Pressured VS Pressurised
Jim Grundy
I hear a lot of people using the word "pressurised" where I would use the
word "pressured".
For example
"He was pressurised into buying a time share."
I would say
"He was pressured into buying a time share."
My question is:
Are these people correct to say "pressurised" like this?
Is the way I use "pressured" correct?
Jim
G Toal
:
:I hear a lot of people using the word "pressurised" where I would use the
Pressured is correct. If someone is pressurized into doing something, it
would only be correct if it referred to some ghastly Cray-brothers style
torture involving bicycle pumps or pressure cookers :-)
Jim Scobbie
>Are these people correct to say "pressurised" like this?
yes
>Is the way I use "pressured" correct?
yes
I grew up with pressurised. Of course, now I can't help thinking of
'pressurised' as implying full of air. Ah well. In fact that meaning
fits 'pressured' just as well for me, a form I have never heard
before like that. Ain't lang-wich great?
--
-------
Jim Scobbie, Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150
(Previously at Edinburgh)
Mary Tabasko
To my ear, this use of "pressurised" sounds very strange. It strikes
me as an instance of a topic we dicussed early on in this group, the
proliferation of suffixes and prefixes. You often hear on TV things
like "he got disorientated" when "disoriented" would do just fine.
"Pressurised" has technical connotations for me; it sounds OK in
phrases like, "the experiment was performed in a pressurised
container," but I would say people can't be pressurised, at least not
in the sense of being pressured! Of course, regional usage varies!
-- Mary
**********************************************************************
* This curious world which we inhabit is more wonderful than it *
* is convenient; more beautiful than it is useful; it is more to *
* be admired and enjoyed than used. -- H.D. Thoreau *
**********************************************************************
--
Mary Tabasko (no relation to the hot-sauce folks)
Snail Mail: 371 S. Negley Ave., Apt. 5 MaBellNet: 412/362-0544
Pittsburgh, PA 15232-1110
E-Mail: mc...@unix.cis.pitt.edu /or/ tab...@icarus.lis.pitt.edu
Roger Lustig
>I would say
>My question is:
You use it correctly, that is to say, idiomatically.
This is, imho, a non-standard usage you've observed. It may die out, or
it may become standard.
Keep track of it.
Roger
the Crisco Kid
I'd use "pressed", which has a long history of use in this context.
"Pressurised" always conjures up images of air-hoses and nozzles;
"pressured" would imply a verb "to pressure". Now, the verbifaction
of nouns is a good English mechanism for neologification ;-), but
I don't think instances should be multiplied beyond necessity.
Kay
--
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry Poly, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry |B0 f- t+ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |
Robert Mollitor
>In article <1991Jun4.0...@cl.cam.ac.uk> j...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>
>>I hear a lot of people using the word "pressurised" where I would use the
>>word "pressured".
>>For example
>>"He was pressurised into buying a time share."
>
>>I would say
>>"He was pressured into buying a time share."
>
>>Is the way I use "pressured" correct?
>>
>You use it correctly, that is to say, idiomatically.
>This is, imho, a non-standard usage you've observed. It may die out, or
>it may become standard.
>
>Keep track of it.
>
>Roger
If I may, I would like to make a meta-comment.
I like Roger's approach to language. It feels very natural, but I think
it requires discipline. Most everyone recognizes that languages change
over time, but there are no rules for change. When I first learned
(hopefully not mis-learned) that words are put in dictionaries based
on usage surveys, my immediate, naive thought was "But no one will use
words (or meanings of words) that are not in a dictionary.". Then
I learned that some changes are unintentional while others are intentional.
Intentional changes intrigued me. One of my favorite books is E. E.
Cummings's "The Enormous Room" (I believe this is the correct title).
In the introduction or preface or foreword (one of those, whichever
is written by someone who republishes a book) the writer (not the author)
says that the book is presented as the author intended: with non-standard
punctuation and using both English and untranslated non-English (mostly
French) dialogue. (Thankfully, a glossary was provided for the
non-English phrases. Interestingly (and also thankfully), the glossary
listed the phrases themselves and not the constituent words.)
What interested me most was that the non-standard punctuation was not used
to make a point. Rather, it was just how Cummings thought that punctuation
should be. For English as a whole. The book itself did not rely in
any way on the punctuation being the way it was (unless I missed it).
Cummings was simply leading by example. Some of Cummings's arguments
are mentioned, and basically they deal with the improper distancing
caused by standard punctuation. (I might as well just say the two I
remember: no space after a comma, and only one space after a sentence-period.
Obviously, I have not adopted these. That is not the point. What is
my point?)
Anyway, I now feel that very few changes result from intentional changes,
except when tied to technology changes. (Oh, I guess that was my point.
Sorry.) Tied to this, I feel that intentional attempts to prevent
changes are weak with regard to recurrent unintentional changes. If
people keep making the same "mistake", maybe there is a natural reason
for it. Of course, if everyone is intensly vigilant, one or a handful
of natural lapses can be prevented, but to what advantage. People's time
can probably be better spent trying to incorportate the change
gracefully. I accept the use of the metaphor: "guarding against the
barbarians at the gate". But I don't mind my barbarian heritage any more
than my Roman heritage.
Which doesn't mean you can't try to resist certain changes. For instance,
I would think that the observed use of "pressurised" is an innocent mistake,
and I would correct (or mis-correct, as the case may be) it. If the new
use persisted, I would assume (absent a conspiracy theory) that the
existence of the two words "pressured" and "pressurized" is causing
cross-static, and that I must be careful in how I use the words. That is,
I might need to use stronger contextual clues to make distinguishable
my meaning. In any event, I would try not to scold the people, point
to my references, and call them idiots, if for no other reason than because
people 100 years from now may look back and giggle at me. But also
because I try to be a nice guy.
robt
--
Robert Mollitor rob...@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!robert
Robert Craig Harman
Frankly, I find it rather neat how longer jargon continues to push out simpler
terms--I mean, does anyone get "pressed" into doing something, nowadays?
According to my dictionary, "pressure" first began to be used as a verb circa
1938. "Pressurize" appeared around 1940.
I cannot say whether British usage differs from American on usage of these
words, but this is my understanding: both "pressure" and "pressurize" may be
used to mean "to apply pressure to".
Webster's 7th Collegiate (1963) lists "pressure" as a synonym of "pressurize"
and gives the additional meaning of "to cook in a pressure cooker". For
"pressurize", it gives the additional meanings of "to maintain at near-normal
atmospheric pressure...during flight..." and "to design to with-stand pressure".
Personally, I think American usage leans strongly toward "pressurize" only
being used in technical contexts; hence, one talks of "pressurized cabins (of
airplanes)" and "pressurized gaskets". The broad use "to apply pressure" is
usually just synonymous with "pressure (vb)", regardless of whether "pressure"
means "force per area" or "influence". I don't know about "pressure cookers",
but I suppose most people just use "to cook in a pressure cooker" rather than
one of these verbs. From the standpoint of an engineer, this trend is probably
the more useful one.
craig
no .sig
go .fig
Dave Cochran
|> In article <1991Jun4.0...@cl.cam.ac.uk> j...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
|> >
|> >I hear a lot of people using the word "pressurised" where I would use the
|> >word "pressured".
|> >For example "He was pressurised into buying a time share."
|> >I would say "He was pressured into buying a time share."
|> >
|> >My question is:
|> >
|> >Are these people correct to say "pressurised" like this?
|> >Is the way I use "pressured" correct?
|>
|> To my ear, this use of "pressurised" sounds very strange. It strikes
|> me as an instance of a topic we dicussed early on in this group, the
|> proliferation of suffixes and prefixes. You often hear on TV things
|> like "he got disorientated" when "disoriented" would do just fine.
|> "Pressurised" has technical connotations for me; it sounds OK in
|> phrases like, "the experiment was performed in a pressurised
|> container," but I would say people can't be pressurised, at least not
|> in the sense of being pressured! Of course, regional usage varies!
This reminds me of the time that Ringo Starr was told that he needed to work
on his pronunciation. His response was "What's wrong with the way I
pronunciate things?"
--
+------------------------------------------------------+
|Dave Cochran (coc...@spam.rtp.dg.com) |
|Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC |
+------------------------------------------------------+
|Just suppose there were no hypothetical situations... |
+------------------------------------------------------+
G Toal
:In article <1991Jun4.0...@cl.cam.ac.uk> j...@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
:>I hear a lot of people using the word "pressurised" where I would use the
:>word "pressured".
:>
:>For example
:>"He was pressurised into buying a time share."
:>
:>I would say
:>"He was pressured into buying a time share."
:>
:>My question is:
:>Are these people correct to say "pressurised" like this?
:>Is the way I use "pressured" correct?
:
:Frankly, I find it rather neat how longer jargon continues to push out simpler
:terms--I mean, does anyone get "pressed" into doing something, nowadays?
:According to my dictionary, "pressure" first began to be used as a verb circa
:1938. "Pressurize" appeared around 1940.
:
:I cannot say whether British usage differs from American on usage of these
:words, but this is my understanding: both "pressure" and "pressurize" may be
:used to mean "to apply pressure to".
This particular Brit (who may not be representative) wouldn't use 'pressed'
in that fashion. When I was 'volunteered' to a position in the officers
mess I was pressed; I didn't have any say in the matter; when I was dragged
into a charity cycle ride I was pressured; I could have refused if I had
resisted the peer pressure.
Graham
(If I'd been attacked by a bunch of subalterns with bicycle pumps, only
then would I have been pressurized ;-) )