What is the word for "make disappear"?
linq936
If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So they
do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
Thanks.
Unknown
The Grammer Genious
<Michael West> wrote in message
news:ehg1l3daonjhmc5fc...@4ax.com...
The action moots the problem.
tony cooper
eradicates
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
>Hi,
Not stipend, look it up.
For the question, the problem has gone into remission, or the problem
is hiding to show up at a less opportune time.
Such and such has masked the problem.
--
John
Unknown
I'd make a detour around "moot" because of pondesque differences.
"Mitigate" is voguish among info tech types. Try "We can't solve the
problem, but we can mitigate its effects".
Steve Hayes
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:32:54 GMT, "The Grammer Genious"
><waup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Michael West> wrote in message
>>news:ehg1l3daonjhmc5fc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936 <lin...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>>>disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
>>>>can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>>>>
>>>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
>>>>happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So they
>>>>do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
>>>
>>> Eliminate.
>>
>>The action moots the problem.
>
>I'd make a detour around "moot" because of pondesque differences.
Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
proposal".
Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
moot vb (tr) to suggest or bring up for debate.
I was once amused to hear a child, hurrying to get dressed for school, yell to
his brothers "Who's disappeared my socks?"
So why can't "disappear" be used as a transitive verb?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Hatunen
<lin...@gmail.com> wrote:
Teh Merriam-Webster onliune dictionary shows "disappear" as a
transitive verb. As does dictionary.com.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
R H Draney
>
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936
><lin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
>>can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>>
>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
>>happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So they
>>do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
>
>Teh Merriam-Webster onliune dictionary shows "disappear" as a
>transitive verb. As does dictionary.com.
The term of art in stage magic is "vanish", as in "I will now vanish this Bengal
tiger before your very eyes"....r
--
"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I was once amused to hear a child, hurrying to get dressed for school, yell to
> his brothers "Who's disappeared my socks?"
>
> So why can't "disappear" be used as a transitive verb?
It's used as a transitive verb in American English. The online M-W
lists a transitive usage that would apply even to socks. AHD
recognizes the transitive usage with respect to people only, something
I think you'd hear when discussing Argentina or the Cosa Nostra.
Encarta says "to make a political opponent disappear." I don't know
if this usage has yet taken hold on the other side of the pond, but
I've encountered it several times, particularly with respect to
people, here in Leftpondia.
JF
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
Why not 'end' or is that too simple? JF
Unknown
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>proposal".
>
>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
Arcadian Rises
> Hatunen filted:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936
> ><linq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> �If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
> >>disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
> >>can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>
> >> �The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
> >>happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So they
> >>do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
>
> >Teh Merriam-Webster onliune dictionary shows "disappear" as a
> >transitive verb. As does dictionary.com.
>
> The term of art in stage magic is "vanish", as in "I will now vanish this Bengal
> tiger before your very eyes"....r
"Evanesce" and "evaporate" if you want to go picturesque.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
I knew that those who had been arrested by a former Argentinian regime and
never seen again were referred to as "the disappeared", but I didn;t think of
that as a transitive usage. I thought it meant that they had disappeared (into
the maw of the state apparatus), not that they had "been" disappeared.
I believe the current term for such things is "rendered".
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2007/11/extraordinary-rendition.html
Steve Hayes
I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
(?) one is new to me.
Father Ignatius
> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this
> problem disappear." I think there is one word to replace
> "make disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete,
> but not exactly I want.
Re-writing is often what you need:
This makes the problem go away.
> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one
> knows why it happens, when they do some random thing, the
> problem is gone. So they do not believe they solve the
> problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
But how about this?:
This resolves the problem.
--
Nat
-----
"When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge
than to let him keep her."
---Sacha Guitry
cybercypher
>>
>> >> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this
>> >> problem disappear." I think there is one word to
>> >> replace "make disappear", I can think of stipend,
>> >> remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>>
>> >> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why
>> >> it happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is
>> >> gone. So they do not believe they solve the problem -- so
>> >Teh Merriam-Webster onliune dictionary shows "disappear" as a
>> >transitive verb. As does dictionary.com.
>>
>> The term of art in stage magic is "vanish", as in "I will now
>> vanish this Bengal tiger before your very eyes"....r
>
> "Evanesce" and "evaporate" if you want to go picturesque.
What's wrong with "That action disappears this problem"? "To
disappear" is also a transitive word that means the same as the
transitive "to vanish".
Frank ess
I'm going to nominate "disguises" in the context of the second "random
thing" paragraph. Way I understand it, the problem occurs, goes away,
recurs. Perhaps the randomness of the "cures" disguises the solution.
--
Frank ess
jinhyun
Since these chaps you talk about aren't the active agents of the
problem disappearing, it is unnecessary, even perhaps a little
inappropriate, to make them the subjects of the verb. Say 'When they
do this, the problem does not appear' or 'When they do this, the
problem disappears'; the former is, I think, preferrable.
Don Phillipson
news:ab2805f0-ec20-4666...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
> can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
This is why the Thesaurus was created (about 200 years ago.)
It groups words approximately by their meaning, ordered by
the different parts of speech. Thus when we look up an idea
such as DISAPPEAR we find in close proximity others like
VANISH and ABOLISH that are closely related in idea but not
linguistically.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> What's wrong with "That action disappears this problem"? "To
> disappear" is also a transitive word that means the same as the
> transitive "to vanish".
Too recent and still voguish. (IOW, I don't use it myself.)
As I noted earlier, however, some dictionaries already include the
transitive use, so the remaining question is how soon the opposition
will surrender.
Nick Atty
extirpates
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Hatunen
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And in Latin America where they are the disaparados.
John O'Flaherty
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:44:06 -0500, Robert Lieblich
><r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>> I was once amused to hear a child, hurrying to get dressed for school, yell to
>>> his brothers "Who's disappeared my socks?"
>>>
>>> So why can't "disappear" be used as a transitive verb?
>>
>>It's used as a transitive verb in American English. The online M-W
>>lists a transitive usage that would apply even to socks. AHD
>>recognizes the transitive usage with respect to people only, something
>>I think you'd hear when discussing Argentina or the Cosa Nostra.
>>Encarta says "to make a political opponent disappear." I don't know
>>if this usage has yet taken hold on the other side of the pond, but
>>I've encountered it several times, particularly with respect to
>>people, here in Leftpondia.
>
>And in Latin America where they are the disaparados.
Desaparecidos. Or disparados - shot.
--
John
Pat Durkin
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
news:cn73l39fjjpg045rq...@4ax.com...
Oleg Lego
>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>proposal".
>>>
>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>
>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>
>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>
>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>
>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>(?) one is new to me.
I've heard "to table <something>" in the sense of both "We'll leave
that for now", and for "Let's talk about it now".
R H Draney
And there, in full STS splendor, are the Eagles...(more accurately, there is
8-year-old Sheila Behman, who sang the Eagles' song on the "Innocence and
Despair" CD from the Langley Schools Music Project)....r
Hatunen
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:13:53 +0200, Steve Hayes posted:
>
>>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>>proposal".
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>>
>>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>>
>>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>>
>>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>>
>>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>>(?) one is new to me.
>
>I've heard "to table <something>" in the sense of both "We'll leave
>that for now", and for "Let's talk about it now".
Isn't that a left- right-pondian thing? When Americans table a
motion it's left to another time, wehn Brits table a motion it's
put on the table for discussion?
See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/table
Paul Wolff
>linq936 <lin...@gmail.com> het geskryf:
>
>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this
>> problem disappear." I think there is one word to replace
>> "make disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete,
>> but not exactly I want.
>
>Re-writing is often what you need:
>
> This makes the problem go away.
>
>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one
>> knows why it happens, when they do some random thing, the
>> problem is gone. So they do not believe they solve the
>> problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
>
>But how about this?:
>
> This resolves the problem.
>
what has happened) necessarily resolves it.
Two more verbs to add to your arsenal: obviate and forestall.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
HVS
> Hi,
> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make
> disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not
> exactly I want.
>
> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows
> why it
> happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So
> they do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not
> the word.
How about "evaporate"?
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Duncanson
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>proposal".
>>>
>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>
>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>
>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>
>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>
>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>(?) one is new to me.
In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
There are accepted exceptions such as an up-to-the-minute
sitrep.
I was at one meeting where a report that should have been
distributed to members some days previously was tabled. The
chairman pointedly ignored it except to push it to one side. He
simply announced that it would be put on the agenda for the next
meeting. The unfortunate wretch who had written the report had
to raise any time-critical items from it during Any Other
Business. His future offerings to the committee were well on
time.
[1] I always had to check that I had the right letters doubled
in "committee".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936 <lin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear", I
>>can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>>
>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
>>happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So they
>>do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not the word.
>
>
> Eliminate.
>
Obviate
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
> In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
> document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
> the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
>
> This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
> chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
My Australian experience is that a document is read out (perhaps not in
full) and is then tabled so that committee members may look at it after
the meeting. A decision is usually taken at the following meeting,
though not always; sometimes, a letter might be tabled just because it
is of interest. I've never come across tabling an issue.
--
Rob Bannister
Unknown
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:33:41 -0600, Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:13:53 +0200, Steve Hayes posted:
>>
>>>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>>>proposal".
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>>>
>>>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>>>
>>>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>>>
>>>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>>>
>>>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>>>(?) one is new to me.
>>
>>I've heard "to table <something>" in the sense of both "We'll leave
>>that for now", and for "Let's talk about it now".
>
>Isn't that a left- right-pondian thing? When Americans table a
>motion it's left to another time, wehn Brits table a motion it's
>put on the table for discussion?
>
>See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/table
Uh, Dave, you might want to have another read of what I wrote in the
post you followed up (just above).
Peter Duncanson
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>>
>> In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
>> document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
>> the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
>>
>> This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
>> chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
>
>My Australian experience is that a document is read out (perhaps not in
>full) and is then tabled so that committee members may look at it after
>the meeting. A decision is usually taken at the following meeting,
>though not always;
Committees vary by nature, purpose and procedure. I can't claim
to be familiar with the procedures and customs of all British
committees, Thank God.
> sometimes, a letter might be tabled just because it
>is of interest. I've never come across tabling an issue.
Nor me.
Don Aitken
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
The (British) parliamentary usage is that you table a Motion by taking
it to the Table Office and giving it to Table Clerk. The Table Clerks
also spend part of their time sitting at an actual physical table in
the chamber of the House, but you won't get anywhere trying to give
your Motion to them while they are doing that, although I think that
was the original practice. Eventually your Motion, if found in order,
will appear on the Order Paper, which is something like an agenda.
That means that it *may* be discussed, although most never are.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Skitt
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>> In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
>>> document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
>>> the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
>>>
>>> This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
>>> chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
>>
>> My Australian experience is that a document is read out (perhaps not
>> in full) and is then tabled so that committee members may look at it
>> after the meeting. A decision is usually taken at the following
>> meeting, though not always;
>
> Committees vary by nature, purpose and procedure. I can't claim
> to be familiar with the procedures and customs of all British
> committees, Thank God.
>
>> sometimes, a letter might be tabled just because it
>> is of interest. I've never come across tabling an issue.
>
> Nor me.
Let's table this, then.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Her Anonymous Boss
The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
| table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
Hatunen
You basically said it was a pondian ambiguity: "To "table" an
issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity". While I
repeated that, I was trying to show where the ambiguity lie. I
suppose I was a bit redundant to you, though. Unless, of course,
the Canadians use it in the British sense.
Skitt
Eureka! You have found it.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California) [that's U.S.]
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Unknown
Canadians? Sorry, I'm getting loster with each post in this thread. I
had meant to call attention to the pondian differences with respect to
both "moot" and "table" (used as verbs). Here in Australia the BrE
meanings are customary, though intrusions of AmE are always confusing
the issue.
It seemed like you were responding to my post my simply paraphrasing
what I wrote. But no matter.
Me, I'm a transplanted Yank in Oz, so I just have to calculate the
speaker's or writer's most likely intended meaning on the basis of
their age, education, place of national origin and the discursive
context. Piece of brioche!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:13:53 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>>proposal".
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>>
>>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>>
>>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>>
>>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>>
>>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>>(?) one is new to me.
>
>In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
>document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
>the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
>
>This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
>chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
In my experience it is reports and documents that are tabled, not motions. And
while they may be physically put on the table, it does not necessarily mean
that copies have not been distributed to members of the deliberative body
beforehand. But when they are tabled they are formally presented to the body.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
I'm not sure that that is quite accurate.
In South Africa (where the usage is based on British parliamentary procedure)
it does not mean to propose but to present.
When a report is tabled it is formally presented to the body that commissioned
it. It may then be discussed, or motions arising from the report may be
discussed. There may then be a proposal that the report be accepted.
Steve Hayes
>On 01 Dec 2007, linq936 wrote
>
>> Hi,
>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make
>> disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not
>> exactly I want.
>>
>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows
>> why it
>> happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So
>> they do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not
>> the word.
>
>How about "evaporate"?
Melt, thaw, and reolve itself into a dew.
R H Draney
>
>Her Anonymous Boss wrote:
>>
>> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
>>
>>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
>
>Eureka! You have found it.
Someone made a table of such words?...r
John Holmes
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:39:47 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Nov 2007 20:11:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936
>>> <lin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>>> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make disappear",
>>>> I can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not exactly I want.
>>>>
>>>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why it
>>>> happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So
>>>> they do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not
>>>> the word.
>>>
>>> Eliminate.
>>
>> eradicates
>
> extirpates
"This removes the problem."
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Garrett Wollman
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Pat Durkin filted:
>>Or Desperados/desesperados,
>
>And there, in full STS splendor, are the Eagles...(more accurately, there is
>8-year-old Sheila Behman, who sang the Eagles' song on the "Innocence and
>Despair" CD from the Langley Schools Music Project)....r
Can I help? The first bit on tonight's "Prairie Home Companion" was a
hilarious pastiche of "The Sounds of Silence" on a theme of "The
Sounds of Sickness". (The live recording should be available on the
show's Web site, <http://www.prairiehome.org/>, on Monday.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Garrett Wollman
Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com> wrote:
>I've heard "to table <something>" in the sense of both "We'll leave
>that for now", and for "Let's talk about it now".
And in fact, both senses are used by the United States Congress: one
can table an amendment (by bringing it to the clerk's desk and drawing
the presiding officer's attention to it) or the house can table a
motion (almost always in the passive voice as in "the motion to
reconsider shall be laid upon the table"[1]). The former allows for
consideration to begin (although depending on the rules it may not do
so immediately) and the latter terminates consideration of a motion.
In parliamentary procedure, there is a difference between offering a
motion and taking one off the table in that the latter may be
permitted at times that the former is not. In the House, when a bill
is passed, a motion to reconsider arises automatically, and so must be
tabled -- "laid upon the table" -- in order for the House to proceed
with other business.
(Another odd bit of parliamentary procedure, used only in the House,
is a motion to "strike the last word", which is used by a member to
extend the debate by another five minutes after the normal time for
debate has expired. The motion itself never comes to a vote, so it
can be offered multiple times on the same matter.)
-GAWollman
[1] I think the full speech goes something like, "The yeas are 234,
the nays are 200, the bill is agreed to, and the motion to consider is
laid upon the table." Then a member will go to the well, be
recognized by the speaker, and move by unanimous consent "that all
members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks,
and include extraneous material, in that section of the record
entitled 'Extension of remarks'."
John Holmes
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:13:34 -0800, Her Anonymous Boss
> <boschb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
>>
>>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
>
> I'm not sure that that is quite accurate.
>
> In South Africa (where the usage is based on British parliamentary
> procedure) it does not mean to propose but to present.
>
> When a report is tabled it is formally presented to the body that
> commissioned it. It may then be discussed, or motions arising from
> the report may be discussed. There may then be a proposal that the
> report be accepted.
Yes, "to propose" is definitely wrong.
Another common context is in committees such as community groups, sports
clubs etc, at which the secretary will table recent items of
correspondence. It just means that they get incorporated into the
minutes of the meeting. There might or might not be motions arising from
the various items.
"To present" sounds accurate for that.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Skitt filted:
> >
> >Her Anonymous Boss wrote:
> >>
> >> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
> >>
> >>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
> >
> >Eureka! You have found it.
>
> Someone made a table of such words?
Obviously so, given that the table exists, so the question is moot.
John O'Flaherty
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:50:13 GMT, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 01 Dec 2007, linq936 wrote
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make
>>> disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not
>>> exactly I want.
>>>
>>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows
>>> why it
>>> happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone. So
>>> they do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is not
>>> the word.
>>
>>How about "evaporate"?
>
>Melt, thaw, and reolve itself into a dew.
So, the problem entity is tabled by going on the "to dew" list.
--
John
Oleg Lego
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:33:41 -0600, Oleg Lego <r...@atatatat.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:13:53 +0200, Steve Hayes posted:
>>
>>>On 30 Nov 2007 23:13:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:40:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Interesting though: in my idiolect to "moot" something means to make a
>>>>>proposal about it. So both "moot" and "propose" are short forms of "make a
>>>>>proposal".
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it's not just my idiolect -- I just checked my dictionary:
>>>>
>>>>Precisely. That's the pondesque issue I was thinking of.
>>>>
>>>>"The issue was mooted" has different meanings in AmE versus
>>>>BrE/AusE/SoAfrE.
>>>>
>>>>To "table" an issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity.
>>>
>>>I was aware of an adjectival difference (often discussed here), but the verbal
>>>(?) one is new to me.
>>
>>I've heard "to table <something>" in the sense of both "We'll leave
>>that for now", and for "Let's talk about it now".
>
>Isn't that a left- right-pondian thing? When Americans table a
>motion it's left to another time, wehn Brits table a motion it's
>put on the table for discussion?
>
>See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/table
In Canada, we use both. I consider the word skunked, though it's often
decipherable by context.
Oleg Lego
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:21:54 -0700, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1 Dec 2007 17:03:02 -0600, Michael West <> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh, Dave, you might want to have another read of what I wrote in the
>>>post you followed up (just above).
>>
>>You basically said it was a pondian ambiguity: "To "table" an
>>issue is another occasion for transoceanic ambiguity". While I
>>repeated that, I was trying to show where the ambiguity lie. I
>>suppose I was a bit redundant to you, though. Unless, of course,
>>the Canadians use it in the British sense.
>
>Canadians? Sorry, I'm getting loster with each post in this thread. I
>had meant to call attention to the pondian differences with respect to
>both "moot" and "table" (used as verbs). Here in Australia the BrE
>meanings are customary, though intrusions of AmE are always confusing
>the issue.
>
>It seemed like you were responding to my post my simply paraphrasing
>what I wrote. But no matter.
Actually, he was responding to my post in which I clarified the
differences in the two meaning of "table".
Steve Hayes
That's exactly as I understand it, but perhaps popular American usage is an
ironic extension of that (who says Americans don't do irony?). Once it is
tabled, nothing will be done about it. As someone once said, a committee is a
cul-de-sac into which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
To receive attention in dew course.
Peter Moylan
> <Michael West> wrote in message
> news:ehg1l3daonjhmc5fc...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), linq936
>>
>>> Hi, If I have sentence like this, "That action makes this problem
>>> disappear." I think there is one word to replace "make
>>> disappear", I can think of stipend, remove, delete, but not
>>> exactly I want.
>>>
>>> The situation is like this, there is a problem no one knows why
>>> it happens, when they do some random thing, the problem is gone.
>>> So they do not believe they solve the problem -- so "solve" is
>>> not the word.
>
> The action moots the problem.
"Moot" is ambiguous even to native speakers of English. It might be
better not to inflict it on non-native speakers.
Personally, I'd say "This action removes the problem."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Garrett Wollman
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's exactly as I understand it, but perhaps popular American usage is an
>ironic extension of that (who says Americans don't do irony?). Once it is
>tabled, nothing will be done about it. As someone once said, a committee is a
>cul-de-sac into which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.
No, the word for killing something by sending it to a committee is,
oddly enough, "committed", or even worse, "recommitted" if the
committee has already reported it out once. (One might wonder how
"committee" came to have the meaning it has, but one also needs to go
to bed soon so one is not going to do the research to find out.)
You can also kill something by amending it, "strik[ing] the enacting
clause".
-GAWollman
Peter Moylan
This appears to be a case where the FAQ needs a revision. As others have
said, you can't, in nonAmE, table an issue or a proposal. It has to be a
document: something that's physically placed on the table. Sometimes
this happens because the person presenting the document didn't get it
finished in time to get it to the committee secretary for distribution.
Sometimes it's because of an item of interest (e.g. a letter) has
arrived at the last minute, in which case it's passed around the table.
Sometimes it's because someone has been asked to provide some
information for the next meeting, and has been up all night collating
the information. In all cases, though, the thing that is tabled is a
written document (sometimes with multiple copies, sometimes not).
This doesn't jeopardise the "own antonym" status of the word, but it
does mean that the "propose" description is wrong.
Since our custom is that the FAQ is rarely revised unless the person
asking for a revision does the work, I hereby suggest the following
modification:
| table = [U.K.] to put forward (a document) for consideration,
[U.S.] to set aside
The fact that the UK meaning is also used in several other countries is more
of a quibble, and I don't propose altering this.
Peter Moylan
> What's wrong with "That action disappears this problem"? "To
> disappear" is also a transitive word that means the same as the
> transitive "to vanish".
Precisely the same? From my reading, a government can disappear a
person, but the transitive use hasn't spread any more widely than that.
R H Draney
If you are heretofore found beaten into unconsciousness in an alley by person or
persons unknown, this post may serve as an explanation....r
Roland Hutchinson
> Robert Lieblich filted:
>>
>>R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>> Skitt filted:
>>> >
>>> >Her Anonymous Boss wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
>>> >>
>>> >>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
>>> >
>>> >Eureka! You have found it.
>>>
>>> Someone made a table of such words?
>>
>>Obviously so, given that the table exists, so the question is moot.
>
> If you are heretofore found beaten into unconsciousness in an alley by
> person or persons unknown, this post may serve as an explanation....r
Those thugs must do quick work.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Robert Lieblich
>
> R H Draney wrote:
>
> > Robert Lieblich filted:
> >>
> >>R H Draney wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Skitt filted:
> >>> >
> >>> >Her Anonymous Boss wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
> >>> >
> >>> >Eureka! You have found it.
> >>>
> >>> Someone made a table of such words?
> >>
> >>Obviously so, given that the table exists, so the question is moot.
> >
> > If you are heretofore found beaten into unconsciousness in an alley by
> > person or persons unknown, this post may serve as an explanation....r
>
> Those thugs must do quick work.
Apparently they move faster than light.
Her Anonymous Boss
Maybe some move lighter than fast.
Robert Bannister
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>
>>>> In my British experience of committee[1] work, to "table" a
>>>> document is to put copies physically on the committee table at
>>>> the beginning of, or even worse during, a meeting.
>>>>
>>>> This is frowned on because committee members do not have a
>>>> chance to read and consider the document before the meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> My Australian experience is that a document is read out (perhaps not
>>> in full) and is then tabled so that committee members may look at it
>>> after the meeting. A decision is usually taken at the following
>>> meeting, though not always;
>>
>>
>> Committees vary by nature, purpose and procedure. I can't claim
>> to be familiar with the procedures and customs of all British
>> committees, Thank God.
>>
>>> sometimes, a letter might be tabled just because it
>>> is of interest. I've never come across tabling an issue.
>>
>>
>> Nor me.
>
>
> Let's table this, then.
>
I've now realised that issues are sometimes "put on the table", which is
not quite the same as being tabled.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
That definitely sounds like the best definition. Perhaps the FAQ should
be changed.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> > Robert Lieblich filted:
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you are heretofore found beaten into unconsciousness in an alley by
>> > person or persons unknown, this post may serve as an explanation....r
>>
>> Those thugs must do quick work.
>
>Apparently they move faster than light.
Okay, so the leap swiss-cheesed my brain....r
Roland Hutchinson
Well, they seem a backward sort at any rate.
Toby A Inkster
> So why can't "disappear" be used as a transitive verb?
Some people do, but I've always found that quite ugly, mostly because it
reverses the meaning of the word. If I say "I eat" or "I eat fish", then
the person who is doing the eating is the same in each. However, with "I
disappear" and "I disappear fish", in the first instance it is to be
understood that it is I who has vanished, whereas in the second, the fish.
So disappear's transitive use doesn't seem to be quite natural. Nor is it
necessary when there are so many other wonderful words which can be used
transitively in its place: erase, eliminate, remove, hide, amputate,
dispel, oust, purge, and so forth.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Sharing Music with Apple iTunes
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/28/itunes-sharing/
Donna Richoux
> John Holmes wrote:
>
> > Steve Hayes wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:13:34 -0800, Her Anonymous Boss
> >> <boschb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The aue FAQ under what words are their own antonym says
> >>>
> >>>> table = [U.K.] to propose, [U.S.] to set aside
[snip discussion]
> > Yes, "to propose" is definitely wrong.
> >
> > Another common context is in committees such as community groups, sports
> > clubs etc, at which the secretary will table recent items of
> > correspondence. It just means that they get incorporated into the
> > minutes of the meeting. There might or might not be motions arising from
> > the various items.
> >
> > "To present" sounds accurate for that.
>
> That definitely sounds like the best definition. Perhaps the FAQ should
> be changed.
The way to get a correction in the FAQ is to email the webmaster, Mike
Barnes, at his own address or at <aue-we...@alt-usage-english.org> .
I see that "table" is not in the "Intro Docs" (which I maintain), just
the big FAQ.
There is still the ethical problem in that Mark Israel did not want his
work of ten years ago changed. Maybe a note could be added.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Father Ignatius
> There is still the ethical problem in that Mark Israel
> did not want his work of ten years ago changed. Maybe a
> note could be added.
<clattering noise of scales falling from eyes>
Enlightenment. I came to the conclusion years ago that the
FAQ was as near cast in stone as makes no practical
difference, but I never understood why.
--
Nat
-----
'We can trace almost all the disasters of English history to
the influence of Wales.'
---Evelyn Waugh, /Decline and Fall/
Bob Cunningham
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> [said]:
>
> > There is still the ethical problem in that Mark Israel
> > did not want his work of ten years ago changed. Maybe a
> > note could be added.
>
> <clattering noise of scales falling from eyes>
> Enlightenment. I came to the conclusion years ago that the
> FAQ was as near cast in stone as makes no practical
> difference, but I never understood why.
It's an unfortunately prevalent and erroneous idea that Mark
Israel's FAQ can't be changed. Mark Israel's FAQ has in
fact been changed a lot, but the changes have been made in
ways that leave Mark's words unchanged except for omissions
of obsolete URLs. People who say the FAQ is "cast in stone"
obviously haven't looked at the FAQ at the alt.usage.english
Web site or having looked have failed to see.
(The entry page of the FAQ is at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/fast_faq.shtml .)
The numerous changes that have been made to Mark Israel's
FAQ are displayed in a different color from that of Mark's
words and they are indented and enclosed in square brackets.
Here for example is an excerpt from the FAQ page at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowtor.html :
====== Begin excerpt from Mark Israel's FAQ discussing ASCII
IPA ======
The following scheme is due to Evan Kirshenbaum
(kirsh...@hpl.hp.com). The complete scheme can be
accessed on the WWW at:
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/>
[There's a PDF version of Evan Kirshenbaum's
definition of ASCII IPA at
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf>.
It's also at
<http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/ascii-ipa.pdf>.
It has graphical illustrations of the IPA symbols.
The plain HTML version is also at
<http://www.kirshenbaum.net/IPA/index.html>.
Evan has stated "The PDF file is the one that should be
treated as authoritative (to the extent that any of
this is)."]
I show here only examples for the sounds most often referred
to in this newsgroup. Where there are two columns, the left
column shows British Received Pronunciation (RP), and the
right column shows a rhotic pronunciation used by at least
some U.S. speakers. (There's a WWW page that shows what the
IPA symbols look like [...].)
[You can see what the IPA symbols look like in the IPA
guide at the AUE Web site.]
The IPA itself has a home page:
<http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/ipa.html>.
====== End FAQ excerpt ======
The different color of the changes won't show up here, but
the indentation and square brackets do. The underlining of
hypertext links also doesn't show in this copy. For
example, "IPA guide" in the last note above is a link.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
People who say the FAQ is "cast in stone" obviously haven't looked
at the FAQ at the alt.usage.english Web site or having looked
have failed to see.
-- Woody Wordpecker 2007
Hatunen
<usenet...@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> So why can't "disappear" be used as a transitive verb?
>
>Some people do, but I've always found that quite ugly, mostly because it
>reverses the meaning of the word. If I say "I eat" or "I eat fish", then
>the person who is doing the eating is the same in each. However, with "I
>disappear" and "I disappear fish", in the first instance it is to be
>understood that it is I who has vanished, whereas in the second, the fish.
>
>So disappear's transitive use doesn't seem to be quite natural. Nor is it
>necessary when there are so many other wonderful words which can be used
>transitively in its place: erase, eliminate, remove, hide, amputate,
>dispel, oust, purge, and so forth.
I don't think those near-synonums quite capture the falavoe of
"disappear", which, as used in these modern times, seems to mean
that a person or item has abruptly ceased to be around; it seems
to carry of sense of "gone forever". Erase is a process that can
be seen happening. A disappeared person has been eliminated, but
an eliminated person might still be around in other contexts.
E.g.,, "When he was eliminated from X comapny he went to work at
Y company".
Similarly for removed. A hidden person or item may be hidden, but
it has not disappeared in the sens "the disappeared" is normally
used.
Usw.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:28:14 +0200, [someone] said:
>
> > Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> [said]:
> >
> > > There is still the ethical problem in that Mark Israel
> > > did not want his work of ten years ago changed. Maybe a
> > > note could be added.
> >
> > <clattering noise of scales falling from eyes>
> > Enlightenment. I came to the conclusion years ago that the
> > FAQ was as near cast in stone as makes no practical
> > difference, but I never understood why.
>
> It's an unfortunately prevalent and erroneous idea that Mark
> Israel's FAQ can't be changed. Mark Israel's FAQ has in
> fact been changed a lot, but the changes have been made in
> ways that leave Mark's words unchanged except for omissions
> of obsolete URLs. People who say the FAQ is "cast in stone"
> obviously haven't looked at the FAQ at the alt.usage.english
> Web site or having looked have failed to see.
>
> (The entry page of the FAQ is at
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/fast_faq.shtml .)
>
> The numerous changes that have been made to Mark Israel's
> FAQ are displayed in a different color from that of Mark's
> words and they are indented and enclosed in square brackets.
>
> Here for example is an excerpt from the FAQ page at
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowtor.html :
[snip]
Okay, so brown italics signify additions or interpolations to the
original text. I hadn't kept track of what was done as a solution, but
that sounds like a good one.
I hope Mark is still making a steady recovery from that severe accident
of 2004... Aha, I tracked down the URL of the log his wife Rosaura
(Rosy) posted, and see there's a message from May 2007 that shows
significant progress. He's correcting her spelling -- now, that's high
level brain functioning.
Mark's Journey Back Home
http://journals.aol.com/rosyisrael/MarksJourneyBackHome/
Bob Cunningham
Don't forget indentation and square brackets.
> I hadn't kept track of what was done as a solution, but
> that sounds like a good one.
Scanning the FAQ today, I see that there could be more
updates. I don't know whether any have been made since I
left the Web master position.
Michael Quinion may have the best idea. He doesn't make any
effort to keep things updated. His entries are dated, and
he leaves it to the reader to learn that they're no longer
valid.
Anyway, I question the need for a fix with regard to the
"table" contronym thing. A dictionary says "table" means to
lay things on a table for consideration, and one of the
things it says might be so laid is a proposal. Is laying a
proposal on the table for consideration really so much
different from proposing?
It may be that there are things in the contronym list that
people would think more questionable than the "table" thing.
I've wondered about some of them. The list is at
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhatwo.html .
For example, how about
commencement =
beginning, conclusion ("high school commencement")
?
I don't think anyone intends school commencement to mean a
conclusion. I believe it's called "commencement" because
it's the starting point to apply what you've learned.
> I hope Mark is still making a steady recovery from that severe accident
> of 2004... Aha, I tracked down the URL of the log his wife Rosaura
> (Rosy) posted, and see there's a message from May 2007 that shows
> significant progress. He's correcting her spelling -- now, that's high
> level brain functioning.
Thanks for that. I've been wondering about Mark. It's
great to hear that there's hope he may once again become the
impressive thinker he once was.
Father Ignatius
> Scanning the FAQ today, I see that there could be more
> updates. I don't know whether any have been made since I
> left the Web master position.
No resemblance at all to "as near cast in stone as makes no
practical difference".
--
Nat
-----
*JACK:* ...no matter what I say, don't react. Just sit
there, relax and do nothing.
*GRACE:* I don't know that I can do that.
*JACK:* Pretend you're having sex with a man just because he
bought you dinner.
---/Will and Grace/, "Swish Out of Water"
Bob Cunningham
<FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> [said]:
>
> > Scanning the FAQ today, I see that there could be more
> > updates. I don't know whether any have been made since I
> > left the Web master position.
>
> No resemblance at all to "as near cast in stone as makes no
> practical difference".
That's true; there's no resemblance at all.
Bob Cunningham
cast something in stone. Casting consists of pouring liquid
or plastic material into a mold so that after the material
hardens a shape results that conforms to the shape of the
interior of the mold.
In the case of metals, the liquid state results from heating
the metals beyond their melting point. To cast in stone, we
would have to melt the stone, forming lava, and pour the
lava into a mold. Has anyone ever done that? I doubt it.
Is the expression "cast in stone" just plain silly?
Father Ignatius
> The subject line leads to reflection on just how we could
> cast something in stone.
IIRC, concrete has been referred to as cast stone, back in
the days when Portland cement was a novelty.
--
Nat
-----
"Why bring that back up? Weren't you humiliated enough the
first time around?"
---Ray O'Hara
Her ominous boss
<FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> het geskryf:
>
> > The subject line leads to reflection on just how we could
> > cast something in stone.
>
> IIRC, concrete has been referred to as cast stone, back in
> the days when Portland cement was a novelty.
There's an article about cast stone and its history at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_stone>
An excerpt from that page:
| Cast stone has been a prime building material for hundreds
| of years. The earliest known use of Cast stone dates about
| to the year 1138 and was seen at Carcassonne, France,
| the city which contains the finest remains of medieval
| fortification in Europe. Cast stone was first used
| extensively in London in the year 1900 and gained
| widespread acceptance in America in 1920.
But cast in stone may still be an inappropriate expression.
Structures are built with cast stone, not cast in stone.
Father Ignatius
> But cast in stone may still be an inappropriate
> expression. Structures are built with cast stone, not
> cast in stone.
Um... I don't knopw if that follows. Structures are cast
in concrete, not built in concrete.
--
Nat
-----
"If Michelangelo had been a heterosexual, the Sistine Chapel
would have been painted basic white and with a roller."
---Rita Mae Brown
Her amorous boss
<FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> said:
> Her ominous boss <boschb...@earthlink.net> het geskryf:
>
> > But cast in stone may still be an inappropriate
> > expression. Structures are built with cast stone, not
> > cast in stone.
>
> Um... I don't knopw if that follows. Structures are cast
> in concrete, not built in concrete.
Structures are cast in a material called concrete.
Building blocks are cast in a material called cast stone.
Structures are built with blocks that are cast in a material
called cast stone.
Structures are not cast in stone.
The aue webmaster
>Since our custom is that the FAQ is rarely revised unless the person
>asking for a revision does the work, I hereby suggest the following
>modification:
>
> | table = [U.K.] to put forward (a document) for consideration,
> [U.S.] to set aside
Thank you - I've done that. Despite what you say about our custom, it is
in fact quite unusual for me to be supplied with the exact wording for
a proposed modification to the FAQ. But when it does happen, it's much
appreciated.
--
Best regards
Mike Barnes
Webmaster, http://alt-usage-english.org/
val189
Banish?
Mike Lyle
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> het geskryf:
>
>> The subject line leads to reflection on just how we could
>> cast something in stone.
>
> IIRC, concrete has been referred to as cast stone, back in
> the days when Portland cement was a novelty.
Well, there was Coade's Artificial Stone in Victorian times: among other
public monuments I think the Euston Station arch or lions were made of
it. But I feel sure that the correct expression is "set in stone" or
"carved in stone". Interference would have come from "cast the first
stone" and perhaps "cast in bronze": a forgivable error, on the whole,
but one certainly to be corrected.
For the fun of it, I'll let this message loose without looking the words
up. That's probably an unforgivable error ...
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Robert Bannister
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> het geskryf:
>
>
>>The subject line leads to reflection on just how we could
>>cast something in stone.
>
>
> IIRC, concrete has been referred to as cast stone, back in
> the days when Portland cement was a novelty.
>
>
And then there's the "plaster cast".
--
Rob Bannister
Theodore de Bere
And let's not forget the casting couch.
John Holmes
Synroc is rather like what you are describing.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/09.htm
The idea behind it is to lock the radioactive elements from nuclear
waste into the crystal structure of minerals in a synthetic rock. That
should have much better long-term integrity than the current technology
of using types of glass.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Donna Richoux
> But I feel sure that the correct expression is "set in stone" or
> "carved in stone". Interference would have come from "cast the first
> stone" and perhaps "cast in bronze": a forgivable error, on the whole,
> but one certainly to be corrected.
"Carved in stone" is what sounds right to me. I looked for "not carved
in stone" at Google Books and Making of America, to get a sense of how
old the expression is. The only one I can find before 1900 is by Edward
Everett Hale, in "How To Do It," 1871:
Do we all understand that in talking, in reading, in
writing, in going into society, in choosing our books
, or in travelling, there is no arbitrary set of
rules? The commandments are not carved in stone.
Then there is a big gap of silence (not counting literal uses, and also
not journals and yearbooks because of the dating problem) until the
1950s and 60s:
Better Wage Incentives - Page 209 by Phil Carroll -
Wages - 1957 - 230 pages Your contract is not carved
in stone. Can it not be rewritten by managements just as
readily as it is by union negotiators?
Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical
Societies in the United States - Page 77 by Howard B.
Radest - Philosophy - 1969 - 348 pages ...The figure
of Adler did not loom larger than human; his words
were not carved in stone; his life did not climb
to a climactic event. ...
By the way, I see a way to identify quickly whether a Google Book entry
is a journal or a book. The ones that give a total number of pages after
the year are books (and so reflect the stated year -- unless they are
reprints....)
Anyway, it's a more modern expression (of dismissing the sanctity of old
wisdom) than I expected.
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But I feel sure that the correct expression is "set in stone" or
>> "carved in stone". Interference would have come from "cast the first
>> stone" and perhaps "cast in bronze": a forgivable error, on the
>> whole, but one certainly to be corrected.
>
> "Carved in stone" is what sounds right to me. I looked for "not carved
> in stone" at Google Books and Making of America, to get a sense of how
> old the expression is. The only one I can find before 1900 is by
> Edward Everett Hale, in "How To Do It," 1871:
> Anyway, it's a more modern expression (of dismissing the sanctity of
> old wisdom) than I expected.
One needs to twiddle the lexical knobs a bit, though. Taking purely
random examples (because I don't know how to get a Ggl Books report in
date order --explanation, please), I find:
1835 among the 669 results for "engraved in stone" and 1846 among 710
with "on";
"graven in stone", 1824, 625 results;
and with "on" 1816, 605.
"Engrave" and "grave" came to mind at once, and feel like the most
promising synonyms to me, but there could be others. "Written" and
"writ" must be worth checking.
Donna Richoux
Well, I figure I would get a lot (too many) of (literal) results for
"carved in stone" so that's why I added the "not". Even then I saw a few
literal results, about something being carved out of some other
material. I think you should do the same for these other verbs.
I can't get G. Books to sort results by date, either, but I can limit
searches to a century, for example, by using this formula:
"search phrase here" date:1800-1900
The "Advanced Search" window used to formulate this, but it stopped
working a few months ago and I haven't tried it again lately. So I go
the regular Search page at Google Books and type this in. I repeat the
search, varying the years in the manner of Twenty Questions.
(I'd like a nice Latinesque adverb meaning "in the manner of Twenty
Questions.")
Herominous Bosch
Richoux) said:
> (I'd like a nice Latinesque adverb meaning "in the manner of Twenty
> Questions.")
à la Twenty Questions
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Who are you, and what have you done with Her Ominous (or was that
"Anonymous"?) Boss?
arbao...@earthlink.net
Are you maybe thinking of Her Amorous Boss?
Mike Lyle
The simplest Latin would be /modo/. But you could have /in modum / or
/ad modum/.
Robert Lieblich
He's quadruplets!
Herominous Bosch
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> said:
> Herominous Bosch wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:15:39 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna
> > Richoux) said:
> >
> >> (I'd like a nice Latinesque adverb meaning "in the manner of Twenty
> >> Questions.")
> >
> > à la Twenty Questions
>
> The simplest Latin would be /modo/. But you could have /in modum / or
> /ad modum/.
Okay but she said Latinesque not Latin. According to an SOD
à la means In the manner, method, or style of and that's
what she asked for. French is mangled Latin so it seems to
me it can be called Latinesque.
arbao...@earthlink.net
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> said:
> arbao...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:03:46 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> > <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> said:
> >
> > > Herominous Bosch wrote:
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > Who are you, and what have you done with Her Ominous (or was that
> > > "Anonymous"?) Boss?
> >
> > Are you maybe thinking of Her Amorous Boss?
>
> He's quadruplets!
Webster's dictionary says the suffix '-let' means 'a small
one,' so is a quadruplet a small quadrup?
Also, is a short journey a triplet?
Roland Hutchinson
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:39:55 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> said:
>
>> Herominous Bosch wrote:
>> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:15:39 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna
>> > Richoux) said:
>> >
>> >> (I'd like a nice Latinesque adverb meaning "in the manner of Twenty
>> >> Questions.")
>> >
>> > à la Twenty Questions
>>
>> The simplest Latin would be /modo/. But you could have /in modum / or
>> /ad modum/.
>
> Okay but she said Latinesque not Latin. According to an SOD
> à la means In the manner, method, or style of and that's
> what she asked for. French is mangled Latin so it seems to
> me it can be called Latinesque.
I think the Lantinesque word for "Latinesque" is Latinate.
As for "ad modum .xx. questionum", I propose "icosadichotomous" as elegant,
if lacking in latinity.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Oleg Lego
Donna Richoux
[DR had said]
> >> >> (I'd like a nice Latinesque adverb meaning "in the manner of Twenty
> >> >> Questions.")
>
> I think the Lantinesque word for "Latinesque" is Latinate.
>
> As for "ad modum .xx. questionum", I propose "icosadichotomous" as elegant,
> if lacking in latinity.
My husband agreed at dinner that "dichotomous" is the word that
describes the branching, yes-no, flow-chart logic that is in, say, keys
to identifying plants. I knew the word had something to do with
splitting, but having looked around a little now, I think I can safely
refer to "dichotomous logic" or a "dichotomous method." It doesn't seem
to get the sequence of questions in there, though. Serial dichotomy?