http://www.necrotania.com/vb/ The premier writing and artistic community. We focus on Fantasy and Science Fiction while having a home for all forms of genres and art forms. Come join us today and get your personal portfolio page. en Fri, 18 May 2012 02:01:30 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/m2-stil/misc/rss.jpg http://www.necrotania.com/vb/ http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3317&goto=newpost Thu, 17 May 2012 04:37:33 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/F56aqhxLpNEcvJzX6z3D1bjKzu8/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




What’s the difference between a focus and a locus — is it all just hocus-pocus? — and where does nexus fit in?

The technical meaning of focus is “a point of convergence or divergence, or seeming divergence,” in terms of particles of matter. It also refers to adjustment for clear vision as well as the field of clear vision, and it has a geometrical definition of a fixed point. From the scientific sense have developed literal and figurative connotations of a point, center, or area of activity or occurrence, as well as direction, emphasis, perception, and understanding.

The original plural spelling of the word, borrowed directly from Latin and meaning “hearth” (the area of premodern households that was the center of activity), is foci, but focuses is an alternative; the adjectival form is focal. Focus can be employed, depending on context, with or without a preceding article: “This plan lacks focus”; “His story doesn’t have a focus”; “That is the focus of the argument.”

A locus, meanwhile (in Latin, the word means “place”), is a site or location. As is the case with focus, the sense can be figurative or literal. (Unlike focus, locus has only a Latin plural: loci.)

The difference between focus and locus, then, is subtle. Both words can refer to a place where something happens, but the fine distinction is that the former denotes a center of attention and the latter refers to the location itself. A locus may become the focus, but the reverse is not true, because the site preceded the attention focused on it.

Nexus, from the Latin word nectere, meaning “to bind” (the root term is also the basis of connect), can also mean “focus,” but it is better reserved for the senses of “connection” or “link,” or of a connected group or series.

And what of other related – or seemingly related – terms? An axis is a geometrical or physical or figurative line, or a vertebra or a stem. It can also be somewhat synonymous with the terms defined above, relating to a point or a spectrum, or, as in the manner in which it was used in World War II to refer to the alliance between Germany, Italy, and Japan, a partnership. (The Latin word refers to a line or an axle; the plural in both Latin and English is axes.)

A cynosure is a guide or a center of attention. (The word is from Greek by way of Latin and means, literally, “dog’s tail”; it refers to the constellation Ursa Minor, or the Little Bear.) An omphalos (the word is Greek for “navel”) is a focal point or a hub, and a hub (perhaps a variant of hob, a word for a shelf on a hearth) is a center of activity, either on a large scale or at the center of a wheel. An epicenter is, in figurative usage, a center of activity; the original meaning is the point on Earth’s surface above an earthquake’s point of focus.

Now, how about that hocus-pocus? It evidently originated with itinerant performers who incorporated mock-Latin incantations into their magic or juggling acts to impress gullible onlookers, who associated the classical language with learned scholars and ancient mysteries. It is likely a corruption of the blessing “Hoc est corpus meum,” meaning “This is my body.” Hokey-pokey is probably a further variant, but neither it nor hocus-pocus has any focus, locus, or nexus.

Original Post: Focus vs. Locus
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3317 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3316&goto=newpost Wed, 16 May 2012 09:31:14 GMT Hi, I've just joined, so I'm brand new :pbj:
I don't quite know how everything works round here, but I'm looking forward to getting to know everyone and posting a few stories :)

I have a blog so if you want to know more about me check it out: http://christinaricardo.blogspot.co.uk/

cool bananas ]]> Introduction/Welcome Christina Ricardo http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3316 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3315&goto=newpost Wed, 16 May 2012 03:35:30 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/mcxcbwOn2L5UWj-pgBdgbxIufEc/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Writers are sometimes confused about when to attach any, every, and no to one or body as a closed compound and when to treat one of these word pairs as just that: a two-word phrase. Here are guidelines and sample sentences for each combination:

Any Body/Anybody

The two-word alternative, which refers to people’s physical form rather than the complete body-mind package, might be used as an advertising-copy play on anybody, as in “We can get any body into shape,” but that’s rare; it might also appear as a modifier-noun pair that itself modifies another noun: “People with any body type are at risk.” Anybody is the default version when referring to unspecified people: “Is anybody there?”

Any One/Anyone

“Any one brand is as good as the other” points out that each brand has equal merit. “Anyone can see that I’m right” notes that any person, considered one by one among a class of all possible people, would agree.

Every Body/Everybody

When “every body” begins a sentence, the meaning is indistinguishable from when the closed compound is employed: “Every body in the room was tanned” differs only in emphasizing the physical forms of the people, while “Everybody in the room was tanned” focuses on the people who sport bronzed skins. In that case, because the distinction is so slight, the more comprehensive latter form prevails.

However, the phrase form is common in such wordplay-conscious constructions as “The Clothing Corral has attire for every body,” which, as in the previous example using the phrase, is nearly synonymous with its alternative (“The Clothing Corral has attire for everybody”) but calls attention to the corporeal manifestation of people, rather than their entire being, to make a point.

Every One/Everyone

When Tiny Tim declares, “God bless us, every one!” in A Christmas Carol, he’s emphasizing that he wishes blessings bestowed on each individual present. If Charles Dickens were to have declared that all the revelers in the Cratchit household repeated the statement in unison, he would have written something like this: “Everyone affirmed the blessing by repeating it as with one voice.” Everyone means “all of them.”

No One/Noone (or No-One)

“No one” is the only correct form in American English (and is fading in usage in British English), whether one is a pronoun or an adjective: “No one is home”; “There is no one right way to do it.” Noone and no-one are erroneous.

No Body/Nobody

The phrase refers to the lack of the presence of an animal’s living or dead physical form: “No body was lying in the room when I entered it this morning.” The compound means simply “no person,” and usually indicates a class of people whose commonality is their exclusion from another class: “Nobody saw it last night, either.” (Nobody can also be a noun meaning “nonentity, inconsequential person”: “Ever since his last film flopped, he’s been a nobody.”)

Summary

Note that in each case, the two-word phrase consists of a noun preceded by a modifier, and the one-word compound (with the exception of the noun sense of nobody) is a pronoun, a word standing in for a proper or common noun. The commonsense take-away is that use of the phrase forms are exceptional; usually, it’s the pronoun you’re looking for.

Original Post: Does Everyone Know Every One?
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3315 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3314&goto=newpost Tue, 15 May 2012 05:14:15 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/6-xKf3fyu82W9Sx7tRLVc6E0KUs/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Three dots. Dot, dot, dot. What could be simpler? Then why do those dots make so many writers dotty? The rules for use of ellipses are not as simple as they seem. But they are manageable.

First, a definition: An ellipsis (from the Greek word elleipsis — also the source of ellipse, meaning “an oval” — is an elision of words that can be implied to mentally complete a statement; it can also mean “a sudden change of subject.” But the meaning we seek is another one, the grammatically mechanical one: Ellipsis and its plural form, ellipses, also refer to the punctuation marks signaling elision. (That word, from the Latin term elidere, means “omission.”)

Despite the second meaning of ellipsis mentioned above — “a sudden change of subject” — ellipses are not recommended for this function. Ellipses signal, in addition to elision, a faltering or trailing off (in which case they are sometimes called suspension points), but to prepare the reader for an abrupt break or interruption in thought, use an em dash.

The primary function of an ellipsis is to omit one or more inconsequential words from a quotation, as in this version of a sentence from above: “Despite the second meaning of ellipsis mentioned above, . . . ellipses are not recommended for this function.” (Note that punctuation, like the comma in this example, may be retained or introduced to aid comprehension.) Each dot is preceded and followed by a letter space. Word-processing programs have a single-character ellipsis, but this character, or three dots with no letter spaces, looks cramped and ugly; use the period key.

Ellipses should not be introduced at the beginning or end of a quotation; however, if the source material includes ellipses in one or both locations, retain the characters. If an entire sentence is elided, four periods should be inserted between the framing sentences. The first, which immediately follows the last word of the preceding sentence, is the period ending that sentence. The other three, spaced as mentioned above, constitute the ellipsis. Note this example: “Three dots. . . . What could be simpler?”

If a final portion of a sentence is elided, follow the ellipsis with a period after a letter space. The same technique is applied in the case of a comma or a semicolon. This elision of the preceding sentence illustrates: “If a final portion of a sentence is elided, follow the ellipsis with a period . . . . The same technique is applied in the case of a comma or a semicolon.”

If an entire paragraph is elided, end the previous paragraph with an ellipsis following the period ending the final sentence; if, within a multiparagraph quotation, the beginning of a paragraph other than the first one is elided, begin the paragraph starting with the elision with an indented ellipsis.

The two four-dot examples above illustrate the only two cases in which more than three dots should appear in sequence; an ellipsis always consists of three dots, but it may be preceded or followed by a period. A sequence of four or more dots otherwise appearing together is considered an unprofessional-looking error and should be avoided by any serious writer.

An ellipsis may also be employed when a sentence is deliberately incomplete: “Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be . . .’ speech” (though this could also be rendered without ellipsis) or “If I were you . . . ,” when the missing words are not considered necessary to aid in communicating meaning.

Original Post: All About Ellipses
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3314 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3313&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 19:22:44 GMT Hello, I'm Jay.

Nice to meet you all, Hopefully I can make a home here. I found this site while looking for a fantasy/sci-fi writing community to be a part of.

I'm from the UK, Chesterfield in Derbyshire originally but have been living in Jersey, Channel Islands the last 14 years.

Currently I am working on a sci-fi novel, got a fair few ideas bouncing around my heard which I am trying to get written down.

More into Sci-Fi than fantasy but I love both still.

Anyways, catch ya later.

May the forces of evil get lost on the way to your front doorstep. ]]> Introduction/Welcome Winter http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3313 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3312&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 05:53:44 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/9HGhJCfimPK177TMbiPHxG5zm98/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Are you a locavore? Probably not — it’s still a fringe movement — but you should know what it means, even if you do not consider yourself a member of the class. A discussion of locavore and six related words follows:

1. Locavore

The term was coined in 2005 by a group of San Franciscans who launched the website Locavore.com to spread the word about the conservationist concept of striving to restrict one’s diet to foods and ingredients produced locally. (Some locavores quantify the range as anywhere within a one-hundred-mile radius, but most are not exact in their limits.)

Locavore is based on other words in which the -vore root appears (the root word is from the Latin term vorare, meaning “to devour”):

2. Carnivore

A carnivore is a person or animal (or a plant) that eats meat; the prefix is from the Latin word for “flesh.” Other words sharing the root are carnal, meaning “of the flesh” and connoting sexual matters, and carnage, which comes from the Latin word carnaticum, meaning “tribute of flesh” and referring originally to the bodies of slain animals or people but now usually referring to slaughter in general.

Interestingly, these words are also etymologically related to carnival, which stems from an Italian term, carnelevare, meaning “removal of meat.” (Carnival referred originally to a celebration before Lent, during a period when Catholics were prohibited from eating meat.)

3. Herbivore

An herbivore is an animal that eats vegetable matter; the Latin root from which the prefix herb- and herb and other words based on it are derived, herba, means plant.” Human herbivores are generally referred to as vegetarians; if they refrain from eating anything derived from animals, from dairy products to gelatin, they are called vegans.

Terms of further refinement are “lacto-ovo vegetarian,” for a person who eschews rather than chews meat but does consume milk and eggs (the root lac- means “milk” — seen in lactate and lactic — and ovo-, the root of oval, refers to eggs) and “lacto-ovo-pesco vegetarian,” or, more simply, pescetarian, for one who eats fish but not meat. (The root pesc-, from the Latin term piscis, means “fish.”)

4. Insectivore

This self-explanatory term (insect is from the Latin term insecare, “to cut into,” and is related to incisive, scissors, and the like) is nearly synonymous with entomophage (from the Latin elements ento-, meaning “insect,” and -phage, meaning “eating”), though the latter term primarily refers to human practitioners.

5. Omnivore

An omnivore is something that eats both meat and plants (and often fish but not necessarily insects); omni- — seen also in omniscient and omnipresent — means “all.”

6. Piscivore

A piscivore, also called an ichthyophage (ichthy means “fish”), eats fish, though, like most other groups classified here, the term refers to the primary type of diet and does not imply exclusivity.

7. Voracious

Voracious, synonymous with ravenous or insatiable, means “having a great appetite” or refers to intense greediness or eagerness. The noun form is voracity.

Original Post: 7 Terms with the Root “-Vore”
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3312 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3311&goto=newpost Sun, 13 May 2012 19:53:26 GMT I'm working on a "science fantasy" novel that involves a magic-like life energy, and I just can't pin down a name that's not overused in other sources. In concept it's not unlike Star Wars' Force (or the Chinese concept of qi), but with a more European pagan flavor. On the world where the story's set it's strong enough to be used for everyday things like agriculture and healing.

I've been calling it "gaia" for now, to imply that its source is the planetary ecosystem itself, that it's kind of the soul energy of the planet, and because, I'll be honest, "gaiamancer" sounds kind of cool. But I've gotten feedback from a few people that it reminds them too much of Japanese RPGs. I can see where they're coming from, but I can't think of anything else I like as much.

So...ideas and feedback? ]]> JJUlm http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3311 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3310&goto=newpost Sun, 13 May 2012 19:34:27 GMT I should be working on my novel, but I'm really feeling the need for community and feedback and encouragement so I thought I'd find a nice community to drop myself into. :) So hello! I'm Jen, I'm more of a sci-fi person than a fantasy person but I've really warmed up to fantasy lately, and I've been writing fanfic most of my life (mostly stuff about my WoW characters lately, on fanfiction.net as Meridith) and finally decided to take all that practice and write something for myself for once. Doing my own worldbuilding hasn't been as scary as I feared. I posted the prologue to my novel, which is about the only part worth showing to anyone yet (and short enough to be a teaser that won't count against publication rights), so I'd love if people could take a look at that once it gets past the admin.

Looking forward to seeing what everyone here has to offer! ]]> Introduction/Welcome JJUlm http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3310 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3309&goto=newpost Sun, 13 May 2012 15:06:15 GMT Hello everybody, My name is Jay, I just stumbled across this site, while I was looking for a community of people to join who were like minded.... Hello everybody,

My name is Jay,

I just stumbled across this site, while I was looking for a community of people to join who were like minded. I am currently working on writing a sci-fi novel.

I'm from the UK originally, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, but I am currently living in Jersey in the Channel Islands and have been for the past 14 years, done a fair bit of traveling, France, Spain, Iceland, Japan, Majorca. Anyways enough about me. :)

Feel free to say hi! came here to make friends who are also lovers of fantasy / Sci-Fi writing.

Hopefully I can find a home here. :)

May the forces of evil get lost on the way to your front doorstep. ]]> Introduction/Welcome Winter http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3309 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3308&goto=newpost Sun, 13 May 2012 05:35:33 GMT I wrote 2 chapters for a book that I'm starting and decided to put it into a series b/c I do want to write a series. So, I went to Create Series and added the book I had started to write. After that, I went to see how the series would look to others when they opened it. What I found was that after every line in my Summary section for the series there were rn's written. I also deleted the rn's and went to my series page again, but that didn't work. Does anyone know of a solution or why it happens?


This is what it looks like:


Oh, hi there, I didn't really see you. The name is Sam Kingsly, formerly a prisoner on Sol Ring. It's a long story, so I can't really explain it all now, but the book someone is writing might be able to help you. I guess I should let you go back to the main page and read another story. Before you leave and I forget to tell you, could you deliver a letter to my brother Alfred (after you find him, that is)? Send it exactly as it is written:
rn

rn

rn
Dear Alfred,
rn

rn
How have you been, how's life been treating you? I just wanted you to know that when I find you, I will kill you. Don't worry, I won't hesitate this time.
rn

rn

rn

rn
Sincerely,
rn
your brother Sam
rn

rn

:huh: :confused1:
]]> Problems/Suggestions Astro Man http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3308 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3307&goto=newpost Sat, 12 May 2012 05:26:41 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/F8bvlLJDU0vevuUAp1-SBdGdHKA/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




In the same day, this site received, among readers’ responses to my recent post Courtesy Titles and Honorifics, two diverse email messages: One was a reasonable, well-written support of the writer’s opinion that, as she was taught, because the courtesy title Ms. is an artificial designation that doesn’t abbreviate anything, it should not include a period. The other correspondent wrote, “hey watch out your website looks like a rule book, and we all know rule books are fascist.”

Whether one’s convictions are adept or absurd, however, one must accept the incontrovertible fact that although one is free to write in any style or manner one chooses, this choice has consequences.

Linguistic anarchy is inimical to language, by virtue of the fact that language, as a form of communication, is essential to family, to society, to civilization. Just as abiding by rules of personal and community conduct (the latter extending in scope from the smallest village to the United Nations) helps protect the fragile coexistence of humans, adhering to guidelines for language use enable at least sizeable blocs of humanity to agree on common signals for cooperation (or conflict).

Language evolves, constantly and relentlessly, but precepts and attitudes about it prevail for a time before they slowly respond to changes in usage. Therefore, for example, though one of the correspondents I referred to above is correct that the period following Ms. is not logically justified — and that for that reason, early in the term’s life span, many writers omitted the punctuation — it is now standard, for the sake of consistency, to treat Ms. the same as Mr. and Mrs. One’s gender and gender politics are irrelevant: Those are the facts, ma’am — er, ms.

Do you write simply for pleasure, or to share your thoughts and ideas with a small coterie of readers? Do you self-publish, whether in print or online? Knock yourself out — you are hereby granted a dispensation to write in any fashion that pleases you and anyone who chooses to read your work. You are akin to a homesteader or a survivalist, staking out your own terrain on your own terms — and accepting the terms that go with those terms.

But if your intent is to identify yourself as a professional writer — or if your employment status is predicated on the fact that your writing is intelligible to your colleagues and perhaps even consistent with distributed guidelines — certain standards apply, and your ability to adhere to those standards is inextricably linked to your professional success or survival. If that’s fascist, then I proudly represent the New World Order.

I don’t mean to get all serious on you. I respect the point about the unpunctuated Ms., and for all I know, the comment about the “rule book” may be a goof. But both comments inspire this tip: When it comes to composition, let your unfettered freak flag fly. But if you submit the flag to be unfurled atop a highly visible flagpole, expect it to be redesigned to suit that flagpole — or to be refolded and respectfully returned for you to do with what you wish.

Original Post: The Rules of Engagement in English
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3307 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3306&goto=newpost Fri, 11 May 2012 04:24:55 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/I6fzGv5t1oLHBVa5igBuT2RxK4I/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




The Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, has been widely celebrated as one of the masterworks of English usage. Time magazine listed it as one of the one hundred most influential books written in English since 1923. More than ten million copies of the slim little volume that elucidates good usage, proper composition, and correct form have been sold over the course of the last half-century.

Shred it.

Shred it, that is, after you’ve read it once so that you know what not to do in your writing. Then, buy a copy of Arthur Plotnik’s Spunk and Bite: A Writer’s Guide to Bold, Contemporary Style.

Arthur who? Why should you attend to the advice of someone you’ve never heard of? Well, who had heard of Strunk, a Cornell University English professor, a hundred years ago? And though E. B. White was a famed New Yorker staff writer, as well as author of beloved children’s novels like Charlotte’s Web, he wasn’t considered an authority on language when he was commissioned to update his former teacher’s slight handbook in 1959. If there is any justice in the world, Plotnik will be as much of a household name in fifty years as Strunk & White are now — and with more justification.

Why the adulation? Plotnik, author of several acclaimed books on writing, offers Spunk and Bite as a refreshing alternative to the dry, rigid edicts of the book known informally as Strunk & White. The latter work, he argues authoritatively, stifles creativity and results in sterile prose. In seven example-laden sections, he offers liberating advice in chapters with such titles as “Joltingly Fresh Adverbs,” “The Punchy Trope,” “How to Loot a Thesaurus,” “Intensifiers for the Feeble,” “A License. To Fragment. Sentences,” “Magic in the Names of Things,” and “Edge: Writing at the Nervy Limits.”

Over and over again, Plotnik begs to differ with The Elements of Style, urging writers to know the Strunk & White rules only so they can break them. No anarchist he, however — the advice is generally grounded in a more liberal reading of the principles of English grammar and usage and in the understanding that some of the great literature of our language, from Shakespeare to Joyce to — well, he lauds the style of Martin Amis, Bill Bryson, Jonathan Franzen, Mark Leyner, E. Annie Proulx, Salman Rushdie, and others — have done very well without adhering to Strunk & White’s prissy precepts.

I can’t wholeheartedly embrace Plotnik’s prescriptions; his chapter on alternatives to using quotation marks to signal dialogue, for example, makes me cringe, and he suggests (mysteriously citing support of other recent writing guides) that a comma can precede the last item in a sentence in which semicolons separate other items in the series. (His example: “She tried switching computers; she wrote by hand; she dictated to a recorder, her old one from work, and she prayed to her muse.”) That aberrant final comma, however, renders an otherwise acceptable sentence grotesque.

There’s also an occasional misstep in his advice: He suggests diminishing what he considers an awkward subject-verb delay in “Ibrahim could not, in spite of all his training, knowing that the platoon depended on him, even with the armed and hated enemy in his crosshairs, fire” by revising the sentence to “Ibrahim could not fire, in spite of all his training, knowing that the platoon depended on him, even with the armed and hated enemy in his crosshairs.”

But this fix squanders the sentence’s tension, and it is the bisection of the verb phrase “could not fire,” not the delay between “Ibrahim could not” and “fire,” that mars the sentence. A better revision, one that aptly spotlights the stair-step intensification of the increasingly longer modifying phrases, is “Ibrahim, in spite of all his training, knowing that the platoon depended on him, even with the armed and hated enemy in his crosshairs, could not fire.”

Visitors to this site have similarly improved on my suggested revisions of not-quite-right writing, however, and this quibble and the preceding ones serve only to point out that Plotnik isn’t perfect. But The Elements of Style is out of style, and Spunk and Bite is an engaging antidote to Strunk and White’s black-and-white bludgeoning — a rainbow of writing recipes.

Original Post: Book Review: “Spunk and Bite”
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3306 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3304&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 10:15:35 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/xsMyFD6CXcbErfBYJF7hKQ5mzD0/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Which comparative adjectival term meaning “more advanced in age” is more correct in usage? Many people still prefer to use elder and its superlative eldest, but they tend to be, well, older; the choice of that last word is becoming the alternative of choice.

One reason is that there is no world eld to serve as the basis of elder and eldest; it seems more sensible to many to progress from old to older to oldest. (There, are, however, other comparative/superlative pairs with no related basis: better and best progress from good, and worse and worst regress from bad.)

More significantly, though, is the grammatical limitation of elder: One can write, “He has an elder brother” and “He is the elder of the two” but not “He is elder than John.” (The prohibition isn’t logical, but it’s there.) In addition to “He has an older brother” and “He is the older of the two,” conversely, “He is older than John” is considered proper.

Another limitation is that elder and eldest apply only to people, but older and oldest may refer to people and inanimate objects alike. Also, although elder and eldest may refer to relative age within a family, the terms are not applied in other social contexts (besides isolated applications such as “elder statesman,” which refers to a wise and experienced but not necessarily older politician or other authoritative figure): One writes, “He is the eldest brother” but “He is the oldest child in the school.” (Keep in mind, too, that though elder and elderly imply advanced age, one does not need to be long in the tooth to be the elder of two siblings or the eldest of three or more.)

Elder is descended from the Old English word eldra, which refers to a parent or other older person. (The etymology of the name of the elder tree is unrelated.) The usage in “Respect your elders” shows its age, but the term is still employed in a religious context to refer to church leaders; an older term for church elders, presbyter, is from the Greek word presbyteros — which means “elder” — by way of Latin. (Presbyter was ultimately altered to priest.)

Elder is sometimes seen in genre fiction such as fantasy novels to impart a romantic cachet to a bygone era: “Long ago, in the Elder Days . . . .”

Elderly persists as both an adjective and a noun (“the elderly”), though some consider it demeaning and prefer older as a simpler modifier and “senior citizens” or just seniors to refer to the demographic. Interestingly, the Old English predecessor of the adjective, ealdorlic, had several superlative senses: “authentic, chief, excellent, princely.”

Older and elder, as you may have guessed when you were younger, share an origin: They both stem from a Germanic root that produce the variants ald and eald. (Adult and adolescent are related words.) The former term survives in alderman (once also ealdorman), a quaint alternative to “council member” that persists mostly in the Northeast United States and originally meant “chief, ruler,” and in the Scottish auld — as in “auld lang syne” — another variation.

Original Post: Older vs. Elder
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3304 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3302&goto=newpost Wed, 09 May 2012 04:30:43 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/r3fTYpk56nhtDZ-0yeiVEH-yhPk/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Military terminology and slang is a rich source of expressive expressions. Most, like “bite the bullet,” are clichés, but some, such as “bomber crew,” are unusual (so much so, sometimes, that in writing they may require a partial explanation).

1. Awkward Squad

This obscure but oh-so-useful phrase originated in military usage to refer to a unit of particularly inept recruits. Now, in civilian usage, it denotes an incompetent or obstructive group in a company or organization.

2. AWOL

The acronym for “absent without leave” (pronounced “AY-wall”), sometimes spelled AWL (though pronounced the same), refers to the status of military personnel who desert their posts. It now refers in general to somebody who literally abandons a location, mentally disengages, or figuratively rejects a previously held conviction or opinion.

3. Bite the Bullet

This expression refers to the tradition of giving a wounded soldier a bullet to bite on in the absence of an anesthetic while performing surgery on him on or near the battlefield. (An alternative theory refers to tearing a cartridge open with one’s teeth, but this wasn’t dangerous or difficult.) In casual use, biting the bullet is facing an unpleasant and/or difficult task.

4. Bomber Crew

This phrase refers to the cinematic cliché of the ethnically mixed crew of a military aircraft, familiar to fans of movies filmed and/or set during World War II: The characters, whether representing the crew of a bomber, soldiers in a platoon, or sailors on a ship, typically included such disparate types as a Jew from New York, a Midwestern farm boy, a tough guy from some rust belt metropolis, a Southerner, and so on. The expression could be used, for example, to refer to the “bomber-crew inclusiveness” of a poster depicting an ethnically diverse array of people.

5. Close Ranks

In military formations, to close ranks is to compress the mass of soldiers after marching or standing apart, generally to create a more formidable offensive or defensive formation. In figurative terms, “closing ranks” now refers to an act of solidarity such as uniformly supporting someone or something subject to criticism.

6. Rank and File

In marching and standing formation, soldiers standing abreast are said to be in the same rank, while a line of troops located from front to back is a file. (From the idea that the closer one is to the front of a marching column or a standing unit, the higher one’s place in the military hierarchy, came the use of the word rank to denote a degree of authority.) Now, “rank and file” is used figuratively to refer to the “foot soldiers” — the ordinary employees as opposed to the leaders — of an organization.

7. Scuttlebutt

This term derives from the butt, or cask, that held drinking water on sailing ships; it was scuttled, or provided with a hole in the top, so that water could be drawn. In the same way that office workers gather around a water cooler to share gossip, the scuttlebutt was the locale of idle talk among mariners. Hence, scuttlebutt came to refer to the gossip itself, and the usage was extended to civilian environments.

Original Post: 7 Idioms from the Military
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3302 http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3301&goto=newpost Tue, 08 May 2012 08:20:22 GMT Powered by: Daily Writing Tips (http://www.dailywritingtips.com/) Image: http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/HulxVn7snbkwofyWn_yBQJmVWDg/0/di ... Powered by: Daily Writing Tips




Words with the antonymic prefix dis- are easily confused with similar-looking terms starting with mis- or un- that usually have differing connotations or entirely distinct senses. Here are comparative definitions of some of these terms, along with etymological identification:

1-2. Disassemble/Dissemble/Misassemble
The first two words have a shared etymology but distinct meanings. To disassemble originally meant “to disperse” and now means “to take apart,” but to dissemble is to conceal or simulate. The Latin root they share is simulare, which means “to make like or to compare.” (Resemble, semblance, and the like also stem from this word, and similar is closely related.) Dissimulation is dissemble’s more directly descended synonym. To misassemble, meanwhile, is to assemble incorrectly.

3-4. Disassociate/Dissociate
These interchangeable words mean “to separate,” either literally, as in withdrawing from a social group, or figuratively, as in diverging from past behavior. (The common root stems from the Latin term sociare, which means “to join,” from which English derives social, society, and similar words.)

5. Discharge/Mischarge
Discharge means “to release,” “to unload,” or “to perform one’s duties.” Mischarge is a rare word meaning “to make a mistake in charging,” as in loading a weapon. (The root word, charge, is from the Latin term carricare, meaning “to load.”)

6. Disconnect/Misconnect
To disconnect is to uncouple or unhook. To misconnect is to put together erroneously. (The shared root, connect, is from the Latin word connectere, “to join together.” That word’s root, in turn, is related to nexus, meaning “a link or bond.”)

7. Discount/Miscount
A discount is a markdown on a price. A miscount is a tabulation made in error. (The source of the root count is the Latin word computare, from which, of course, compute and computer are derived.)

8. Disinformation/Misinformation
Disinformation is a form or propaganda intended to cover up inconvenient facts and/or sway public opinion. Misinformation is a more neutral term referring merely to incorrect data. (The Latin root they share is formare, which means “to form or shape.”)

9. Disinterest/Uninterest
These seemingly indistinguishable words sharing the root word interest (from the Latin term interesse, meaning “to be between” or “to make a difference”) have a key difference of connotation: To be disinterested is to have no stake in something, to be impartial, and uninterested denotes the more basis sense of a lack of concern or investment in something.

10. Dislocate/Mislocate
To dislocate is to put out of place; to mislocate is to misplace, or lose. (Locate is from the Latin word locare, “to place,” and is related to locus, which refers to a site or center.)

11. Disorder/Misorder
Disorder is a lack of organization or an instance of random placement, or a state of social upheaval; it is rarely used as a verb, perhaps because disorder is generally not a consciously achieved state. Misorder is an uncommon verb meaning “to erroneously order,” as in preparing an order, or a list of items such as tasks to accomplish or products to purchase. Disorder also applies to a mental or physical condition that is not normal. (The root word order is descended from the Latin term ordinem, meaning “arrangement.”)

12. Disorganized/Unorganized
These antonyms of organized (from the Latin word organum, meaning “instrument” or “organ”) are nearly synonymous, but a distinction is sometimes made between the former referring impersonally to places and things and the latter being a personal characteristic.

13. Disqualified/Unqualified
To become disqualified is to be deprived or made ineligible; to be unqualified is to already lack the required prerequisites for qualification. (The common root is from the Latin term qualis, meaning “of what kind,” which is also the source of quality.)

14. Dissatisfied/Unsatisfied
These terms have different shades of meaning: To be dissatisfied is to be disappointed in the quality of something, such as a product, or work done; unsatisfied refers to a quantitative displeasure, such as when an appetite or demand is not fulfilled. (Satisfy, the root of both words, comes from the Latin term satisfacere, a compound of satis, meaning “enough” — also the source of sate, meaning “to appease an indulgence” — and facere, meaning “to do or make,” whence fact.)

15. Distrust/Mistrust
Both words mean “the absence or lack of trust,” with no real distinction between them. The root, of course, is trust, borrowed from Scandinavian and related through the Germanic-language family tree to true and truth.

Original Post: 15 “Dis-” Words and Their Relations
Your eBook: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. ]]> Writing Tips webmaster http://www.necrotania.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3301