| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repetition is the key comedic device.
Search Posts
I'd never thought to use jade as a reagent. There are two minerals in jade: nephrite — Ca₂(Mg, Fe)₅Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂
Both of these are solid, naturally-occuring minerals and neither are chemically reactive on their own, so I'm not sure how one could use jade as a reagent in normal chemical... um... [Rereads original post] Uh... Never mind!
Not a fair comparison. Whilst is a proper British English word. Boni is simply wrong. My general recommendation is for Americans to avoid using British expressions and spelling. Frankly, such use of Britishisms by Americans is pretentious and makes one sound like a wazzock.
I believe that I spoke to this very question about three-and-a-half years ago...
x + (x+1) = 1.10 2x + 1 = 1.10 2x = 0.10 x = 0.05 (BTW, this puzzle dates to the 1920s. I usually update this puzzle for inflation: "A bat and a ball together cost $55. The bat costs $50 more than the ball. How much does each cost.")
You damn kids with your web-pods and your e-phones, and your rap-hop music... Get off my lawn!
So what IS 'riffing'?I know what "riffing" is, but what the hell is "yiffing?"What is 'riffing'? saw this in a couple post recently.As long as it's not 'yiffing.' Sorry. riff /rɪf/ noun 1. (in jazz or rock music) a short series of chords. verb, intransitive 2. To play or perform riffs in jazz or rock music. 3. (informal) To speak amusingly about a subject, or make an amusing series of remarks. In this case, I think we mean definition 3.
Drops back in thread to repeat same troll bait from days/weeks/months ago. Pedantic critique of poster's use of language, focusing on a shade of meaning that clearly was not intended by poster.
Aqua regia is a mixture of concentrated nitric acid and concentrated hydrochloric acid that has been known since early modern times. It can dissolve numerous materials that are resistant to other acids, including the "noble netals" gold and platinum. [EDIT: Ah. It would appear that Mr. Orthos managed to submit a post answering Dr. Krieger while I was writing my own text. God show, sir! You did that stealthily, like the Ninja of Japanese legend!]
This thread made me look up the rules of "lie" vs. "lay" again and I still don't think I've got it right.My wife has this on a coffee mug. I must have read it 100 times. I still don't remember. A large part of the confusion is that the past tene of "to lie" is "lay." present tense: "I am going to lie down now."
The past tense of the verb "to lay" is "laid." present: "I'll just lay this book on the table."
To further cloud the matter: It's not improper to use "lay" reflexively, with an object that refers back to the subject. e.g. "Now I lay me down to sleep."
I believe you mean "bonuses." I wrote a detailed explaiation of this to another poster some time ago. (q.v.)
Bogart things? Captain? bogart (v.t.): Take more than your fair share of something consumable, especially when referring to food, alcohol, cigarettes, or illicit drugs; synonymous to "hog." Example: "Dude! Don't bogart the Cheetos!" The word is presumably a reference to the actor Humphrey Bogart, due to the perception that his film characters tend to drink and smoke excessively.
Sidestepping the question of inclusiveness, repeatedly using "he or she" and "him or her" in a paragraph often results in awkward sentence structure that can confuse the reader.
Using the third person plural pronoun they (and inflected forms them and theirs) for undetermined/inclusive singular is extremely common, levaing little ambiguity in meaning. This usage has been common in spoken English for centuries, and has observed in written English for about as long. (e.g. Chaucer used it in _Canterbury Tales_ in 1395). Traditionally, such usage has been considered "informal" or "colloquial," and its use in writing (especially formal writing) was discouraged by publishers. Recently, many publishers are finally embracing this usage in formal writing. However, most style guides still recommend constructing sentences to avoid the form. c.f. Wikipedia.
At least you didn't get eaten by a Grue.
Etymologically, the word "courtesan" did indeed refer to a noblewoman, but as early as the mid-15th century, the word developed a common double-meaning to refer to the mistress of a man of rank. That meaning became its primary meaning by late 15th century, and about that time it developed a new colloquial meaning to refer to the higher-class prostitutes that men of rank would indulge themselves with. The "prostitute" meaning (esp. a "high-end" implication) has been the primary meaning of "courtesan" since at least the time of Shakespeare.
Steel tomes from the school / tower on mommy's shift and make sure there from the high shelves in the back because every1 knows those are the most fun. Mommy gets fired for steeling and kid gets new found knowledge of spells (gate, meteor swarm, mage's disjunction, ext.) Wouldn't steel tomes be too heavy for a magic-user to carry? ;-)
I do have a better solution: Four parts London dry gin (I prefer Bombay Sapphire), four parts Italian vermouth (I prefer Martini & Rossi), a dash of orange bitters. Stir with ice, pour into a martini glass and garnish with a lemon twist. The next poster likes that solution.
I approve of this thread. Salutations, Mr. Grammarian! Did we meet at the 1989 Linguistcs conference in Oslo, or have I confused you with a different proponent of proper usage?
And, to get truly technical, while the English word "bonus" is indeed a direct borrowing from Latin, in Latin bonus is the masculine singular form of the adjective bonum meaning "good", or as a noun "a good thing." Its use in English goes back to the mid-18th century, so it's not terribly old from a linguistic perspective. As far as I can tell, it's always been used in this fashion. Its proper plural in English is "bonuses". As Latin uses grammatical gender, bonus (plural boni) used as a noun means "a good man." Technically, the the correct word to borrow from Latin would have been bonum (plural bona), the neuter form that means "a good thing." Presumably the original coiner of the term wasn't as knowledgable of Latin as he thought he was, or the first common usage referred to people. Regardless, the meaning of the modern English word "bonus" (a little something extra) is distinct from its Latin root, and its proper plural is "bonuses." Using "boni" as a plural of "bonus" is simply wrong in modern usage. Deliberately doing so would indicate either hubristic pretentiousness, or an attempt at jocularity.
"I'd rather decline ten German beers than one German adjective."
Grammatically, English is an extremely simple language compared with most other Indo-European languages What makes English so challenging to both native and nonnative speakers alike are:
I might add the aforementioned irregular pluralization. Part of the reason for the variance is that English is extremely friendly both to borrowing words from other languages, and to neologisms. Englishis part of the Germanic language family, and the basic grammatical structure shows that; however it split from the other modern Germanic languages earliest-- most likely due to the geographic isolation of Britain from the European continent. After the Norman conquest in the mid-11th century, French became the court and legal language, and many French-derived words entered the vernacular. Later, during the Renaissance, a resurgence of Latin scholarship brought in more words of direct Latin derivation-- many were directly borrowed from the esteemed language of the Ancients, while others were newly constructed Latinate words. This process continued during the reign of Latin as the primary language of scholarship. A rough estimate is that about 30% of the English lexicon derives each from Germanic, French, and Latin roots; and the remaining 10% isfrom other sources (other languages or neologisms). Consequently, many (if not most) concepts have three roughly synonymous words with slightly different shades of meaning. Example: an adjective meaning "pertaining to the monarch" could be: "kingly" (Germanic), "royal" (French), or "regal" (Latin). [And, to Abyssanian: Both Polish and Russian are in the Balto-Slavic language family.]
Bah. Magus is a English word now, thus it is pluralized by adding a ‘s” or “es”. Same with octopus. ;-) Actually, no. James is correct re: plural of "magus" being "magi." The words are direct borrows from Latin, effectively becoming an English word with an irregular plural form. English has PLENTY of those, most of which aren't borrowed from other languages. (e.g. "man/men"). Also, the proper plural of "octopus" has always been "octopuses." (Although, I suppose it should technically be "octopodes"). The word was coined in the late 18th century by an English naturalist whose name escapes me, from the Greek "octo-" for 8, and "pus" (suffix form of "pod") for "foot." Greek was in vogue for scholars at the time. A lot of people assumed that "octopus" was a singular Latin word, because it ends in "-us," and over-corrected by pluralizing it as a Latin word. Hence, the popular-but-wrong "octopi".
...on my Knowledge (esoteric) check when a particularly vexatious undergraduate posed a cutting question which would, under normal circumstances, cause me to wax philosophical regarding the merits of politeness in pedagogy. Unfortunately, I ended up staring at him, mouth agape, like a rube! Most distressing!
Of course a van goes when one puts it into gear, assuming that:
The famous Dutch painter's name is pronounced "van-GOKH" in the Queen's English! The next poster is an erudite chap who takes formal education seriously! |