4 ms·
Really cool article! Tangential: > “Scattering” is the scientific term of art for molecules deflecting photons. Linguistically, it’s used somewhat inconsistent
by munificent 8mo ago
Really cool article! Tangential:
> “Scattering” is the scientific term of art for molecules deflecting photons. Linguistically, it’s used somewhat inconsistently. You’ll hear both “blue light scatters more” (the subject is the light) and “atmospheric molecules scatter blue light more” (the subject is the molecule). In any case, they means the same thing
There's nothing ambiguous or inconsistent about this. In English a verb is transitive if it takes one or more objects in addition to the subject. In "Anna carries a book", "carries" is transitive. A verb is intransivite if it takes no object as with "jumps" in "The frog jumps.".
Many verbs in English are "ambitransitive" where they can either take an object or not, and the meaning often shifts depending on how it's used. There is a whole category of verbs called "labile verbs" where the subject of the intransitive form becomes the object of the transitive form:
* Intransitive: The bell rang.
* Transitive: John rang the bell.
"Scatter" is simply a labile verb:
* Intransitive: Blue light scatters.
* Transitive: Atmospheric molecules scatter blue light more.
- erikdkennedy 8mo agoTIL! Debates whether to update the sidenote with an explainer on ambitransitive and labile verbs
- thombat 8mo agoPlease do! It will fit the spirit of your splendid post, unpacking the complexity of a thing we take for granted (at least as native English speakers)
- kazinator 8mo agoThere are many verbs like this, and English is somewhat open toward using verbs that way, or becoming so. Did English speakers say "this novel reads well" two, three hundred years ago?
- suzzer99 8mo agoNow do clam steamers and shrimp fried rice.
- munificent 8mo agoI'm familiar with "steamer clams", but not "clam steamers". In "shrimp fried rice", "shrimp" is a noun adjunct [1], which is when you use a noun as an adjective. The charming ambiguity comes from it being unclear whether "shrimp" is an adjunct noun modifying "fried rice" ("shrimp fried-rice") or modifying the past participle verb "fried" ("shrimp-fried rice"). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese
- pierrec 8mo agoI thought the charming ambiguity came from "fried" either acting as an adjective or as a verb. These aren't just any shrimp, they're chef shrimp, and they've prepared some delicious fried rice for us. Isn't that incredible? Shrimp fried rice.
- munificent 8mo agoRight. It's a noun phrase either way. The question is whether it is rice that were fried by shrimp ("shrimp-fried rice") or fried rice containing shrimp ("shrimp fried-rice").
- suzzer99 8mo agoYeah, they're usually just called "steamers". I put clam in front of them to disambiguate. But it's always bugged me. They're not steaming anything! They're getting steamed.
- srean 8mo agoI have always wondered about this. The verb for the first person is to 'see'. To a third person you 'show' For the first person there is 'listen' (or 'hear'). Does English not have a corresponding word for the third person ? What about Germanaic or Nordic languages ? Do they have a third person analogue of 'listen' ?
- smlavine 8mo ago"tell"?
- srean 8mo agoAh! That's not bad but it's not the same thing. Good nevertheless. I can 'show' (or point someone to a) a sight that I am not myself creating in anyway. The word I am looking for would mean to 'make you hear' in the same may to show is to make you see. I showed him the distant tower. I ??? him the faint sound.
- ccozan 8mo agoplay? I played him the faint sound.
- srean 8mo agoYes that will indeed work in a few cases.
- thaumasiotes 8mo agoYou appear to be looking for the word show, which is not specific to visual phenomena.
- srean 8mo agoI see (pun intended)
- 1718627440 8mo ago
- tsoukase 8mo agoLabile verbs is a source of ambiguity of natural languages (only western ones?) that we are all accustomed to. The bell rang should become The bell was rung, either way it means The bell rang another bell.
- GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago"the bell was rung" illustrates a cause (and introduces a question: who rang the bell?) "the bell rang" illustrates an effect (the vibration and sound of the bell as it rings). i think this is more an illustration of the ambiguity of the root word "ring", which can be an action by a subject upon an object, or to describe the behavior of the object itself.
- 1718627440 8mo agoThat ambiguity results from the elimination of cases, other languages still have them (and I perceive English to have as well, I just treat them all as homonym). You wouldn't say that foo(a,b) has ambiguity, because foo(NULL, &b) and foo(&a, NULL) both exist.
- orlp 8mo agoIn modern usage (e.g. in gaming communities) "carries" has become not only ambitransitive but also a noun. If something "carries" or is "a carry", it means it is so strong it metaphorically carries the rest of the setup with it. For example: > This card carries. > These two are the carries of the team.