Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 191890 times)

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #375 on:** July 21, 2008, 06:28:15 PM »

How euphemic can we be?

Jonathon · « **Reply #376 on:** July 21, 2008, 06:49:58 PM »

My favorite euphemism for sex is from Steven Covey's 7 Habits book, and it goes something like, "Even the way in which a man and woman bring a child into the world is synergistic." After that, Cicada and I took every mention of synergy as a reference to sex.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #377 on:** August 12, 2008, 08:33:12 PM »

Got this email at work tonight. What's with the random capitalization and quote marks?

Quote

Please be "advised" that on Thursday August 14 and Friday August 15 the Lobby Entrance Road will be "Closed" to make necessary repairs. There will be Contractors resurfacing the the road. Pedestrians are asked to "Used Caution" when entering and exiting the Building. The River Road Entrance should be used for dropping off and picking up People.

Duly noted. I'll be sure to Take that under "advisement".

(And, not for nothing, do they really expect the pedestrians and hospital visitors to be seeing this email?)

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #378 on:** August 13, 2008, 08:27:06 AM »

*used caution*

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #379 on:** August 13, 2008, 12:30:43 PM »

It's more cost effective than brand new caution.

Jonathon · « **Reply #380 on:** August 15, 2008, 03:12:09 PM »

From an article talking about Egyptian astronomy:

Quote

In our era of large cities and electric lights, it is hard to picture how much these celestial bodies were part of Egyptian life. Most students do not regularly see starry nights because of light pollution. The natural nocturnal luminaries were particularly striking in Egypt, where most nights were cloudless and very clear. The lustrous bodies of the night sky were overlarge; they dominated the night landscape and forced their way into the minds and visions of every Egyptian soul. They were a much greater and pressing presence for these ancient inhabitants than most of us would naturally assume. Because of this powerful, intrusive sight, the stars spoke loudly to the Egyptians, whether they wanted them to or not. Their movements and power were an inescapable noise raining upon the eyes of our ancient counterparts.

I'm not sure I've ever seen such purple prose in my life. The awkward second references are pretty good, too.

Porter · « **Reply #381 on:** August 15, 2008, 07:26:11 PM »

Quote

I'm not sure I've ever seen such purple prose in my life.

You've been reading Sakeriver over the last few months, haven't you?

Jonathon · « **Reply #382 on:** August 15, 2008, 07:50:50 PM »

I think it's worse when it comes from a professor writing an academic paper.

Jonathon · « **Reply #383 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:54:26 AM »

Quote

What he did notice was that the number of women far outnumbered the number of men in the audiences.

What I noticed is that the number of instances of "numbers" far outnumbers the number of times the word "number" needs to be there.

Jonathon · « **Reply #384 on:** August 21, 2008, 10:56:48 AM »

Quote

There were almost as many "visions" as there were hundreds of denominations.

So . . . there were hundreds?

Porter · « **Reply #385 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:03:05 AM »

Almost.

Jonathon · « **Reply #386 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:28:37 AM »

Got it. All is clear now!

dkw · « **Reply #387 on:** August 21, 2008, 12:39:35 PM »

No, no. There were slightly more than 100 times as many denominations as there were visions. I don't see what's so confusing about that!

Porter · « **Reply #388 on:** August 21, 2008, 12:50:00 PM »

Ah. I see now.

Jonathon · « **Reply #389 on:** August 21, 2008, 02:20:41 PM »

Quote

No, no. There were slightly more than 100 times as many denominations as there were visions. I don't see what's so confusing about that!

Aha! I don't know what I was smoking before. Now it's really clear. So if, for example, there were seven hundreds of denominations, then there'd be almost seven visions. It makes perfect sense.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #390 on:** September 18, 2008, 01:05:43 PM »

Maybe I'm not understanding what they're trying to say here, but:

Quote

Overall, the research and definition of culture has shifted over the past 40 years, and this has been heavily influenced by the academic fields of sociology and anthropology. Old definitions from Webster (Mish, 2001) included the 'cultivation of soil' or the 'raising, improvement, or development of some plant, animal or product.' Today, the meaning has gone from Arnold's 1869 view of culture having characteristics of beauty, intelligence, and perfections to the idea of culture being very ordinary in how each human society shapes its own purposes and meanings.

If you're trying to say that the meaning of the word culture has changed, shouldn't you leave the "growing things" meaning out of it altogether? That's still an alternate meaning for culture, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what we mean when we say "culture" in the sociological context.

Methinks.

Jonathon · « **Reply #391 on:** September 18, 2008, 01:11:58 PM »

The OED has the definition "The cultivation or development of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.; improvement by education and training" dating back to 1510. This evolved into the meaning "The distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, products, or way of life of a particular society, people, or period" by 1860. So it's not just the last 40 years. The agricultural sense really does seem irrelevant, though.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #392 on:** September 18, 2008, 01:34:10 PM »

The more I read other people's published dissertations, the less I worry about my own. This same piece talks about programs that "use multimedia to peak the students' interest."

Neutros the Radioactive Dragon · « **Reply #393 on:** September 18, 2008, 04:13:12 PM »

>.<

That's as bad as using "jive" instead of "jibe".

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #394 on:** September 18, 2008, 10:37:34 PM »

Oh stewardess, I speak jive.

Porter · « **Reply #395 on:** September 19, 2008, 07:03:50 AM »

Quote

That's as bad as using "jive" instead of "jibe".

Huh. I never knew that was wrong.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #396 on:** October 09, 2008, 10:33:38 AM »

Is this correct?

Quote

Additional case studies are needed to establish our results, using exemplary teachers as well as less good teachers from different universities and colleges and from different departments.

Porter · « **Reply #397 on:** October 09, 2008, 10:40:27 AM »

"less good" is a little awkward, but that's probably better than saying "inferior teachers" or something of the sort.

Jonathon · « **Reply #398 on:** October 09, 2008, 02:45:48 PM »

It should definitely be "fewer good teachers," because "teachers" is a countable noun.

But in all seriousness, I'd go with something like "teachers who are not as good." Actually, I still don't like that much, but my head hurts too much to come up with something better right now.

Noemon · « **Reply #399 on:** October 10, 2008, 10:20:43 AM »

How about "using both normal and exemplary teachers"?