with this whole issue of misuse of expressions and related googlemetrics, I'm starting to wonder if the ratio of approx. ten is golden or something. a subscriber suggested the (non)word "definately" in response to "mute point":
definitely ~ 6.3 million
definately ~ 600,000
I welcome additional research in support of or in contradiction to this strange coincidence.
wreaking havoc ~ 50,000
wrecking havoc ~ 5000
moot point ~ 64,000
mute point ~ 5800
hubbub ~ 62,000
hub-bub ~ 5700
memoriam ~ 446,000
memorium ~ 44,000
My gosh, tsuwm! That is dadburned interesting! Coincidental? We'll have to see how this Googlemetrics issue unfolds...
here's one where we can see a spelling shift happening…
chaise longue = 26,600 (original!)
chaise lounge = 29,800
Chaise longue? Chaise lounge? They called 'em 'fainting couches,' too, didn't they? Something to do with those whalebone corsettes...
Or long chairs as I likes ta call 'em.
Or long chairs as I likes ta call 'em.
Wouldn't 'spect nuttin' else from an uneddercated backwoodsman like yerownself, Faldo!
- Pfranz
uneddercated backwoodsman
We puts 'em out on the long in the summer an lolls about.
We puts 'em out on the long in the summer an lolls about.
Ah surely figgered.
- Pfranz
We've got one of those. Got it because we wanted an occasional piece in the living room.
chaise tongue ~12,100 hits on google
Emanuela or Someone Else,
Please take me back to basic math since it's been such a long time and I've forgotten too many names of numbers:
1. The number ten divided by 7 equals 1.42857142857142857142857...ad infinitum
2. So that number (1.42857142857142857142857...ad infinitum) is an infinite number and has something to do with our concept of infinity, right?
3. And if you were to consider your index finger exactly (if it were possible) 1 inch away from you thumb and you were instructed to move it to the precise position of 1.42857142857142857142857...ad infinitum (or 10 divided by 7), well, you wouldn't be able to do it because of the nature of infinity. You would only be able to move by consistently changing position as the numbers behind the decimal points continued--and you'd never catch up because of the nature of infinity.
4. Now the question I really want answered: If we agree (those who are on this wagon) that .9999999... equals "1", what does 1.42857142857142857142857... equal? Do we stop at the point at where the sequence begins to repeat, say 1.428571... and that is ample?
And, more importantly, what do we call such a number--a number that is actually infinite, but one we agree to set limits upon?
10/7 is a rational number. Its decimal representation results in a repeating decimal, but, as I pointed out earlier, *all rational numbers have decimal representations that result in repeating decimals. Often that repeating decimal is …00000… and is, by convention, ignored. Thus, when we are representing 1/8 we normally represent it as 0.125 and not by 0.125000… 10/7 is a uniquely defined point on the number line and you can go there directly without the need of successive approximations of the sort needed for an irrational number such as pi or the square root of two.
Yes, it is sufficient to say that 10/7=1.428571… Note that the 1 to the left of the decimal point and the one at the end of the repeating section to the right of the decimal point are independent of each other; 17/7=2.428571…
Also note that if there is a nonrepeating portion of the decimal expansion (as in 11/6=1.8333…) or if the repeating decimal is one digit long (as in 4/3=1.333…) it is considered good form to repeat the repeating portion two or three times to establish what the repeating sequence is.
WW and Faldage, ain't y'all got the wrong thread? asked she who never digresses from the intial thread topic.
tsuwm, yes, I noticed that rough 10-to-1 ratio on some of our recent comparative googlizations. Glad you set it out and I'll be looking for more.
Arrrrrrrrrgh! Math has escaped and is invading the board. C'mon Betsy, let's beat it back with words!
passing-strange = 6,870 hits (used, I assume correctly, by Thomas Hardy in
Tess of the D'Urbervilles)
passing strange = 948,000 hits
To hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that is not a question.
Lessee, how many threads did I cross here?
Someday when I retire I am going to open a Cuban-themed bar and call it Che's Lounge. Actually, it will be the bar attached to my swanky Cuban restaurant, Chez Guevara.
DubDub:
10/7 is a rational number, from the definition of a rational number as one that can be expressed as a fraction of two whole numbers. It may be infinitely long, but it's still rational.
An irrational number is one that doesn't repeat, no matter how many numbers you add to the right of the decimal point. Pi and e are the only two I can think of off hand.
You said it's possible to measure an inch between your thumb and pointer finger, and that it's not possible to do the same with a distance of 10/7ths of an inch. In theory it's possible to do either one. Think about it for a second: if you can measure an inch, you can measure a seventh of an inch. and if you can measure a seventh of an inch you can add ten of them together to get 10/7ths of an inch.
In actuality it is not possible to measure anything exactly, since a measurement of one inch is 1.0000000000000000000000 and with more zeroes all the way to infinity. You are always going to have a margin of error.
Here is how we've defined a meter over the last 200 plus years:
1793 -- 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the pole to the equator.
1795 -- Provisional meter bar constructed in brass.
1799 -- Definitive prototype meter bars constructed in platinum.
1889 -- International prototype meter bar in platinum-iridium, cross-section X.
1906 -- 1,000.000/0.64384696 wavelengths in air of the red line of the cadmium spectrum.
1960 -- 1,650,763.73 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between levels 2p10 and 5d5 of the krypton 86 atom.
1983 --Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Each succeeding definition is presumably more precise than its predecessor. But each still has some margin of errorm particularly when converted to human-level neasurements. Let's look a bit further:
The second (abbreviation, s or sec) is the Standard International (SI) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 to the ninth) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
So when we're measuring a second, we count off these little ticks and that, by definition, is a second. But how accurate can we be in converting from a time unit to a distance unit? Pretty accurate, and you could, by sheer luck, hold your fingers exactly an inch apart, but more likely something other than exactly an inch.
TEd
Edit:
Faldage posted whilst I researched my answer.
2. So that number (1.42857142857142857142857...ad infinitum) is an infinite number and has something to do with our concept of infinity, right?
It has an infinite number of digits, but it is not an "infinite number."
It does, however, have an infinite number of digits, which means that, yes, it does have something to do with our concept of infinity. The implication is that no matter how far out we carry the division - no matter where we lop it off - the result is still not exactly equal to 10/7.
As Faldage says below, this is an example of a rational number (called rational presumably because it can be expressed as the ratio of two integers). As Emmanuela pointed out in another thread, while the following:
{even numbers} isASubsetOf {Integers } isASubsetOf {rational numbers}
but that each of these three sets has a the same cardinality. That is, they are all the same size, all equally infinite. But 10/7 is a repeating decimal. There are numbers the number of whose digits go on toward infinity, but never repeat. Those are called irrationals. Examples: pi, e, sqrt(2), (in fact, any square root that is not a perfect square of a rational number).
It turns out that the set of integers (and therefore the set of rationals), while infinite, is nevertheless very small compared to the set of reals. Since the set of reals is just the set of rationals unioned with the set of irrationals, if we take this neglible thing called rationals away, we still end up with a set much bigger than integers. This is about the limit of my understanding on the subject, but I wanted to inject it, as it's something that always intrigued me.
k
More or less.
I don't want to add more maths, unless required , but I have to express my admiration for TheFallibleFiend, for his last sentence:not for what he says (true!) but for his way of saying that. In all this math stuff I deeply felt deprived, missing the possibility of expressing better and better my knowledge: I mean, this is my job, and these are part of my teaching... anyway, even if I can express correctly the statements, I have no clue to convince anyone who is not already convinced (as, I hope, I can in Italian)
And, I don't know exactly what I miss, since after three years of Awad I really feel that I can discuss a lot of arguments easily.
So I am wondering: what does it mean, to master a language?
I suppose that, independently of the level of knowledge, to talk or write in a language that is not your mothertongue needs that a part of the brain is devoted to continuosly checking what you are saying, and is not avaluable... to think!
googlemetrics? I'm starting to wonder if the ratio of approx. ten is golden or something. ~ tsuwm
What good google luck, dear tsuwm! I stumbled upon a site that seems to answer your decimating question. Put forth in part below...
The Three Google Measures of Word Legitimacy
Whereas until google and other high powered computer search engines came to be, people who spoke the english language were at the mercy of a gaggle of conflicting dictionaries that were compiled by self-interest types who by academics or self-assumed erudition imposed legitimacy and meaning upon the confused, but non-the-less still speaking public. The egalitarian rules outlined here address this matter.
I. Any register of 1,000 referents on Google confers legitimacy on that word regardless of circumstance.
II. A word that registers 10% (ten percent) of a prime (1,000 hits)
word with the same meaning becomes that word, albeit
an alternate spelling.
III. Meanings are to be discerned by the content of the
text with a minimum number of 10 (ten) needed for entry as an alternate meaning. All entries (referents) are to be considered equal in value, for example, a usage by the New York Times is equally regarded with that, let's say, of an unsung and unpublished poet in New Jersey.
I googled(actually I use alltheweb) variations on chaise, such as "chase" and "chaze" and hit many matches, but I also ran across "Shay's Lounge"...
for those interested in googling the "tongue-tounge" possibilities, I suggest leaving that one alone...
Words!!!
Connie, is it us or is mathematical infinity gradually seeping into all the forums????
is mathematical infinity gradually seeping into all the forums????
Infinity: it's everywhere (and everywhen).
Yeahbut® is it ubiquitous or omnipresent?
Yeahbut®
Yes Compendiously amusing I'm sure. But do you two intimates have an other than intimate comment to direct towards we, of the larger group?
you two intimates have an other than intimate comment to direct towards we
When us is speaking to each self us don't get near that wordy.
don't get near that wordy
yeah, I hear they's contagious...…
klaatu barada nikto <> 2960
klatu barada nikto <> 336
:-)
Just today, ahead of me at the Wendy's drive-up, I overheard this lady ordering a salad. When asked whether she would like Ranch or French dressing, she replied, "one of both."
I once had an argument with a co-worker over the spelling of chaise longue. She insisted that since more people understand the meaning of, and the spelling of, longue as lounge, then that makes it correct. No, she didn't say it made it "acceptable".....she said it made it "correct"
I could not convince her that correct and acceptable have different implications.........
correct and acceptable have different implications...Yeahbut®,
correct keeps changing on us. See my rabid rantings on
you here:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=98321and here:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=98347There was a time when the correct word was
napron. Using it today would brand you as some kind of kook. The correct term is
apron.
Ah, I see your point, Faldage. Yeahbut® (I LOVE that!) doesn't the fact that napron became apron.....I presume because of common usage?.....mean that it was therefore "acceptable" to use the more common form, but that still did not make it "correct"???
I dunno.......I think I am confused, now! :D
I got thinking about it and seems to me it is acceptable if most people use it and becomes correct when the grammar & usage cops chide people for using that which was formerly correct. Or something like that. One proviso, usages can be acceptable is some contexts and not others. Sometimes what is acceptable in one context will brand you as pariah in others.
In reply to:
more people understand the meaning of, and the spelling of, longue as lounge
Google results
all domains: chaise longue 13,700 chaise lounge 29,000
.uk domain: chaise longue 1,910 chaise lounge 255
Bingley
That gaggle of google math made my eyes goggle and my brain boggle. But isn't the fun [and annoyance] of a living language the fact that it does change. At one point "nice" meant picky, "homely" meant a wholesome homebody not ugly and "let" meant prevent .
I wonder, are there any other words which have reversed their meanings like that?
Me again, If you "wreck havoc" does that mean you straighten everything up?
"let" meant prevent
The let meaning prevent and the let meaning allow are two different words, the former coming from the OE lettan and the latter form the OE lætan. Interestingly, they both come from the same PIE root le-, meaning to let go, slacken. That notwithstanding, Zed is correct about words changing meaning, sometimes drastically. Silly is another example, originally having meant blessed.
Sure wouldn't want to drop the phrase, "Silly are the peacemakers" and expect to be understood.
I wonder, are there any other words which have reversed their meanings like that?here is the first of what may be several threads which discussed this here:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=443
Another word that has drastically changed is egregious. Originally it meant remarkable in a good sense. Its present sense, that of being remarkable in a bad sense, may have arisen through ironical usages.
...straighten everything up
I love this, Zed. Mind if I use it once in a while IRL?
AnnaStrophic
Wreck all the havoc you like, there's plenty to go around!
Zed
If I reek havoc would that be the same as making a big stink?
"Reek havoc and blame it on the dogs of war!"
That's what I always do...
Dogs given bad names are supposed to be hanged (X thread!) but I see no sign of such a fate over taking the "dogs of war!"
An advertisement was running on the radio over here recently, can’t recall whose, but it stuck in my mind:
“So you want to join the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. What are you called?”
“I dunno.”
“Well, what makes you think you could contribute?”
“I dunno.”
“Oh! Ignorance! We can use *you.”