The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: RuthP
About
User Name: RuthP
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Last Visit: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:53:31 PM
Number of Posts: 5,150
[0.57% of all post / 1.49 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: company statement and brand positioning
Posted: Saturday, November 17, 2018 6:38:43 PM
Who is your audience? To whom are you trying to sell yourself / the company / your services? I cannot tell from what you have written whether you are selling yourself to the "one-percent" wealthy as a source of art not available to the rest of us, or if you are trying to sell yourself to potential artists as a representative to get them bought by the "one-percent".

If your ultimate goal is to do both, then recognize you will likely need either different mission statements or, more likely, distinct parts of a mission statement which speak to these groups separately. Their desires may mesh, but they are not the same. Even if you are thinking of yourself / the company as representing art to the privileged, do recognize the artists, too are your customers. You must represent their art the way they wish it seen, provide a service of value to them as well as to the ultimate buyer of art.

A few thoughts:
"Art platform" has no intrinsic definition. I cannot tell if you are speaking of a sales agency--a platform for the representation of an artist's work, or a production app for an artist to use--a technology platform for creating a piece of art, or providing some sort of financial support to allow an artist to work on art--a platform of support for the artist. If you have your audience / market / customer (see above) defined and your product or service, i.e. what you are offering your customer, defined, then this should not be a problem. As I am not in your company, nor a part of your market / customer base, I really don't know what to tell you here.
You do not have "luxurious customers". Look up the definition of "luxurious". Use an English dictionary, not a translation dictionary when investigating the definition and definitions for possible replacement words. Depending upon your market, you may mean "discerning".
"We make only quality art." Are you making the art or are you representing artists making the art? As you can see from my misquote, it should probably be "make only" rather than "only make". You may mean "offer only" quality art if you do not produce the art yourself.
". . . strive to create new ways of doing things courageously." This has a zingy sound to it, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. What are the new things being created? If it is pieces of art, again, are you doing the creating or are you representing the artists? Are you "courageously creating" new ways of doing things? Or, are you creating new ways of "doing things courageously"? And, what "things" are being done? "Things" is a poor word; you need to think about what, specifically, it is meant to represent and use that term / those terms instead.
"Burnt into customers heads" is not a good image in English. This is important. It brings visions of thought control, possibly other unpleasant actions. You might burn something into a heart, or perhaps better into "customers'" (plural) hearts; that has a somewhat more emotional, less literal feel. "Embed in the customers' hearts" might be better, though might also be considered trite. And, again, who is your customer? Are you selling yourself / the company to someone buying the art or to someone making the art? This may be a good approach to the artist, perhaps not such a good approach to the buyer of art. Or, are you selling to both? Again (sorry to be so repetitive) be aware you will need to approach these two groups differently. They have different concerns and different desires.
One does not fill an order "justly". Again, look up the definition in an English dictionary. I am unsure what you are aiming at. Are you, perhaps, thinking "fairly"? In this case, I think you may be looking for a slightly longer statement about fairness to artist and customer (with "customer" here meaning final buyer of the artwork).

I like what you are trying to do with your "Internal Values". Stylistically, you wish to keep each of your statements in the same format. You started with a direction, an order, a command; stay that way. Or, change the command form of "Respect" to the format used in your second and third values. Do not go wishy-washy on these. Assume you will be able to do what you say:

- Respect: Respect all opinions and ideas, and try develop them into something remarkable.
- Diversity: We [E]mbrace different kinds of changes and additions in art[.] as long as they are still art.
- Caring: We [L]ove each other; trust ourselves; [and] respect the team[,] even beyond the (working space)(workplace).

In Respect: Don't say "try". We all know we fail sometimes. It is not necessary to call attention to it; it is not your intent. Your intent is to develop something remarkable.
In Diversity: Don't equivocate! You are talking about art; you are dealing with art; there is no reason to consider that something you deal with might not be art.
In Caring: I think this statement is much stronger, much more forceful as three, short, complete sentences (thus the need to use semicolons [;] instead of commas [,] and omitting the "and"). It is possible to use the "and" even with the semicolons, but in general omitting it makes a 'punchier' sentence. If this is, for example, an artists' cooperative and you will all be working in a shared working space, then "work space" would be appropriate. Under other circumstances, "workplace" would be better and it works even if there is a shared work space, and it is shorter (and, therefore, punchier).

I am unsure how much help I have been. My strong convictions are in respect to the "burnt into the customer's head" idea, which just is not appropriate in English at all, and your internal values, which I really like a lot.
Topic: storming mad
Posted: Saturday, November 17, 2018 4:05:44 PM
While completely understandable, and unlikely to be interpreted any other way, I cannot say this is a common phrase. I would not consider it strange if someone were to say it. I am unaware of a common, idiomatic usage. (I'm an AE speaker.)
Topic: crawdaddy
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:42:14 PM
justina bandol wrote:
”Sometimes people ask me how I made this Department the crown jewel, the very pearl of city services. I tell them that sometimes the old ways are the best ways. Why hold truck with the uppity and newfangled when Empiricism has always been the steering light of reason? Just like it was in our fathers’ day, and our fathers’ fathers’. Today’s incident is just the kind of unfortunate mishap that can happen when you kowtow to the latest fashions from overseas. We’re going to get to the bottom of this, gentlemen, I can give you my blood oath on that little crawdaddy.”


What's the crawdaddy doing here?

I find all the possibilities already listed interesting. I've never heard "crawdaddy" (crawdad, crawfish, crayfish) used as a pejorative term for "low class". If so used, I would suspect it is a regionalism and would be unsurprised to find such a use in the Deep South or Appalachia. I would also be unsurprised to find someone anywhere in the country using "little crawdaddy" as a term of endearment for a child, though it is not something in known use.

In this case, someone has just used "crawdaddy" as a term for the "incident". One can make a rationalization: crayfish have claws; the incident has uncomfortable facets that may pinch / cause discomfort. Honestly, however, I think it far more likely that someone would just use the first funny-sounding word--"crawdaddy"--that popped into her head to ease discussion of the "incident". This is analogous to the use of "crawdaddy" as an endearment: no reason to use this word per se, but it popped into the head of the speaker.
Topic: code and nods
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:25:29 PM
Romany wrote:

I actually harbour a dark secret about the wretched hard-hats - need I say anything more than "Eeeeuuue!! Hat hair!"

(And I don't reckon anyone would get out of an Australian site alive - no matter what their gender - if they turned up in pink toe-caps!)

In the US, some women working construction sites swear by painting the handles of their tools pink. It apparently vastly reduces the number of tools that "walk off" into someone else's box.
Topic: fellow
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:16:03 PM
OK, my AE two bits.

"Who's that fellow over there."
In an informal setting, one would be more apt to use "that guy" and neither would be used for women. In a slightly more formal setting, "fellow" might be used, though "man" is probably more common and, again, "fellow" is not used for females.

Most uses now are either idiomatic or professional:

Idiomatic: "My fellow sufferers" "My fellow students" or the famous "My fellow Americans"

Professional: It can be used as a title as in "A Fellow ("Fellow" as a title) of the ACS"
"Fellow" may also refer to an established doctor, who has left practice to pursue further research or clinical work in a "fellowship" (which is a formal position description: one applies for and is accepted to--or not--a fellowship) with and acknowledged expert in the specialty. The Medical Surgical Director (title) of my organization usually has both a research and a clinical fellow (two different people) during the course of a year. Some fellowships last more than one year. While one is in a fellowship, one is a Fellow (title).


And, just as an observation, when one repeats a word too many times it starts to look stupid and wrong.
Topic: Oops...heh,heh,heh
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:59:54 PM
Yes, FounDit, and note that it was an error, not a grand conspiracy.

And, note the original researchers were not at all ungracious and quickly corrected their error: "Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, quickly realized the implications of their mistake once Lewis pointed it out."

And also note that the ocean warming already noted, and significant enough, thank you very much, was not refuted by your skeptic, nor was the "slight increase" in warming over previous estimates.

You're chortling as though you have disproved climate change / warming. You have not. This was one error, which was a serious one, but which does not change the mass of evidence available. It fails to reverse even one indicator. It reduces a newly delineated increase. That is all.

One may persist in denial of all evidence with which one is uncomfortable. It will not change what is actually happening.
Topic: improvement
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:45:36 PM
Atatürk wrote:
Having confidence in that all these will happen if appropriate efforts are expended will bring happiness and trigger purposeful actions- features not seen in depressed people. Therefore, the aim of therapeutic interventions is to create and expand such conditions in patients.


I don't like the wording, especially the boldfaced part where 'will' seems to belong to the preceding clause.

You could try reversing the order. This would require reworking the wording a bit:
Happiness and purposeful actions, features not seen in depressed people, will be expressed (if)(as) the individual develops confidence.
Topic: help them selves
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:39:14 PM
Atatürk wrote:
People suffering from dysthymia often think of their condition as irremeable and believe that neither can they help them selves nor can others be of help to them.


Is it correct?

I believe you are looking for "irremediable" and "themselves". I would leave out "that" after "believe", but that's a personal choice.
Topic: 90% of voters say they have or will vote in the US midterm elections
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:48:03 PM
thar wrote:
I find it impossible to comprehend a place where people feel there are obstacles to voting. You constantly hear these stories about how people, particularly African-Americans, feel they 'can't' vote. I find that so impossible and don't see that there can be any fundamental reason for it or mechanism to do it. I am not denying it - I know too little about it and and believe the experts - but I still find it impossible to comprehend. You register, you vote. It is your responsibility to do both, and the responsibility of the electoral system to make that as simple as possible.

Ah, but it is not so simple. Election days are not holidays in the U.S. Voting restrictions which can be and have been engineered (recently) to affect African-Americans far more than others include (probably among others) the following:
**Closing polling places in areas with high AA populations, meaning longer travel time (particularly if one does not have a car) to get to a polling place. One may not be able to afford the time to take a bus and then stand in a longer line, or--if there is no public transportation, as is often true in the US--one may not be able to afford a taxi or have the time to walk, especially if one has children.

**Restricting polling hours. This will primarily affect low-wage earners, who have no ability to just take time off work and usually have little control over the hours they are scheduled. If you cannot get off work in time to make it to the polling place, you cannot vote.

**Disallowing early voting or restricting it to very few locations, very few days, and very short hours. Early voting being one way many with inflexible jobs and who are financially unable to take time off, or cannot risk losing a job by "missing work" have dealt with these problems. In some locations, early voting was changed from weeks of days with eight hours on each day to less than one week with only three to four hours in a day. The number of locations was also reduced.
Combine those with the need to coordinate child care and pick up children therefrom, and one can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for some.

**Require specific forms of ID, and require that the name on the poll log exactly match the name on the other: no "Donald A Smith" on one and "Donald Anson Smith" on the other. No "Sarah Smith-Jones" and "Sarah Smith Jones" or "Sarah S. Jones" on the other. This is also used to disenfranchise elderly voters, who may no longer drive and may have difficulty getting out of the house to obtain an new ID.

**For African-Americans, who are born at home at higher rates than many other groups, the documentation required to get a specific form of ID may be very difficult or impossible to come by, particularly if the birth occurred a number of decades ago. Once, they could get a license with, say, a baptismal record. Now that's not allowed and the law requires a hospital birth certificate (not available if the birth was at home) or a doctor-signed birth certificate (not available if there was no doctor in attendance).

**Removing voters from the rolls if they've not voted in three elections and requiring them to come to one, central location (which may not even be in the voter's home town), with "proper ID" to re-register.

And, of course, there's the old standby of having para-militarily armed police or sheriff's officers around the polls on voting days. Or, of having a poll worker simply lie, and tell a voter with a non-approved ID that the voter may not cast a provisional ballot (one that's held until the ID's are matched satisfactorily and then is counted).

African-Americans are not the only group so targeted. Poor people in general tend to be targeted this way as are some other ethnic groups. So are populations of elderly voters, who are also at risk of not having appropriate ID. These measures are also particularly a problem for the frail elderly, who may have trouble leaving the house to obtain new ID. The elderly are more likely to have been born at a time and place without "proper documentation", the records even of hospital births may not still be extant, they may have difficulty with transportation to the polls or be physically unable to stand in long lines. College students are targeted by laws which do not allow them to vote where they are going to school, requiring them to make arrangements to vote absentee in a remote home town.
Topic: Comma and semicolon
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:33:46 PM
Jigneshbharati wrote:
Verbs in English can be classified into two categories: stative verbs and dynamic verbs. Dynamic verbs (sometimes referred to as "action verbs") usually describe actions we can take, or things that happen; stative verbs usually refer to a state or condition which is not changing or likely to change.
https://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/stat.htm
Please explain the use of comma before "or things..." and " ; " before "stative verbs usually...."

I suspect the comma is used (it is optional in this position) because the first part of the sentence is so long. The writer, when writing, perceived a need to pause and breath. The writer might have been better off with this punctuation:
"Dynamic verbs, sometimes referred to as "action verbs", usually describe actions we can take or things that happen . . ."

I suspect the reason for the parentheses instead of commas is that the use of commas around quotation marks (AE) / inverted commas (BE) is uncomfortable for many people. I placed the comma as a BE writer would place it, because it makes more sense to me that way. This is true for me even though I'm an AE speaker. In AE, one would properly place the comma so: "action verbs,". At any rate, having used parentheses, the writer apparently forgot they substitute for commas and can have the same pause. This means an additional pause before "or" is not needed and (you are right) the comma is superfluous.

The semicolon is used (not a comma) because one sentence has been completed and another started:
"Dynamic verbs (sometimes referred to as "action verbs") usually describe actions we can take, or things that happen."
"[S]tative verbs usually refer to a state or condition which is not changing or likely to change."

To join two two independent clauses, i.e. clauses that can each be a sentence, there are three (sometimes four) choices.
1) One can use a period and leave them as two sentences.
2) One can use a comma and a conjunction.
3) One can use a semicolon as long as the sentences are closely related.
4) If and only if the meaning of the second clause derives from the first clause, one can use a colon.

Using a comma alone to join two independent clauses is an error called a "comma splice" and your teacher will mark it as incorrect if you use it.

1) (See above) This is what I did with them just before my list. I left them as two sentences.
2) "Dynamic verbs (sometimes referred to as "action verbs") usually describe actions we can take, or things that happen, while stative verbs usually refer to a state or conditions which is not changing or likely to change.
3) (See your original) This is what the original writer did. It is OK here, though it wouldn't be my choice.
4) Nope. The second sentence, while reasonably related to the first, does not derive its meaning from the first.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.