#98200
03/10/2003 12:17 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
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?
|
|
|
#98201
03/10/2003 12:38 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Where's the probs, Dub-dub?
Scientifically speaking, mist is caused by the evaporation of water.
Other matter, in liquid form, can also evaporate and may or may not cause a mist.
Co-incidence is a decidedly misty (not to say mystical) happening.
So, from a metaphoric point of view, I can't see anything wrong with your highlighted phrase, above.
|
|
|
#98202
03/10/2003 1:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear WM: Mist is formed by the condensation of vapor. So his metaphor is assbackwards.
|
|
|
#98203
03/10/2003 1:03 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
That's Wordminstrel up there--not WW.
I would ask whether mist is more likely formed by condensation rather than evaporation?
|
|
|
#98204
03/10/2003 1:46 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Quietly sitting by watching the tempest swirling in the smudge pot
|
|
|
#98205
03/10/2003 2:25 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161 |
evaporation per se does not cause mist.
air can contain some moisture depending on the temperature.
water evaporates from open water surfaces (and being evaporated by plants) during the day. but mist occures only when the temperature of environment drops below a certain point and excess vapour is condenced.
the methaphor above is difficult to understand and probablu incorectair can contain some moisture depending on the temperature.
water evaporates from open water surfaces (and being evaporated by plants) during the day. but mist occures only when the temperature of environment drops below a certain point and excess vapour is condenced.
the methaphor above is difficult to understand and probably incorrect
|
|
|
#98206
03/10/2003 4:01 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Coincidence, having less *substance than appearance, is an excellent target for a 'mist' analogy... the context, however, must be *borrowing itself to 'evaporation'. [optimist-e]
|
|
|
#98207
03/10/2003 4:37 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
That's Wordminstrel up there--not WW. Whoops! Post poste-haste, riposte at leisure! Sorry, both WM and WW!
|
|
|
#98208
03/10/2003 6:10 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
it evaporated into the mists of coincidence
Evaporation: liquid water - vapour
Condensation: vapour - liquid (water droplets around particulate matter in the air like dust)
Precipitation: suspended water droplets in atmosphere (from cloud) - liquid or solid water forms onto the ground (onto land)
There wouldn't be a mist without condensation and we couldn't get condensation without evaporated vapour settling around condensation particles. It is cyclical.
So, the part about something evaporating into a mist seems to me to be both semantically and scientifically correct.
However, I am uncomfortable with the 'mists of coincidence' part. I understand the metaphorical sense of 'mists' as, alluding to qualities that obscure, blur, confuse; anything that evades clarity. Maybe even ephemeral. Its meretricious quality seems less likely to be the metaphorical element.
A coincidence is an event; it is an occurence. It might evade understanding; we might view it as esoteric and imbue it with symbolism, but none of this makes it 'misty'.
Still, there is always the matter of artistic license, I suppose. 
|
|
|
#98209
03/10/2003 6:15 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Parbly y'all got confused by my imprecision when I seemed to be saying that all irregular verbs are intransitive and all regular verbs transitive. I didn't mean to imply that but it certainly looks like I did if you take what I said at face value. That is my fault and I apologize for the confusion I have created.
I shall now evaporate into the midst of coinference.
|
|
|
#98210
03/10/2003 6:59 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I apologize for the confusion I have created.
hey.. Hey.. HEY! Cut that out!
|
|
|
#98211
03/10/2003 7:16 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
I don't understand the point of this thread. Would wordminstrel care to explain?
|
|
|
#98212
03/10/2003 8:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear AS: Wordminstrel is making the kind of point I feel important. There is no goddamned
excuse for confusing "evaporate" and "condense". Water evaporates to vapor, vapor condences
to mist.
|
|
|
#98213
03/10/2003 8:49 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
no goddamned excuse for confusing "evaporate" and "condense".
We're often confused.
|
|
|
#98214
03/10/2003 9:32 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I didn't read it any of those ways. I read it such that coincidence has a quality of misty-ness to it(someone did mention this early on) and that whatever it was that evaporated, faded into that mist. it did not become the mist. it got lost in the fog, so to speak.
I like the phrase "mists of coincidence".
so there.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#98215
03/10/2003 10:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Falsdage: Sorry to hear you're in a fog. I hope it clears up.Either by condensing further
to rain, or evaporating to invisible vapor.
Can you tell shit from Shinola? Gotta be careful about that.
|
|
|
#98216
03/11/2003 3:01 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 725
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 725 |
What precipitated all this arguing?
|
|
|
#98217
03/11/2003 5:29 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
it got lost in the fog
Indeed, eta. There's no issue with whatever decided to get lost in the fog. The supposed misty nature of coincidence, is however at issue. I believe that there is nothing foggy about coincidence, per se. It is the 'causation' of the coincidence, that is elusive. And so, an allegorical reference to its mystical nature, I can accept. As in, 'a mystical coincidence'. I would be uncomfortable with, 'a misty coincidence'.
|
|
|
#98218
03/11/2003 10:17 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I would be uncomfortable with, 'a misty coincidence'.yeah, me, too. a little, I guess. but I like the idea of "the mists" of coincidence. I agree with Rhubarb that coincidence itself is mysterious, and hence, could be metaphorically "misty". this seemed to become a discussion on whether mist/fog is evaporation or condensation, and I felt that that lost the sense of the original question.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#98219
03/11/2003 10:51 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
You guys are so funny. It's like watching an Abbott and Costello movie.
|
|
|
#98220
03/11/2003 10:55 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#98221
03/11/2003 11:22 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#98222
03/11/2003 12:43 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
pssttt...Faldage, I am not getting the joke.......what is it?
|
|
|
#98223
03/11/2003 12:52 PM
|
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?
|
|
|
#98224
03/11/2003 1:29 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
#98225
03/11/2003 1:48 PM
|
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.... 
|
|
|
#98226
03/11/2003 2:17 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I'll bring my bat and glove, Anna! 
|
|
|
#98227
03/11/2003 2:27 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
#98228
03/11/2003 2:45 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Yeah, to tell us "who's on first?"!
|
|
|
#98229
03/11/2003 2:46 PM
|
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
|
|
|
#98230
03/11/2003 8:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
the boiling water in my kettle gushing ... and slowly but surely, evaporating and disappearing into the mist.
As WW says, there is a missing link in the original metaphor between 'evaporation' and 'mist.
"evaporating and disappearing" into mist nicely fills the void.
Thank you, maahey, for supplying the missing link.
BTW, is "evaporation into mist" any worse than "clouded in a sea" ... as in the following example of a mixed metaphor (from UVic Writer's Guide).
MIXED METAPHOR
A mixed metaphor attempts to create an extended comparison but fails because it is not consistent with itself. For example, in an essay on the language used in describing pain relief medicine, a student wrote:
"The topic of pain relievers seems clouded in a sea of medical terminology."
The metaphor is mixed because the images of cloud and sea do not match. The student should have said either "drowned in a sea of medical terminology" or "clouded in a fog of medical terminology."
Metaphor can be effective, but do not put too much weight on your own ingenuity; it might collapse under the strain.
|
|
|
#98231
03/11/2003 10:03 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
yah, I'm a dope. I'm all missed up about this one. foggy. foggy. do.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#98232
03/12/2003 11:22 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
do not put too much weight on your own ingenuity
Arright, Mr. Mixed Metaphor. Name the right fielder.
|
|
|
#98233
03/12/2003 3:22 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
imagine a group of ayleurs standing around watching that steaming kettle and discussing the metaphorical applications of the event.
A most enticing proposition, WW!
|
|
|
#98234
03/12/2003 6:09 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Great to see you again in one of your many guises, wordminstrel -- and a big "thank-you" for not only teaching us semi-literates and/or fastidious grammarians what's what, but also for the reminder of one of my favorites: "Or to take arms against a sea of troubles..."--Hamlet, Act III, Scene I
|
|
|
#98235
03/13/2003 10:23 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
a big "thank-you" for not only teaching us semi-literates and/or fastidious grammarians
I questioned the usage, dear ASp, not the author of the usage ... unless someone takes umbrage with the description "fastidious grammarian".
Personally, I think all grammarians should be "fastidious", or what's the point of being a grammarian?
I would certainly not describe you as "semi-literate", ASp, nor Faldage as "semi-grammatical".
|
|
|
#98236
03/14/2003 5:38 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
the reminder of one of my favorites:
"Or to take arms against a sea of troubles..."
But it's hard to beat Sir Boyle Roche:
Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky; but I'll nip him in the bud.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
#98237
03/14/2003 11:27 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
nor Faldage as "semi-grammatical"
Bestn't be callin' *me no semi-grammatical. I gots me more grammar in my left little finger than any bowlin-team's worth of prescripters gots in they whole body.
|
|
|
#98238
03/14/2003 12:36 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Sir Boyle Roche
Who is or was he, please?
|
|
|
#98239
03/14/2003 2:24 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Invented "herb" tea, using the fag-ends of marijuana cigarettes.
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
