XP: Written Word/English Language&Reading Material

originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Is it anyone's opinion that having the word “subsequent” pronounced as “sub-see-quent” becoming some kind of standard?

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

without accents and diacritical marks, the pronunciation you are attempting to describe is not clear.
 
Robert, agreed, and a question I had also. But apparently it is a moot point at this juncture.

Jonathan, I haven't heard the pronunciation in these parts...just read about it being heard elsewhere.

. . . . Pete
 
???

several posts back you ask "Is it anyone's opinion that having the word “subsequent” pronounced as “sub-see-quent” becoming some kind of standard?"

here you're asking about a specific pronunciation, yet in the following post you say you don't know what that pronunciation sounds like.

"Robert, agreed, and a question I had also. But apparently it is a moot point at this juncture.

Jonathan, I haven't heard the pronunciation in these parts...just read about it being heard elsewhere."

how can you be asking a question about a specific pronunciation, when can't even tell us what that specific pronunciation sounds like?
 
Peter, it is uncommon to say it that way.

Robert, I think he means to ask about stress on the penultimate syllable rather than the first.

For more authoritative opinions (e.g., what do dictionaries say about it?) click this.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Peter, it is uncommon to say it that way.

Robert, I think he means to ask about stress on the penultimate syllable rather than the first.

For more authoritative opinions (e.g., what do dictionaries say about it?) click this.
Click to expand...

hence my request for accents and diacritical notation, which pete said he was unable to provide because he wasn't sure of the very pronunciation which wants others to comment on.
 
I thought (with amusement) about certain folks here when I filled in the LA Times Crossword answer for 67 Across. The clue was "Zinfandel, for one".

On another topic, I've been curious if "piehole" is a commonly used term in the northeast.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
I thought (with amusement) about certain folks here when I filled in the LA Times Crossword answer for 67 Across. The clue was "Zinfandel, for one".
Click to expand...
"magnum"

On another topic, I've been curious if "piehole" is a commonly used term in the northeast.
Click to expand...
No, that's Coad being blue-collar. The word (or phrase) only appeared in print in 1983 but seems related to "cake hole" (same meaning) that was British serviceman's slang in WWII. click
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
I thought (with amusement) about certain folks here when I filled in the LA Times Crossword answer for 67 Across. The clue was "Zinfandel, for one".
Click to expand...
"magnum"

On another topic, I've been curious if "piehole" is a commonly used term in the northeast.
Click to expand...
No, that's Coad being blue-collar. The word (or phrase) only appeared in print in 1983 but seems related to "cake hole" (same meaning) that was British serviceman's slang in WWII. click
Click to expand...

Not sure that’s Chris being blue collar. I’m guessing this is probably Chris being a movie junkie, but only Lisa can confirm if that’s where he picked it up. Variations of shut your piehole appear in This Boy’s Life (De Niro, 1993) and Meet the Parents (Ben Stiller, 2000, but I wonder if the line was included there in part as a De Niro reference/nod).

I occasionally use the phrase piehole.
 
Your assessment of Merriam-Webster Dictionary would surely get a lot of push back.

How about Collins Dictionary...

Synonyms of unadulterated

sheer
, complete
, total
, pure
, absolute
, utter
, downright
, unqualified
, out-and-out
, unmitigated
, thoroughgoing
, unalloyed
Click to expand...

(Highlighting is mine.)

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Your assessment of Merriam-Webster Dictionary would surely get a lot of push back.

How about Collins Dictionary...

Synonyms of unadulterated

sheer
, complete
, total
, pure
, absolute
, utter
, downright
, unqualified
, out-and-out
, unmitigated
, thoroughgoing
, unalloyed
Click to expand...

(Highlighting is mine.)

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

What is your point? I don't think JL needs a dictionary to define unadulturated. Obviously it has a specific meaning when referring to food and wine, and it certainly has nothing to do with complete or absolute. Look, modern lexicographers are playing fast and loose with the term synonym. They are clearly not that, but rather are similar words that have quite different shades of meaning.
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

Your assessment of Merriam-Webster Dictionary would surely get a lot of push back.

How about Collins Dictionary...

Synonyms of unadulterated

sheer
, complete
, total
, pure
, absolute
, utter
, downright
, unqualified
, out-and-out
, unmitigated
, thoroughgoing
, unalloyed
Click to expand...

(Highlighting is mine.)

. . . . Pete
Click to expand...

from my samuel johnson dictionary, ninth edition, 1806 printing, unadulterated was defined as "genuine; not spoiled by spurious mixtures." no more and no less.

the lexicographers at merriam webster and at collins have the approach that long term chronic misuse eventually establishes new definitions and therefore they see unadulterated as now meaning far more than just the antonym of adulterated. nails on chalkboard.
 
Reading quickly, the usage of "Unadulterated notes" appeared to be a characterization of the tasting note so that "complete and absolute" resonates as a complimentary and favorable response to the writer...and more appropriate than "pure".

. . . . Pete
 
Synonyms are not definitions. One of the first things I used to tell my first year students was to hide their thesauruses away since using them to find gussied up vocabulary was only leading them into misusing words. In a reduced way, that is what is happening here. Webster's first definition was, as you saw, not adulterated or pure. Its second definition did offer complete or absolute as in an unadulterated fool and, in a sloppy way, that is accurate enough. When we say someone is an unadulterated fool, we really don't distinguish it from an utter fool, a complete fool or an absolute fool. When, however, Hegel refers to the absolute mind, he most pointedly does not mean the unadulterated mind. And when you buy a complete and unabridged edition, you are not buying merely (or even) an unadulterated one. If you consider editorial attachments adulterations, as many do, you could easily have a complete and unabridged but highly adulterated edition. Your trnasposition of complete and absolute to this tasting note is just such a csse.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Synonyms are not definitions. One of the first things I used to tell my first year students was to hide their thesauruses away since using them to find gussied up vocabulary was only leading them into misusing words. In a reduced way, that is what is happening here. Webster's first definition was, as you saw, not adulterated or pure. Its second definition did offer complete or absolute as in an unadulterated fool and, in a sloppy way, that is accurate enough. When we say someone is an unadulterated fool, we really don't distinguish it from an utter fool, a complete fool or an absolute fool. When, however, Hegel refers to the absolute mind, he most pointedly does not mean the unadulterated mind. And when you buy a complete and unabridged edition, you are not buying merely (or even) an unadulterated one. If you consider editorial attachments adulterations, as many do, you could easily have a complete and unabridged but highly adulterated edition. Your trnasposition of complete and absolute to this tasting note is just such a csse.
Click to expand...

Unadulterated fool here has a slightly different connotation to me than utter or complete or absolute. It’s that there is nothing at all to hide or disguise or mask or temper how big a fool the person is.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Synonyms are not definitions. One of the first things I used to tell my first year students was to hide their thesauruses away since using them to find gussied up vocabulary was only leading them into misusing words. In a reduced way, that is what is happening here. Webster's first definition was, as you saw, not adulterated or pure. Its second definition did offer complete or absolute as in an unadulterated fool and, in a sloppy way, that is accurate enough. When we say someone is an unadulterated fool, we really don't distinguish it from an utter fool, a complete fool or an absolute fool. When, however, Hegel refers to the absolute mind, he most pointedly does not mean the unadulterated mind. And when you buy a complete and unabridged edition, you are not buying merely (or even) an unadulterated one. If you consider editorial attachments adulterations, as many do, you could easily have a complete and unabridged but highly adulterated edition. Your trnasposition of complete and absolute to this tasting note is just such a csse.
Click to expand...

Unadulterated fool here has a slightly different connotation to me than utter or complete or absolute. It’s that there is nothing at all to hide or disguise or mask or temper how big a fool the person is.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but in usual discourse, I don't think many people really make that distinction. That's why I said it was accurate in a sloppy way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top