|
Spanish Teacher |
|
Member |
|
|
United States |
|
|
| None Specified |
|
|
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 |
|
Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:47:05 PM |
17
[0.04% of all post / 0.08 posts per day] |
|
Personally, I fail to see the logic in stating that if subsequent annual events are not known to take place. That would obviate the expression "first annual", wouldn't it?  In other words, it would be moot for the expression to even exist if it based on the foreknowledge of there being future events.
I don't mean to get philosophical here, but life is filled with unknowns and, in my humble opinion, thinking this way would negate any sort of optimism. But I digress...
The expression "first annual" is precise in its usage here if there are future events planned (whether or not these are realized is neither here nor there). The term "inaugural" simply means 'that which occurs for the first time', whether it is a daily, weekly, or annual affair, etc. has no effect on its correctness here.
|
Interestingly, both words are derived from the same Latin root "insensibilis" and thus share the same meaning: unfeeling. Of course, there are times when certain words are used in pragmatically different ways; this means that there may be a circumstance or situation in which one word may be more used than others. Keep in mind, however, that this is arbitrary. Think of it as 'what is socially accepted' or 'traditional'.
Essentially, both words could be used to describe an unfeeling sentiment, whether it be literal or figurative.
Example:
1) Insensitive: Marcus was insensitive to Katharine's outpouring of emotion and left her standing alone in the doorway has he walked away.
2) Insensible: After hearing the news of the accident, Tom felt insensible to the pain attempting to eat away at his heart.
I recognize that the latter is not a common usage, but is used correctly nonetheless.
Is there any disagreement on this matter? A different perspective is welcome :)
|
Hi Proli, I haven't posted that much here, but I have read a lot of the intelligent, thought-provoking, and amusing (and musings) posts here on TFD. Yours have always been at the vanguard, which have catalyzed the many members here. As a result, you have unassumingly sort of led the way, as it were. Personally, I, too, am relieved (and content) that you are well; I certainly hope that life has not dealt you any unwarranted unpleasantness?
It is nice to hear from you again, and I am looking forward to hearing more from you :)
|
Many of you all bring up valid points. Here are two that I wish to expound on:
1) The term "stewardess" is becoming outdated (or has already done so). Thus, it would be more efficacious to simply use the bi-gendered term "flight attendant". As an aside, I would like to point out (not to propose another argument for or against the term "stewardess", but simply informational) that in Spanish, and thus Spanish-speaking countries, the word "azafata" (stewardess) and the term "auxiliar de vuelo" (flight attendant) are used mutually. "Azafata" is still used today, without being pejorative in nature. But, of course, Spanish-speaking countries tend to be "behind the times", I won't argue that!
2) That the term "Barmaid" is no longer being used either. Nevertheless, the term "barMAN" is still being used. My question here is: if the female "maid" has a negative sense (or at least leans toward the negative spectrum), then why not the male "man"? If being politically correct constitutes modifying all of the extant terminology to a neuter sense, where does that leave the term "huMAN"?
Just food for thought.
|
otiose posted:
Re "-dess" it implies that the caretaker is a female".
I think the correct suffix is -ess, not -dess.
Yes, you are very much correct. Thank you for correcting me; the correct suffix denoting the female gender is "-ess". I failed to confirm this through TFD earlier, but I just did so prior to posting this reply.
|
That's quite interesting; I had no idea that spell checker was suggesting these changes. Usually, when I type, I prefer to not use it, as I wish to challenge myself with correct spelling. Naturally, I do make a few mistakes, but I would rather rely on my own abilities than those of an intrusive program.
This is merely my opinion and not, in any way, a denouncement of the spell checker's usage by others. Think of it as my own personal game.
Nevertheless, now that you bring it up, why IS the usage of "stewardess" deemed inappropriate and politically incorrect? Does not the term signify 'one who is a caretaker; an overseer?' With the suffix "-dess" it implies that the caretaker is a female; I fail to see the injurious nature of the word. But perhaps you brought it up only as exempli gratia?
|
In regards to your example of "1, 2, and 3":
It is interesting to note that in Spanish, for example, the formal practice here would be "1, 2 and 3" (no comma separating "2" or "and") Unfortunately, I do not know why this is. It could come down to a preference in a particular style, and therefore an adherence to it.
|
¡Muchas gracias, Valentina! Te lo agradezco. Yo también uso con mucha frecuencia el Diccionario de la RAE; en mi opinión, es la última palabra en cuanto al habla española. Había visto los del "Leísmo, Loísmo, y Laísmo" también, pero al igual me confundía con esos dos verbos precisos (golpear y pegar).
Patricio
|
How about: insurmountable, unconquerable?
Too much?
|
Necesito un poco de ayuda con lo siguiente: Con el verbo "Pegar" (Golpear) Mi pregunta es: ¿Qué tipo de pronombre se debe usar, el del complemento directo (lo) o índirecto (le)?
Ejemplo:
A) Mi hermano se enfadó con el dependiente por el mal servicio y LE pegó.
B) Mi hermano se enfadó con el dependiente por el mal servicio y LO pegó.
Si me podrían dirigir a un sitio de web en dónde haya una explicación clara de esto, se lo agradecería.
¡Gracias!
|
|