|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 346 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 250 of 346:
| 
May 13 06:38 UTC 1995 |
It looks like the last laugh is on the techwriter, but she had me fooled.
I had never heard it used that way, but it shows up in my dictionary, too.
My dictionary is missing all the new-fangled words, so I guess it proves
that people have been verbing nouns for a very long time.
|
nephi
|
|
response 251 of 346:
|
May 13 17:25 UTC 1995 |
What *is* so bad about verbing nouns?
|
other
|
|
response 252 of 346:
|
May 14 21:36 UTC 1995 |
It flies in the face of convention, and excites those minds which do not
readily accept changes. Verbing nouns does not effectively diminish
communication, it it merely an adaptation forming within a living
language. Substitute "is" for the second "it" in the previous sentence.
|
tsty
|
|
response 253 of 346:
|
May 15 04:28 UTC 1995 |
lots of meetings need to be minuted - they would be so minute that
they would take no time at all! (the other word, my-nute')
|
srw
|
|
response 254 of 346:
|
May 15 07:01 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, I'm one of the stick-in-the-mud language conservatives who would
rather say "take minutes" than turn minute into a verb. However, it seems
that that has already been done.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 255 of 346:
|
May 15 07:24 UTC 1995 |
Robert's Rules of Order does not use the verb form of minute. This
establishes the precedent for the forms such as "take the minutes",
in which "minutes" are just a noun.
|
tsty
|
|
response 256 of 346:
|
May 15 08:42 UTC 1995 |
minutes doesn't make sense as a verb.
|
davel
|
|
response 257 of 346:
|
May 15 11:57 UTC 1995 |
Agreed. That doesn't stop the kind of people who lunch together regularly,
though.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 258 of 346:
|
May 15 14:51 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 259 of 346:
|
May 15 16:09 UTC 1995 |
Third person present: "she minutes the meeting".
|
mwarner
|
|
response 260 of 346:
|
May 15 23:50 UTC 1995 |
And why are we "taking" minutes anyhow. Where are we taking them?
(mwarner takes a minute to think about that one)
|
davel
|
|
response 261 of 346:
|
May 16 00:02 UTC 1995 |
Take it somewhere else, please!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 346:
|
May 16 06:32 UTC 1995 |
"taking" is pretty versatile: taking notes, taking ill, taking time,
taking a walk, taking the cure, taking one's temperature....are
you suggesting we take a walk, davel?
|
tsty
|
|
response 263 of 346:
|
May 16 10:07 UTC 1995 |
and there is the Takings Bill ... in front of Crumgress somewhere ...
|
srw
|
|
response 264 of 346:
|
May 17 13:08 UTC 1995 |
Answer to 260: Taking them down on paper.
|
tsty
|
|
response 265 of 346:
|
May 18 02:07 UTC 1995 |
"onto"
|
srw
|
|
response 266 of 346:
|
May 18 10:22 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm. I've never heard "onto" used where I used "on" just there.
It seems like it ought to be better, but it sounds wrong.
I think "taking notes down on paper" is an expression.
|
freida
|
|
response 267 of 346:
|
May 19 02:50 UTC 1995 |
can anyone do the "affect" "effect" thing for me so I don't have to go through
all 266 things to find it? Thanks in advance!
|
tsty
|
|
response 268 of 346:
|
May 19 04:16 UTC 1995 |
#267 has an "effect" on me; it "affects" me.
The "effect" is to respond with "affection," but not with "affectation."
Affect is a transitive verb, effect is a noun.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 269 of 346:
|
May 19 05:17 UTC 1995 |
Effect is also a transitive verb. The comparison with affect is:
Affect: to cause a change in something.
Effect: to bring something about.
"The discussion affected the compromise." - the discussion changed the
text of the compromise.
"The discussion effected the compromise." - the discussion led to the
implementation of the compromise.
|
freida
|
|
response 270 of 346:
|
May 19 06:51 UTC 1995 |
Thank you both very kindly...I keep running across the word in my
dictation tapes (i do medical transcriptions) and it is difficult to
tell which is being said...I think that affect is the operative
word for me, since it will cause a change in something, again, thanks!
|
macalpin
|
|
response 271 of 346:
|
May 19 13:49 UTC 1995 |
"At a high rate of speed," used by newscasters and cops. Nonsense.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 272 of 346:
|
May 19 21:31 UTC 1995 |
A "rate of speed" would be an acceleration. But they just mean speed,
of course. I wonder how it got started though...what was wrong with
just "high speed"?
|
tsty
|
|
response 273 of 346:
|
May 20 13:06 UTC 1995 |
ignornace about "rate."
|
robh
|
|
response 274 of 346:
|
May 20 14:26 UTC 1995 |
And "high rate of speed" sound better, I s'pose.
My pet peeve is when basketball announcers refer to the
difference between the time on the shot-clock and the time on
the game-clock as the "shot-clock differential". Now I'm no
expert at higher maths, but I know what a differential is,
and it has damned little to do with the *difference* between
the two numbers... But of course, "differential" sounds better
on TV, so they use it. Feh.
|
