that I'm well aware of but which are completely
irrelevant to the matter at hand, i.e., that I will have to use one or
the other, so I want to settle on one that most closely resembles a
word that makes the most amount of sense, relatively. Put yourself in
my position: You work in a financial institution, and you have to use
one variation of a word, which you know is incorrect in either form.
Would you refuse to use either on the grounds of "unacceptable
English," quit your job, and join the countless homeless that line the
streets? Alternatively, would you discard whatever the hell it is you
call the defense of your position and pick one? Again: You have to use
either "intra-day" or "intraday." Which would you use?
Skitt
> "UC" wrote:
>> Danny wrote:
A dictionary can be helpful. (Poster UC is often wrong.)
See http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/intraday, where it has:
Main Entry: in·tra·day
Pronunciation: 'in-tr&-"dA, -(")trä-
Function: adjective
: occurring in the course of a single day <the market showed wide intraday
fluctuations>
--
Skitt
Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish.
Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base.
Oleg Lego
>On Dec 30 2006, 12:19 pm, "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Danny wrote:
>> > Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
>> > questions?
>>
>> The answer to the question is NEITHER.
>>
>> NOT 'intra-day' and NOT 'intraday'. None of the above is acceptable in
>> ENGLISH.
>>
>> Do you grasp that or not? The pompous assholes are the ones who started
>> using this 'word'.
>>
>> Don't come here asking questions about ENGLISH and then disagree with
>> the answers! You're in no position to question or argue.
>
>Why am I not in a position to argue? Please explain.
Because you asked a question for which one possible answer did not
happen to fit your expectations. If you had asked "Which one should
_I_ use?" instead of "Which one would _YOU_ use?", you might have had
a different answer.
>I disagreed with your answers because they were not answers to my
>questions.
They were answers to your question. You didn't happen to like them.
> My last question was "Between "intra-day" and "intraday,"
>which would you use and why?" It wasn't "Between "intra-day" or
>"intraday," which would you use, or would you ramble on about the
>details of language that I'm well aware of but which are completely
>irrelevant to the matter at hand, i.e., that I will have to use one or
>the other, so I want to settle on one that most closely resembles a
>word that makes the most amount of sense, relatively. Put yourself in
>my position: You work in a financial institution, and you have to use
>one variation of a word, which you know is incorrect in either form.
>Would you refuse to use either on the grounds of "unacceptable
>English," quit your job, and join the countless homeless that line the
>streets? Alternatively, would you discard whatever the hell it is you
>call the defense of your position and pick one?
> Again: You have to use
>either "intra-day" or "intraday." Which would you use?
Again: neither.
To save time, I'll answer the question you should be asking, which is
"If I have to use either 'intra-day' or 'intraday', which one should I
use, and why?"
My answer to that is:
Since they are both incorrect, pick one. Use any criteria you want.
Flip a coin. Why? Because it doesn't matter which you use. One is as
incorrect as the other. Neither is 'more correct'.
If you don't like that answer, I suggest finding someone you can
browbeat into making a choice for you. I don't think you'll find one
here.
Skitt
> Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>> "Danny" wrote:
>>> Should I expect to be subjected to pompous a holes who don't answer
>>> questions?
>>
>> Learn to quote correctly, stop top-posting, and stop being pompous
>> yourself. You could learn a lot in aue, but I suspect you don't want
>> to.
>>
>> --
>> Posting at the top of an article because that is where your cursor
>> happened to be is like crapping in your pants because that is
>> where your arse happened to be.
>
> I posted at the top of the article to respond to everyone. I'm
> responding to you, so I'm typing at end of your last response. [...]
Hmm, never heard anything like that before. Your personal invention, is it?
--
Skitt
Jes' fine!
Oleg Lego
My apologies, Danny. I had thought you got answers from knowledgeable
folks, not just from UC. I don't see his posts any more, so I didn't
follow the entire thread.
Amethyst Deceiver
I understand your explanation, but it's still not the correct way to
communicate within newsgroups.
As for quoting correctly, the best way is to delete what you're not
responding to, and to delete sigs. A sig is the bit at the bottom of the
post from the two dashes onwards. Does this help?
¦ Sig
v