5 ms·

Augh. Almost 100% unrelated to the article, but: "There are ramshackle _cement_ rectangles squatting under rain clouds..." It's concrete [1] not cement. Even

by turaw 10y ago

Augh. Almost 100% unrelated to the article, but: "There are ramshackle _cement_ rectangles squatting under rain clouds..." It's concrete [1] not cement. Even the word cementing can mean "settle or establish firmly", which is what happens to the aggregate in concrete. Augh. [1]: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-difference-between-cement-and-concrete/ http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-differen...

pdabbadabba 10y ago
+1 for the information, but I don't think all the "Augh"s are warranted. One of the widely accepted, dictionary definitions of "cement" is simply "concrete." (In fact, Merriam Webster has this listed as definition #1.) I understand that the terms have different technical meanings, but in common English they are simply synonyms. E.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cement http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cement There may be an opportunity for a Battle of the Dictionaries here, but I think this skirmish in the language wars may be over.
- turaw 10y ago
  Fair enough :/ it just feels like 'misusing' words is disrespectful to their source, as though a lack of effort was taken to use it 'properly' (air quotes since those are highly subjective terms). In a detached sense, I suppose seeing semantic change [1] in action is neat, but it is still just the tiniest bit depressing. edit: Ah! Also cool is dental cement [2] which is, as the name would imply, used in dentistry (but without any aggregate equivalent!). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_cement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_cement
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    Totally agree. Even if "concrete" and "cement" can "properly" be used interchangeably, I myself prefer to use words in a way that recognizes these sorts of distinctions. It keeps language more information rich and historically connected. (And keeps me from being looked down upon by well-educated people who, like myself, incline towards language snobbery :))

by turaw 10y ago

pdabbadabba 10y ago

+1 for the information, but I don't think all the "Augh"s are warranted. One of the widely accepted, dictionary definitions of "cement" is simply "concrete." (In fact, Merriam Webster has this listed as definition #1.) I understand that the terms have different technical meanings, but in common English they are simply synonyms. E.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cement http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cement There may be an opportunity for a Battle of the Dictionaries here, but I think this skirmish in the language wars may be over.

turaw 10y ago
Fair enough :/ it just feels like 'misusing' words is disrespectful to their source, as though a lack of effort was taken to use it 'properly' (air quotes since those are highly subjective terms). In a detached sense, I suppose seeing semantic change [1] in action is neat, but it is still just the tiniest bit depressing. edit: Ah! Also cool is dental cement [2] which is, as the name would imply, used in dentistry (but without any aggregate equivalent!). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_cement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_cement
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  Totally agree. Even if "concrete" and "cement" can "properly" be used interchangeably, I myself prefer to use words in a way that recognizes these sorts of distinctions. It keeps language more information rich and historically connected. (And keeps me from being looked down upon by well-educated people who, like myself, incline towards language snobbery :))