|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
In reply to:
Recently, one of our more fastidious grammarians pursued a usage of suspicious pedigree until it evaporated into the mists of coincidence.
Is this a case of supplanting a suspected offence against linguistic purity with an offence against scientific plausibility?
Well, et', what was the question? It appears that wordminstrel was writing the first sentence as one to examine with the part in blue to be considered by the board: "evaporated into the mists of coincidence." Wordminstrel writes next: "Is this a case..." And I took "this" to refer especially to the highlighted blue part of the sentence.
I understood the first sentence to mean that some grammarian was hot on the trail of some suspicious usage. [I'm so curious about this sentence now that I would love to know what the 'suspicious' usage had been, in fact.] This very determined grammarian doggedly tracked down the usage using whatever means were available until reaching that point that at which 'it' (it referring to either 'usage' or 'pedigree,' but most likely 'usage' though 'it' is closer to 'pedigree') evaporated into these troublesome mists.
Wordminstrel asks us whether this a a case of supplanting this case of the grammarian on that hunt to search out pedigree with an offence against scientific plausibility. Unless I completely misread the thread opener (and perhaps I did and will welcome having Wordminstrel say so), I think the essence of the question was one about the science in the statement, or, to simplify and be very direct:
Can something be said to evaporate into mists, scientifically speaking?
Well, no. Not exactly. Water vapor condenses into mist. But, as someone pointed out above, in the chain of events in the water cycle, part of what makes water vapor is evaporation from bodies of water--part of the cause, too, is transpiration from plants. We've discussed most of this. It seems to me, however, that to say something evaporates into a mist of anything leaves out a vitally important step in the water cycle: condensation. So the metaphor doesn't work for me personally on a scientific level. Wordminstrel was asking whether we thought there had been a scientifically plausible offense. I think there was; so does wwh; so does Vika and others up there. I think that's the question Wordminstrel was asking.
But I could be wrong. It would be good to hear from Wordminstrel.
Interesting discussion here all around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Abbott and Costello movie
I take that back; make it a Marx Brothers movie. There's a Zeppo in here somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
pssttt...Faldage, I am not getting the joke.......what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
It seems to me, however, that to say something evaporates into a mist of anything leaves out a vitally important step in the water cycle: condensation. So the metaphor doesn't work for me personally on a scientific level
Condensation happens 'after' evaporation. So, where are we leaving out this part of the cycle. The statement only refers to the 'first' step in the hydrology cycle; how then an omission? Assume I am standing on a hill top with a steaming kettle. The swirling mists surround me and my kettle. I perceive now, the boiling water in my kettle gushing out in puffs of steamy vapour from the spout and slowly but surely, evaporating and disappearing into the mist. Why is this scientifically or realistically implausible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Here's a simple list of actions: 1. Evaporation and transpiration occur. 2. The atmosphere becomes more filled with water vapor from evaporation and transpiration. 3. Due to a variety of physical circumstances, the water vapor in the atmosphere condenses. 4. One of the possible outcomes of such condensation is mist. Maahey, I'm just saying that to leap from evaporation to mist in the statement with which Wordminstrel begins this thread is problemmatical to me in my understanding of the water cycle. You write: So, where are we leaving out this part of the cycle. I'm just suggesting that steps 2. and 3. are ignored by any suggestion that water evaporates into mist. I certainly wasn't envisioning a steaming kettle while reading Wordminstrel. But I will tell you, the thought of your standing on a hillside with a steaming kettle is an amusing one. I imagine a group of ayleurs standing around watching that steaming kettle and discussing the metaphorical applications of the event. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I imagine a group of ayleurs standing around ... So Jackie and I would have to take our ball and go play elsewhere. I see.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I'll bring my bat and glove, Anna! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I'll join y'all. Us AWADdies gots to stick together. Besides, y'all'll need a numpire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Yeah, to tell us "who's on first?"!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
who's on first
What is this, an Abbott and Costello movie?
Post Edit:
Abbott and Costello 34.7 T
Abbot and Costello 6 T
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
755
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
