My few readers pretty much have to be "friends," for I've seldom written on topics that weren't either OS-meta or just plain quirky. I tend to keep my politics to myself here and I don't write about food or entertainment. I don't write poetry for others to read. I don't find pathos in my life and so don't write such heart-tuggers as many of you whom I love to read.
Maybe I'm unimpressed with my life story or just afraid you'll be unimpressed.
In other online incarnations, I tend to write long, well-researched pieces, but as those are mostly related to local issues, I've never felt OS to be the place to share them. And lately, I tend to keep my own counsel even in that sphere.
Sure, I have some cute stories, some interesting tales, but there's plenty of time for those. I have a friend whose story about an encounter with Vladimir Putin would be a sure EP, but it doesn't hold a candle, IMO, to my encounter with Mikhail Gorbachev!
See, I told you I wrote long.
So what the hell is this post about?
Friend Julie Tarp, the screenwriter, who shares a tendency or two with me, encouraged a DAILY word blog. I can't promise that, but I'll give you one, Jules.
Caveat: apologies in advance...I critique rather than criticize...but I believe words have meaning, and if we aspire to communicate, it is essential that we set an example by being diligent in our use of words. I don't call for anyone to be a troll and be ready to pounce with blades twirling on every literary and verbal faux pas; just be careful when you write. Words have meaning.
TODAY'S WORD LESSON
Discrete vs. Discreet
DISCRETE
The etymology of the word is from Middle English, and further back, from the Latin discretus.
Merriam-Webster definitions: 1: constituting a separate entity : individually distinct <several discrete sections>2 a: consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : noncontinuous b: taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values <discrete probabilities> <a discrete random variable>
Dictionary.com uses a more synonomic approach, defining it as: 1.apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts. 2.consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.
Randy's usage note: I'll use it in the place of unique, well-defined, measurable, or separate. She serves a discrete function within the Open Salon community.
DISCREET
Also from Middle English via Anglo-French, and further back from Medieval Lating discretus.Merriam-Webster definitions: 1: having or showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech : prudent ; especially : capable of preserving prudent silence2: unpretentious, modest <the warmth and discreet elegance of a civilized home — Joseph Wechsberg>3: unobtrusive, unnoticeable <followed at a discreet distance>
Dictionary.com uses a more synonomic approach, defining it as: judicious in one's conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.
Randy's usage note: Frankly, it is the action of someone who uses discretion, to be self-referential. I'll use it in the place of measured, considerate, modest, and maybe even private. Discreet people never seek to draw attention to a situation beyond those immediately involved. She, while serving a discrete function within Open Salon, always manages to be discreet in broaching a subject.
Both are adjectives. They are homonyms in that they sound alike. In speech, they sound alike. When one is meant, the use of the other, especially in writing, can cause confusion.
And when otherwise bright people allow themselves to mistake the two, it tends to cast doubt into the mind of the reader trying to evaluate the writing.
I claim little authorship here. Just a little basic research and a lifetime of reading with care.
NEXT: We invite mnemonic tips for remembering how to spell operate and separate.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Barbra anne
hyblaean- Julie
Frank Apisa
m. a.h
Chicago Guy
Lea Lane
Salon.com
Comments
I'm still just guessing that you underestimate your skills. Hope I'm not way off base, but I truly believe you could parlay the last six months of Open Salon work into a full-time gig.
And if you're holding back on Russian stories, a pox on you! I'm always curious to hear about Russia. As the famous wordsmith said, "Have good and get give!" (no, there's no typos in that)
Harry: I'll put out someday on the Russia stories (I only visited once, but my girl did her Peace Corps stint in the F.I.S.). Trolls is a strong choice of words, but I will admit that I experienced some trepidation that someone might take offense at my presumption to give language lessons. We'll see.
Coyote: Giving value is what I live for.
An aside: My affinities lean, apparently, to the distaff side, partly in evidence in my appreciation of your work here, N. In another venue, after I generously praised the merits of my spouse (in my circle, the men are blessed by the superior women in their lives), a "troll" suggested I just put my "nuts in a velvet sack and hand them over to my wife for safekeeping." She does let me use them, from time to time, though.
Anyhoo, (you must really hate when people say that) the phrase Can't see the forest for the trees drives me crazy. I'm always tempted to say Can't see the forest through the trees.
I don't mean to highlight my ignorance here, but doesn't the latter make more sense?
When trying to figure out to use I or me, replace the pronoun with another. 'Between you and I' (subjective case) replace with 'Between we' (subjective case). If it sounds awful, realize that us (as in between us) is objective,as is me, so say 'between you and me'
English has only 3 cases, subjective, objective and possessive. Subjective is the norm (I), Possessive is easy to figure out (My/Mine) leaving objective (Me).
When you have two people, make it one. "Can Me and Her go to the movies?" => "Can Me go?" "Can Her go?" => "Can She and I go to the movies?"
Add the extra word. "I am bigger than her." => "I am bigger than her is." => "I am bigger than she."
I'll use this in the next word post. But you've introduced a controversial complication in your last bit by introducing the "than" paradox. I've been convinced that it's not a definitive rule.
I'm told, and am beginning to believe, that "smarter than her" might just be more acceptable than "smarter than she (is)." The unsaid "is" would make "her is" sound goofy, but many contend that the introduction of "than" creates a new rule. I'll try to research from past reading before I take that one on, but it's pretty well established that the evolution of the language has made those of us who insist on "than she" are in the minority. And now that William F. Buckley, Jr. has passed on, we are in the minority less one.
Anyway Randy, I love that you are doing this. I can always use a tip, or a reminder of interesting words, interesting usage, interest in language. Yeah baby! I want more.
As for being unable to see the forest for the trees...
The "original" formulation is, to my mind, much more poetic, but I see your point (and your temptation). Let's try to change the subjects and see if your formulation works. But first...
I believe the original form tries to show this: Because I'm focusing on the individual trees, I fail to see that I am in a forest. I see this tree and that tree and that other tree, and think that I'm amongst three or thirty trees. I can't discern or imagine that I might be in the middle of a vast forest, and that may have dire consequences.
If I pay attention to the potholes in my town, and draw the conclusion that my mayor is incompetent at providing services, I might fail to see that the money simply isn't there to fix the potholes. If I pay attention to the lack of money, I might fail to see that the money is being diverted to cronies or that the political environment is hostile to a tax rate that will support those services.
In that municipal example, your tempting formulation breaks down a little bit. And I think that's why the "original" serves as the better, broader, and more literary form.
If I'm in a forest, I may not see it "through" the trees, granted. But it's a metaphor that is much more subtle than being sightless. It's a metaphor that implies ignorance or cluelessness.
It is MY focus that limits my discernment, not the physical presence of the trees that limits my vision.
"He can't see the ocean for the waves" is equivalent to "He can't see the ocean through the waves." But the metaphor of the trees/forest has become symbolic of self-limitation (focus) instead of external limitation (sight).
But literally, you might be right. Metaphorically, and if you see it as the metaphor it is, the "(but) for the trees" seems superior.
But things change. We the stubborn will be dead someday, and if the metaphor someday fails to conjure the idea currently expressed, then your more literal temptation might win out. And if it no longer conjures, the magic is gone, and it won't have deserved our vigilance.
Another aside: Wouldn't it be nice if we had some emoticon or Web-meme that says "oopsie - I know I mangled what I just wrote." I'm thinking of the groaners like there/their and your/you're that we're all guilty of.
I've wrestled with the meaning of that phrase for a long time. I do indeed appreciate you sharing your interpretation.
Ps. I couldn't resist using the word perspicuous again.
If you only knew how mortified I was by that blunder. It kinda puts a chill on the inner-professor when I put my foot in the trap so blithely. I hate being wrong!
I love this Randy! Seriously. I have, on occasion, confused the two - what a great start!
Exaggerating only slightly...
OS's Saturn Smith blogged CONTINUALLY in the runup to the election. Greg Thomas blogged CONTINUOUSLY during the month of January. (grin)
I think that most of the time when we use continuously, we are exaggerating, at least when we are discussing human activity.
The Niagara River falls continuously, without interruption. The Niagara University Purple Eagles baseball team continually disappoints its fans by racking up a losing record for two years running . The athletes don't lose continuously - they lose continually.
From Wiktionary:
CONTINUOUS - Without break, cessation, or interruption; without intervening time; a continuous current of electricity. Without intervening space; continued; protracted; extended; a continuous line of railroad.
CONTINUAL - Seemingly continuous; appearing to have no end or interruption; recurring in steady, rapid succession, forming a continuous series.
Note that the definition above of continual references continuous, but makes a gradation of apparent continuity when it does. Otherwise, the sequence or serial recurrences differentiate continual from continuous.
But it's even finer. One could easily say that the continuing losses of the college team qualify as continual, but the streak is continuous.
The Earth revolves on its axis and rotates around the Sun continuously. The appearance of a full moon is continual or episodic.
I invite more skilled mavens to have at this to improve, debate, or correct this.
As if I didn’t have enough to be paranoid about before clicking the “Publish” button.
Seriously, thank you for a great post and for the valuable information.
p.s. I’m wondering if there are “mnemonic tips” for remembering to use the “spell check” feature on word processors.
Vast amount of water, vast number of gallons. My teeth ache when I see "amount of gallons."
Periodic implies metronomic regularity, while continual doesn't. How about we settle on serial (series) that repeats with some regularity without swinging the other way. The Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon is continuous. This season of 24 is continual...for so long as they last.
m using the right word. I know this is probably an easy one for most, but who finds it difficult or for whom does it present difficulty? Are those who/m used properly/ And is it improper to end a sentence with a preposition?
Rated for valuable content
And this sentence is probably the only time it is proper to end one with a preposition.
That does NOT mean that it can't be done or that it is evidence of weak writing. Most people do it all the time and everything I've read about it indicates the rule will pass into the mists of time. But it's nice to see the part of speech of which you were thinking. ;)
To whom am I writing? For whom am I writing? Julie, you say? Who is Julie? Who? Julie who? Is she the one who's (not whose) the screenwriter from Washington/Texas/Oklahoma? She is. Who is? Julie is.
If you would say "Her is hungry," then you'd also say "Julie, whom is hungry."
If you would say "I gave it to she," then you'd also say "I gave it to who."
But you wouldn't say that, would you?
Online, that would be torture, and a recipe for irrelevance.
San Diego's NPR station (KPBS?) yes, KPBS at www.kpbs.org, that features Martha Barnett (whom I've met and who's from Louisville) and Richard Lederer (you can find their show at http://waywordradio.org) that covers the waterfront.
But Rob, on Open Salon, a weekly show STILL wouldn't be enough. But I'm certain it's better than I can do without shutting down my business and becoming a full-time blogger. Hmmmm?