Slashdot Mirror

Any German will know. It's use stems from a time when you were just as likely to find a scientific text in German - the 99.99% English dominance (in international scientific publications) happened after 1933...

http://www.word-detective.com/...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

You appear to be in error about the etymology of "money laundering".
That Al Capone operated laundromats appear to be coincidental, and not the basis for using the term money laundering to make dirty money appear clean.

What are we supposed to do with " its' " should everybody suddenly remember it? Maybe you can enlighten us as to what that particular set of symbols represents and its proper usage.

http://garyes.stormloader.com/its.html

"And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'."

http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html#its

If you were looking for a gender-neutral possessive plural, try " themses' " as in, "Those trucks need new chrome on themses' bumpers." Make sure to pronounce it using the accepted Arkansas affectations and drawl.

According to this thing I just Googled, "math" actually predates "maths". Before that, it was "math.", with a period to note that it was an abbreviation.

IMHO, "maths" makes sense when used as an abbreviation of mathematics, and "math" in cases like "math formula".

Personally, I find the "ths" sound difficult to wrap my tongue around.

Me too, I often confuse it with "mass", especially when said by native speakers. Foreign language students seem to care about the separate "th" and "s" sounds, even if the result is much less fluent. (Similarly, I think saying "sixth" as "sikth" sounds weird.)

According to this thing I just Googled, "math" actually predates "maths". Before that, it was "math.", with a period to note that it was an abbreviation.

Personally, I find the "ths" sound difficult to wrap my tongue around.

I believe that it's arrogant to criticize others harshly for minor differences in the way one uses grammar or punctuation, because these rules are all arbitrary.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is a canonical standard for rules of grammar and punctuation, and that rules, once set, don't change. That is simply not the case.

You also don't seem to understand the distinction between the idea of the English language and the arbitrary, often regional, ideas of punctuation and grammar. You also don't seem to understand that there is not and never has been a canonical source for what is "convention" in English, merely independent sources that some choose to submit themselves to, sources which often conflict with one another--only natural, since the matters are of opinion and constantly evolving.

Googling quickly revealed this site: http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html It says:

At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the "ungrammarians" among us, however, I must note that the difference between "it's" and "its" was not always so definite. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was usually considered the possessive of "it" -- in the Fall, a tree shed "it's" leaves. The usual contraction of "it is" was "'tis." Only when "'tis" came to be regarded as an archaic form in the 19th century did the use of "it's" as a contraction of "it is" push out the use of "it's" as a possessive. I know this is a bit hard to follow, but the point is that the "rule" used to be the exact opposite of what it is today.

Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was usually "'tis," as often heard in Shakespeare's plays. Even after the use of "'tis" faded, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction, and the reader would have to judge which was meant by the context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree.

It concludes in favor of using "its" for the possessive and "it's" for the contraction. However while even I generally agree with this principle, since it makes for clearer communication, it is a fact that it's an arbitrary decision, a matter of opinion.

The rule you so staunchly stand by is, in the grand scheme of things, a recent reversal, and an arbitrary distinction. It's just plain arrogant for you to criticize someone else for such a thing--even worse, considering this case is nothing more than a typo. You use it to attack others' credibility, rather than logically arguing with their ideas.

That is an ad hominem attack, by definition. Your attempt to sound educated by pointing out that it's a Latin phrase is transparent. And your repeated misuse of "illiteracy" demonstrates your own.

It would behoove your arguments to argue logically rather than emotionally.

However in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, "it's" was possessive. The contraction was "'tis". http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html

I must admit, these trollish little first posts do make good place holders.

TFA should probably be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm. Interestingly enough, it makes use of the increasingly ubiquitous "vet".

http://www.word-detective.com/101800.html#factoid

Blame it on CNN -- they started the whole ruckus by taking a perfectly good word and twisting it.

"Factoid" is one of those rare words that were undeniably invented by an identifiable individual, in this case Norman Mailer, in his book "Marilyn," published in 1973. The Oxford Dictionary of New Words defines "factoid" thus: "A spurious or questionable fact; especially something that is supposed to be true because it has been reported (and often repeated) in the media, but is actually based on speculation or even fabrication." Norman Mailer himself defined "factoids" as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority."

Mailer invented the word by combining "fact" with "oid," a scientific suffix meaning "resembling or having the form of, but not identical to." Needless to say, "factoids" in Mailer's sense are the antithesis of serious reporting, and to accuse a journalist of trafficking in "factoids" was a grave insult, at least until CNN came along.

"It's true that the game known as "football" in most of the world (not just the UK) is known as "soccer" in the US, but we didn't just pull the word out of the air so that we could call our quasi-gladiatorial extravaganzas "football." In fact, you Brits actually invented the word. "Soccer," when it first appeared in the 1890s, was spelled "socca," which was short for "association" or "association football," meaning football played according to the rules laid down by the British Football Association. It was also called "socker" until the current form "soccer" appeared around 1895."

I agree with 'b-ball' being stupid but it's rarely heard anymore.

'Footie" sounds like a game that teenage sweethearts play under the table when they think nobody's watching, not a pro sport.

The original poster wrote, "Frozen water expands, taking up more room. When the ice melts, the volume it takes up reduces, lowering the sea level." I think that strongly implies they were talking about the expansion and contraction of water, not material trapped within the ice. In any case, even if they did not, they are still wrong. The ice does not take up less space, (being water by definition) but materials trapped within it might be more dense.

Indeed, they were referring to the expansion and contraction of water, in particular during phase changes. Are you claiming that a given mass of H2O has the same volume at solid and liquid temperatures? If so, you are mistaken.

Quit spreading nonsense. The phrase is not anti-Semitic at all. It's a nonsense word coined by a comic strip artist. More information in the third article from the bottom here.

Here's a couple of links explaining that in fact the OP's usage was correct:
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/knock +your+socks+off.html
http://www.word-detective.com/021804.html

Have a look about half way down this page

http://www.word-detective.com/061405.html

Basically, the sarcasm that the "could care less" form uses, implies the missing negative - probably shouldn't be used online given sarcasm is harder to do in written text.

Most peole believe that the grain of salt is the antidote to the mistruth. The true meaning is lost in the mists of time so you might be right or they might be.

According to Word detective:

"It's fitting that you've been looking for the origin of this phrase "forever," because "with a grain of salt" has been around nearly that long. It's actually a translation of the Latin phrase "cum grano salis." There seems to be a bit of a debate about the significance of the Latin phrase, however. Etymologist Christine Ammer traces it to Pompey's discovery, recorded by Pliny in 77 A.D., of an antidote to poison which had to be taken with a small amount of salt to be effective. Everyone else seems to bypass that explanation and trace "with a grain of salt" to the dinner table, where a dash of salt can often make uninspired cooking more palatable. "With a grain of salt" first appeared in English in 1647, and has been in constant use since then. The amount of salt metaphorically needed to make an unlikely statement acceptable often varies from a few grains to a few pounds. With all the flapdoodle being thrust at us these days, I'm surprised there isn't a national salt shortage."

Yes, but see http://www.word-detective.com/072999.html - gormless and gorm can both mean idiot. Confusing.

From here:

"Dear Evan: You may have already addressed this question, but I'd like to hear your opinion on one of my pet peeves. "To beg the question" does not mean anything even remotely similar to "to lead us inexorably to the question" or "causes us inevitably to ask the question." It means to assume an answer to an unstated question or premise. It was used correctly on a recent episode of "The X-Files" when Mulder and Scully were discussing what was purported to be an alien autopsy. The exchange goes something like this: "Mulder: What is that green fluid? Scully: Blood? Mulder: It's widely held that aliens don't have blood. It must some unknown autopsy apparatus. Scully: That begs the question that it's an autopsy, let alone one of an alien." See what I mean? -- Michael Raynor, via the Internet.

I say, your question gives me a marvelous idea. Would you mind writing this column while I nip off to the Bahamas for a month or two? It's really not hard at all -- you just look things up in four or five hundred dictionaries and pick the answer that seems most plausible. I've found that you can usually fill the first paragraph of your answer with silly banter, anyway.

Regarding your question, I do see what you mean. Incidentally, if people on television have begun using proper English, perhaps it's time for me to buy a TV. I have never seen "The X Files," but if what you describe is typical dialog, the scriptwriters must be holding an English major hostage -- they did indeed use "beg the question" correctly. It does not mean "raises the question," or that the question itself begs like Oliver Twist ("Please, Sir, may I have an answer?"). It means to bypass or avoid an essential question, but to proceed as if it had already been answered. The Latin name for this sort of thing is "petitio principii," by the way. In your example, to discuss the color of alien blood sidesteps (or "begs") the rather essential question of whether there are such things as aliens in the first place. Similarly, my offer to you "begs the question" of whether I can afford to go to the Bahamas for a month or two in the first place, which I can't, so I'm afraid the deal's off."

Time to get back to earning my $100,000 ticket to a lifetime of burger-flipping.

I'm pretty sure that some cylinder blocks are all Aluminium. And no I have not mis-spelt it. That's how it's spelt in British English.

Well, if you wish to get back to your roots, it'd be Alumium
But then, you'd probably have to start using "spelled" instead of a rather tasty grain

--
Got the iPod right now, and the PC is shipping. Thanks!

Recent linguistic fieldwork, however, has confirmed the existence of a word gangurru in the northeast Aboriginal language of Guugu Yimidhirr, referring to a species of kangaroo.

See the word history here, or The Word Detective. (The latter is a great site if you're interested in words.)

I couldn't resist, this is the second time I've got the use the same precise link in the same article, but for a different name. This time it's Nimrod instead of assassin.

Apparently, Mensa people don't have site references ever... A potential one Origins of Assassin

Nope. "Their" was commonly used in English to refer to a singular noun until the late 18th century. There's also a more strict linguistic argument that "their" really isn't a pronouin in this instance. See The Word Detective for details (about a third of the way down the page).

Many "mom and pop and kids" circuses that toured small towns could not afford the expense of maintaining large animals such as camels and elephants, or dangerous and also expensive ones such as lions and tigers. Often, their only menagerie was a few dogs and a pony. The majority of their entertainment consisted of clowning, acrobatics and juggling, with a few acts that involved the dogs and pony. The larger, more sophisticated and better equipped circuses came to refer to these little guys as "dog and pony shows."

I'm sure there was the occasional carnie who would put on "special" shows for select clients, but so far as I know beastiality has long been illegal in many US states and, therefore, the practice you describe, performed in the US, would present a very real risk of imprisonment to all participants - hence the legends about "pony shows" down in ye olde Tijuana.

One source is here but it seems boring and reasonable. From the year 1848 and related to some ancient gamers. I see no horror.

More generally: what happens when technological advancements threaten the livelihood of various persons and/or business models?

There's the ever-popular luddites which spawned the term sabotage -- is it moral to destroy that which is thought to (or even really will) harm your livelihood? Is it defensible on grounds of self-defense/self-preservation, or is it indefensible technophobia and inflexibility/inability to adapt and ignorant short-sightedness?

Of course I'm intentionally skating around the obviously related *AA issues (MPAA, RIAA) and IP/copyright infringement, incessant extension of copyrights, etc.

But, I think this would be a fun way to start the discussion. Everyone knows about the *AA issues (well, most college students, at least). And, most will have a strong opinion on the isse one way or the other (see any /. article on *AA and IP/copyright).

But, not everyone is familiar with relatively ridiculous-sounding, but strongly-related historical episodes of things like throwing wooden shoes into a machine for fear of being replaced by it (sabots, see links above).

I, for one, would be amused to see how many students who would say stopping such a technological advancement (machinery) to keep some people in their devil-that-they-know occupations was silly and wrong (and short-sighted), and then be faced with quite a logical/moral delimma when IP/copyright laws are discussed in the same vein.

Granted, many students may be anti-RIAA/MPAA to begin with out of greed/ignorance and not really have given it much though, so you may have to find a few whose family members benefit from the *AA and IP/copytight extensions somehow to get a real reaction, but it would be enlightening to all nonetheless, IMHO.

Odd, since the word "soccer" is a British invention.

Hey, I'll admit it, I D/L lots o stuff from new games to new cd's. THAT'S WHY I GOT CABLE. If they decide to penalize me for using my cable for what I got it for then I'll drop it and go back to my $10/month dial up.

begin off-topic dead horse beating

You are correct.

However, "it's" really should mean either it is or the thing that it owns.

"It's" as a contraction for "it is" is obviously correct.

But so is "it's" as an "apostrophe-s" possesive. Compare:

Cmdr Taco has a Ferrari. Cdmr Taco's car sure is fast!

That computer has a 750 Gig hard drive. It's hard drive sure is big!

In fact, this possesive form was correct until the 19th century. Check out this link for an interesting history of the usage.

end off-topic dead horse beating>

go fuck yourself IN THE FACE, stupid nigger boy

Actually, he didn't.