[Dixonary] OT: Actionable

[Guerri Stevens]

What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
"actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.

--
Guerri

[—Keith Hale—]

The meaning i always thought of was like i found here:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/actionable#actionable_3

"if someone’s behavior is actionable, it is so bad that you could start a
legal case against them because of it

His remarks were considered actionable by my attorney.

In modern "CorpSpeak" or "Corporate Language" i heard "Action Item(s)" a
lot.

Broadening my mind to include other meanings of [actionable] brings to mind
Action Figures. They're "Action-Able!".

[Paul Keating]

My own usage of actionable matches Keith's.

But action is now widely used as a transitive verb, and –able is a productive suffix, and has been since the 16th century. That is, you can use it freely to make new words, which is how the original sense of actionable came into being.

So I don’t suppose there can be any more objection to this sense of actionable than to the verb itself.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

[Dodi Schultz]

Guerri Stevens wrote:
> What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for
> instance, "actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the
> writers believe they are providing advice you can act on, and in a
> sense that is its meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually
> looked at a dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more
> than one meaning.

Normally, it means what you (and I) think it means: providing grounds
for a lawsuit.

"Capable of being used" is a secondary or tertiary meaning, though; see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actionable
That's the online version of the Random House dictionary, normally one
of the better US sources (the dead-tree version says the same thing).
Other dictionaries, including AHD, don't agree.

I think it's pretty dumb for an advertiser to rely on an obscure definition.

Dixonarians interested in pursuing such discussions, and trying to
explain this stuff to people trying to learn English, might want to have
a look at:
http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6
Four Dixonary players are already participants there, three of us under
other names (fake usernames are the custom there). The forum is part of
a huge and interesting language-focused site with forums in multiple
tongues; many (most, I guess) are bilingual.

[Dodi Schultz]

Dodi Schultz wrote:
> Guerri Stevens wrote:
>> What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for
>> instance, "actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the
>> writers believe they are providing advice you can act on, and in a
>> sense that is its meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually
>> looked at a dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more
>> than one meaning.
>
> Normally, it means what you (and I) think it means: providing grounds
> for a lawsuit.
>
> "Capable of being used" is a secondary or tertiary meaning, though; see:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/actionable
> That's the online version of the Random House dictionary, normally one
> of the better US sources (the dead-tree version says the same thing).
> Other dictionaries, including AHD, don't agree.
>
> I think it's pretty dumb for an advertiser to rely on an obscure
> definition.
>
> Dixonarians interested in pursuing such discussions, and trying to
> explain this stuff to people trying to learn English, might want to
> have a look at:
> http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6
> Four Dixonary players are already participants there, three of us
> under other names (fake usernames are the custom there). The forum is
> part of a huge and interesting language-focused site with forums in
> multiple tongues; many (most, I guess) are bilingual.

POSTSCRIPT TO MY MESSAGE ABOVE: "Other dictionaries don't agree" isn't
completely accurate. Oxford seems to admit that definition:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/actionable?region=us

—Dodi

[EnDash@aol.com]

The copywriters could use some remedial English.

-- Dick


In a message dated 7/3/2011 6:48:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
guerri (AT) tapcis (DOT) com writes:

What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
"actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.

--
Guerri

[Steve Graham]

Better still, rap their knuckles with a crowbar.

Steve Graham
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:28, EnDash (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

> The copywriters could use some remedial English.
>
> -- Dick
>
> In a message dated 7/3/2011 6:48:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, guerri (AT) tapcis (DOT) com writes:
> What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
> "actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
> they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
> meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
> dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.
>
> --
> Guerri

[Jim Hart]

Grudgingly I must admit Keith and Paul are right that action is now
used as a transitive verb, so then I suppose actionable sort of makes
sense for something (eg advice) that could/should be acted on. And
having got that far I suppose I have to admit it's not really all that
different from the legal use of actionable for something that one
could take action on.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

To me it's yet another case of using common nouns as verbs and verbs
as nouns. My pet hate is spend as a noun, as in your average monthly
spend, very popular with people who try to sell phone contracts and
suchlike.

And while I'm here, when did pant, jean and trouser become singular
nouns? I still wear a pair of pants though I admit I don't know why
since I wear a singular shirt even though both garments are
topologically similar. Should I now cut paper with a scissor and hold
things with a forcep or a plier? (And interestingly my spellcheck just
queried forcep and plier but ignored the others.)

Grumble grumble where will it end mutter mutter

Jim





On Jul 3, 8:47*pm, Guerri Stevens <gue... (AT) tapcis (DOT) com> wrote:
> What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
> "actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
> they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
> meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
> dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.
>
> --
> Guerri

[France International]

Scissor is perfectly OK as a singular adjective, perhaps that's why your spell-checker didn't flag it.

--Mike (picking nits, as usual)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hart" <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: "Dixonary" <dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 11:30 AM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: OT: Actionable


Grudgingly I must admit Keith and Paul are right that action is now
used as a transitive verb, so then I suppose actionable sort of makes
sense for something (eg advice) that could/should be acted on. And
having got that far I suppose I have to admit it's not really all that
different from the legal use of actionable for something that one
could take action on.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

To me it's yet another case of using common nouns as verbs and verbs
as nouns. My pet hate is spend as a noun, as in your average monthly
spend, very popular with people who try to sell phone contracts and
suchlike.

And while I'm here, when did pant, jean and trouser become singular
nouns? I still wear a pair of pants though I admit I don't know why
since I wear a singular shirt even though both garments are
topologically similar. Should I now cut paper with a scissor and hold
things with a forcep or a plier? (And interestingly my spellcheck just
queried forcep and plier but ignored the others.)

Grumble grumble where will it end mutter mutter

Jim





On Jul 3, 8:47 pm, Guerri Stevens <gue... (AT) tapcis (DOT) com> wrote:
> What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
> "actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
> they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
> meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
> dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.
>
> --
> Guerri


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3741 - Release Date: 07/03/11

[—Keith Hale—]

Well, it is technically fine to use any connotation a word might have.
Makes me think of the man behind Dame Edna Everage, and his touring show;
"An Evening's Intercourse with Barry Humphries".

Language does shift, over time, and I guess it is fruitless to fight it. I
like to indulge in the ironic satire of CorpSpeak... but I bet a lot of
people assume I mean it. I do the same with street lingo, and only people
who know me are safely going to get the satiric intent, yo!

On 3 Jul 2011 10:30, "Jim Hart" <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Grudgingly I must admit Keith and Paul are right that action is now
used as a transitive verb, so then I suppose actionable sort of makes
sense for something (eg advice) that could/should be acted on. And
having got that far I suppose I have to admit it's not really all that
different from the legal use of actionable for something that one
could take action on.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

To me it's yet another case of using common nouns as verbs and verbs
as nouns. My pet hate is spend as a noun, as in your average monthly
spend, very popular with people who try to sell phone contracts and
suchlike.

And while I'm here, when did pant, jean and trouser become singular
nouns? I still wear a pair of pants though I admit I don't know why
since I wear a singular shirt even though both garments are
topologically similar. Should I now cut paper with a scissor and hold
things with a forcep or a plier? (And interestingly my spellcheck just
queried forcep and plier but ignored the others.)

Grumble grumble where will it end mutter mutter

Jim






On Jul 3, 8:47 pm, Guerri Stevens <gue... (AT) tapcis (DOT) com> wrote:
> What does "actionable" mean to y...

[Daniel Widdis]

We used this word almost daily in my military days as an adjective,
usually either "actionable intelligence" or "actionable information".
Basically, if you had enough information that your enemy was at location X
or taking action Y, you had enough grounds (probably tactical from a risk
perspective, but possibly legal, under law of war?) to "take action" and
execute a military operation.

--
Dan




On 7/3/11 3:47 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:

>What does "actionable" mean to you? I read stuff offering, for instance,
>"actionable advice for investing in ...". Obviously the writers believe
>they are providing advice you can act on, and in a sense that is its
>meaning, but not in the way they intend. I actually looked at a
>dictionary to see whether perhaps "actionable" has more than one meaning.
>
>--
>Guerri

[Dodi Schultz]

Jim Hart wrote:
> Grudgingly I must admit Keith and Paul are right that action is now used as a transitive verb . . .


In what dictionary?

[Dodi Schultz]

Mike Shefler wrote:
> Scissor is perfectly OK as a singular adjective, perhaps that's why
> your spell-check* er * didn't flag it.

It's also a verb. :-)

[John Barrs]

On 3 July 2011 16:30, Jim Hart <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
>
> Grumble grumble where will it end mutter mutter
>
>
Where it always has ended: us oldies left in the armchairs vainly
expostulating through our false teeth while the vibrant (or vibrating)
youngsters get on with living their and everyone else's lives

JohnnyB

[Tim B]

> Grumble grumble where will it end mutter mutter

And while we're being picky, why "a savings of ..."? This is purely American English as far as I
know; I've never heard it over here.

Best wishes,
Tim B in England.

[Judy Madnick]

<< And while we're being picky, why "a savings of ..."? This is
<< purely American English as far as I
<< know; I've never heard it over here.

How about "two times longer" when the speaker really means "twice as long"?

Judy

[Tim B]

> How about "two times longer" when the speaker really means "twice as long"?

Ouch! I don't think I've heard that one.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[Judy Madnick]

<< > How about "two times longer" when the speaker really
<< means "twice as long"?

<< Ouch! I don't think I've heard that one.

You would hear it on American TV, in American magazine ads, etc. "Two times longer" would be fine...if that's what the ad meant!!

Judy

[Dodi Schultz]

Judy Madnick wrote:
> "Two times longer" would be fine...if that's what the ad meant!
>

What DOES it mean? If X lasts a year, and Y lasts "two times longer"—how
long, exactly, will Y last?

—Dodi

[stamps]

That's bad enough, but what's worse is saying something is ten times
smaller. That makes absolutely no sense mathematically.

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Judy Madnick" <jmadnick (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Sent: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 18:04:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Re: OT: Actionable

> << > How about "two times longer" when the speaker
> really << means "twice as long"?
>
> << Ouch! I don't think I've heard that one.
>
> You would hear it on American TV, in American magazine ads, etc.
> "Two times longer" would be fine...if that's what the ad meant!!
>
> Judy
------- End of Original Message -------

[Judy Madnick]

From: "Dodi Schultz" <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org>

<< Judy Madnick wrote:
<< > "Two times longer" would be fine...if that's what the ad
<< meant!
<< >

<< What DOES it mean? If X lasts a year, and Y lasts "two times
<< longer"—how
<< long, exactly, will Y last?

My understanding is this:

If X lasts a year and Y lasts twice as long, Y lasts two years. Y=2X

If X lasts a year and Y lasts two times longer, Y lasts three years. Y=X+2X

I see that the WordReference forum (at least in one thread) doesn't agree with this. Hmmm...

Judy

[stamps]

Two times longer (larger, bigger, etc) means the same as three times as long
(large, big, etc.). "Times" means multiply, so two times longer than X is 2X
+ X or 3X. This is not the same as "two times as long" (2X).

--Mike

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Sent: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:29:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Re: OT: Actionable

> Judy Madnick wrote:
> > "Two times longer" would be fine...if that's what the ad meant!
> >
>
> What DOES it mean? If X lasts a year, and Y lasts "two times
> [WINDOWS-1252?]longer"—how long, exactly, will Y last?
>
> [WINDOWS-1252?]—Dodi
------- End of Original Message -------

[Judy Madnick]

<< Two times longer (larger, bigger, etc) means the same as
<< three times as long
<< (large, big, etc.). "Times" means multiply, so two times longer
<< than X is 2X
<< + X or 3X. This is not the same as "two times as long" (2X).

My belief exactly.

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

From: stamps <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>

<< That's bad enough, but what's worse is saying something is
<< ten times
<< smaller. That makes absolutely no sense mathematically.

The TV commercial for Aleve claims you take "four times fewer" Aleve tablets than...another product (Advil?). Huh?

Judy

[Jim Hart]

Mike (picking nits), Dodi et al:

> Scissor is perfectly OK as a singular adjective,

Agreed, but does anyone speak of cutting with a scissor?

> ...perhaps that's why your spell-checker didn't flag it.

Touché on spell-checker not spell-check. I could I suppose defend my
position by arguing that check (and hence spell-check) is a valid
longstanding noun being the act of checking, but I won't bother.

And anyway it has only just dawned on me that the spell in spell-
check(er) is another example of verb-as-noun when it would more
correctly be a spelling check(er). Unless you are a witch.

Another of my most despised verb-as-noun usages is ask. As in that's a
big ask. Probably made worse because the kinds of people who employ
such usages are already the ones I have a low opinion of even before
they open their stupid platitudinous mouths...

Sorry, time for my medication.

Jim

[Dodi Schultz]

Judy Madnick wrote:
> My understanding is this:
>
> If X lasts a year and Y lasts twice as long, Y lasts two years. Y=2X
>
> If X lasts a year and Y lasts two times longer, Y lasts three years. Y=X+2X
>

I agree with your first understanding.

I don't think that "two times longer" actually has a meaning. (Two YEARS
longer = three years. But does "two times longer" = "two years longer"?)

—Dodi

[stamps]

If you agree that "times" implies multiplication, then a yardstick, for
instance, is two times longer than a foot rule.

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Sent: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:33:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Re: OT: Actionable

> Judy Madnick wrote:
> > My understanding is this:
> >
> > If X lasts a year and Y lasts twice as long, Y lasts two years. Y=2X
> >
> > If X lasts a year and Y lasts two times longer, Y lasts three years.
Y=X+2X
> >
>
> I agree with your first understanding.
>
> I don't think that "two times longer" actually has a meaning. (Two
> YEARS longer = three years. But does "two times longer" = "two years
> longer"?)
>
> [WINDOWS-1252?]—Dodi
------- End of Original Message -------

[Jim Hart]

Tim:

Two times longer? Yes one must (generously) assume they mean twice as
long though logically it ought to be three times as long. Similarly
when a "200% increase" actually means double or a 100% increase or an
increase *to* 200% of the original.

Then there is "three times less" which generally means one-third
though logically it ought to result in a negative quantity. And on a
good day there's "more than three times less" which could be both
greater or less than one-third.

And that's aside from the fewer/less distinction that so often is lost
these days.

Jim

[Dodi Schultz]

Jim Hart wrote:
> Another of my most despised verb-as-noun usages is ask. As in that's a big ask.
>

Well, THAT's a new outrage. Never heard it before, even from the the
newsreaders who tell us "how hot of a day" it's been.

Now you've gone and introduced it to the US! :-o

—Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

Mike Shefler wrote:
> If you agree that "times" implies multiplication, then a yardstick, for
> instance, is two times longer than a foot rule.
>

Well, that's two of you who are sure of that. Guess I'll concede.

I still think that "three times as long" is more precise.

—Dodi

[Jim Hart]

Dodi:

If you haven't heard "a big ask" then I wonder who started it. Perhaps
unfairly I assumed my people copied it from your people.

(I could go even further OT to "does my ask look big in this" but
let's not...)

As for "how hot of a day" I assume that's as in "how hot a day it's
been" which always seems clumsier than simply how hot the day has
been. And there is no equivalent plural though I've heard people get
tangled up trying to say something like "how a hot a days we've had
this summer"...



On Jul 4, 12:51*pm, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchu... (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:
> Jim Hart wrote:
> > Another of my most despised verb-as-noun usages is ask. As in that's a big ask.
>
> Well, THAT's a new outrage. Never heard it before, even from the the
> newsreaders who tell us "how hot of a day" it's been.
>
> Now you've gone and introduced it to the US! :-o
>
> Dodi

[Jim Hart]

Keith:

> "An Evening's Intercourse with Barry Humphries".

Old joke of the gentleman in his club doing the crossword.
"Jeeves, a word for intercourse, four letters, ending in K"
"Talk, sir"
"The eraser please Jeeves"

Jim

[—Keith Hale—]

Like it, like it! I wonder if that is actual Wodehouse. Probably not, just
a bit far, i guess.

I just auditioned for a play adapted from the Jeeves\Bertie books.

Humphries\Everage is a rare talent. Saw her (!) in Dallas a few years
back. Doesn't miss a beat. Wit is very rarely that quick.




On 3 July 2011 22:10, Jim Hart <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> Keith:
>
> > "An Evening's Intercourse with Barry Humphries".
>
> Old joke of the gentleman in his club doing the crossword.
> "Jeeves, a word for intercourse, four letters, ending in K"
> "Talk, sir"
> "The eraser please Jeeves"
>
> Jim
>

[Dodi Schultz]

Jim Hart wrote:
> If you haven't heard "a big ask" then I wonder who started it. Perhaps unfairly I assumed my people copied it from your people.
>
> As for "how hot of a day" I assume that's as in "how hot a day it's been" which always seems clumsier than simply how hot the day has been. And there is no equivalent plural . . .

It's often part of a question: "How hot of a day was it? Well, it
reached 90 this afternoon . . . "

It's not just weatherpersons. One all too commonly hears, "How tall of a
guy is he?" "I didn't realize we were in that big of a budget crunch."


> though I've heard people get
> tangled up trying to say something like "how a hot a days we've had
> this summer"...
>
>
>
> On Jul 4, 12:51 pm, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchu... (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:
>
>> Jim Hart wrote:
>>
>>> Another of my most despised verb-as-noun usages is ask. As in that's a big ask.
>>>
>> Well, THAT's a new outrage. Never heard it before, even from the the
>> newsreaders who tell us "how hot of a day" it's been.
>>
>> Now you've gone and introduced it to the US! :-o
>>
>> Dodi
>>
>
>

[Jim Hart]

Keith - no I"m sure it wasn't Wodehouse, can't remember where I heard
it and it probably didn't include Jeeves, I just used that as the
archetypal butler's name. There are other variations.

I've been a Barry Humphries fan since adolescence, he being something
of a legend in these parts. I'm glad he is now appreciated by American
audiences, I think it took a while for his style and material to
travel well, especially to Texas.

Jim

On Jul 4, 2:05*pm, —Keith Hale— <thoughtsto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> Like it, like it! *I wonder if that is actual Wodehouse. *Probably not, just
> a bit far, i guess.
>
> I just auditioned for a play adapted from the Jeeves\Bertie books.
>
> Humphries\Everage is a rare talent. *Saw her (!) in Dallas a few years
> back. *Doesn't miss a beat. *Wit is very rarely that quick.

[John Barrs]

I think that the "talk" answer is Wodehouse and Jeeves - I can't find the
book, but if I am correct it was one of the very early ones before the
characters had settled down. It now appears too contrived for the Wodehouse
we know

If I may add my pet hate: it comes from advertising slogans - "hyper low
prices" - the originators of this horror do not appear to know that hyper
means "above, more than".

In fact, I sometimes fear that they probably do know what they are doing and
are being strictly honest - "our prices are higher than low prices"
(whatever that might mean) and relying on public gullibility and greed to
misunderstand what they are actually saying

JohnnyB

On 4 July 2011 10:06, Jim Hart <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> Keith - no I"m sure it wasn't Wodehouse, can't remember where I heard
> it and it probably didn't include Jeeves, I just used that as the
> archetypal butler's name. There are other variations.
>
> I've been a Barry Humphries fan since adolescence, he being something
> of a legend in these parts. I'm glad he is now appreciated by American
> audiences, I think it took a while for his style and material to
> travel well, especially to Texas.
>
> Jim
>
> On Jul 4, 2:05 pm, —Keith Hale— <thoughtsto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> > Like it, like it! I wonder if that is actual Wodehouse. Probably not,
> just
> > a bit far, i guess.
> >
> > I just auditioned for a play adapted from the Jeeves\Bertie books.
> >
> > Humphries\Everage is a rare talent. Saw her (!) in Dallas a few years
> > back. Doesn't miss a beat. Wit is very rarely that quick.
>
>

[—Keith Hale—]

It has a Wodehouse feel, just a little further in the ribald direction than
expected, - so you may well be right!

Advertisers - 'don't get me started'! "All you could ever want - and
more!" (Meaning: that which you could never want is included.) And one
grocery chain took just about the MOST objection-able word of all time for
it's entire branding image: *Remarkable*. Call me hyper-literal - but if
root words and prefixes and suffixes mean ANYthing, then "remarkable" means
nothing, because it means absolutely everything. The only meaningful form
of that word is the negation. "Unremarkable" *actually has* meaning, and it
is the most insulting meaning possible. Someone\something SO unimportant
that i'm not ABLE to remark about it. ----- Just a life-long pet peeve,
and the use of it has spread worse than "utilise" - a posh-ism that only
means "look at me, i know a word that's longer than the perfectly good one!"

I'm aware of my own hypocrisy - i think language *should *flow - just not in
*stupid *directions. [C8 I also love a 3-meter-long word, but only if it
brings something more to the discourse than "notice how much smarter I am
than most people!"

[Judy Madnick]

From: "Dodi Schultz" <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org>

<< I still think that "three times as long" is more precise.

And you're right! I would love to know where the "X times longer" originated!

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

From: "Jim Hart" <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

<< Similarly
<< when a "200% increase" actually means double or a 100%
<< increase or an
<< increase *to* 200% of the original.

I frequently ran into this when I was writing resumes. I would have to ask the client exactly what he or she meant so that I didn't misstate the accomplishment on the resume!!

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

From: stamps <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>

<< If you agree that "times" implies multiplication, then a yardstick,
<< for
<< instance, is two times longer than a foot rule.

Exactly! But it sure is a cumbersome way of saying "three times the length of a foot rule"! It's easier (and less apt to produce an erroneous answer) to multiply by three than it is to multiply by two and then add the original!

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

To add to the "times" discussion...this morning's paper includes a
short article regarding pay inequality with respect to a Nathan's
Famous hot-dog-eating contest. "Women are offered four times less in
prize money than their male competitive eaters.... The first-place
winner for men receives $10,000, while women get $2,500."

What has happened to a simple "one-fourth"? <sigh>

Judy

[Dodi Schultz]

Judy Madnick wrote:
> To add to the "times" discussion...this morning's paper includes a
> short article regarding pay inequality with respect to a Nathan's
> Famous hot-dog-eating contest. "Women are offered four times less in
> prize money than their male competitive eaters.... The first-place
> winner for men receives $10,000, while women get $2,500."
>
> What has happened to a simple "one-fourth"? <sigh>
>

It's been kidnapped and is being held prisoner somewhere along with the
serial comma and the apostropheless spelling of "its".

[Judy Madnick]

From: "Dodi Schultz" <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org>

<< > What has happened to a simple "one-fourth"? <sigh>
<< >

<< It's been kidnapped and is being held prisoner somewhere
<< along with the
<< serial comma and the apostropheless spelling of "its".

LOL!

Judy

[Judy Madnick]

I wrote to the author of the hot-dog article; here's her response:

"I’m sorry for the poor wording in the story. You’re right - one-fourth would have been much more appropriate. Thanks so much. Have a great day."

Mission accomplished??

Judy

[Dodi Schultz]

Judy Madnick wrote:
> I wrote to the author of the hot-dog article; here's her response:
>
> "I’m sorry for the poor wording in the story. You’re right - one-fourth would have been much more appropriate. Thanks so much. Have a great day."
>
> Mission accomplished??
>

Keep following her stuff. See how long she remembers.

"Have a great day" signoffs always sound like snarls to me.

[John Barrs]

Ok, no snarl

Have a lousy day

JohnnyB

On 5 July 2011 17:03, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

> Judy Madnick wrote:
>
>> I wrote to the author of the hot-dog article; here's her response:
>>
>> "I’m sorry for the poor wording in the story. You’re right - one-fourth
>> would have been much more appropriate. Thanks so much. Have a great day."
>>
>> Mission accomplished??
>>
>>
>
> Keep following her stuff. See how long she remembers.
>
> "Have a great day" signoffs always sound like snarls to me.
>

[Toni Savage]

I've heard the "talk" question as part of the "Are you a turtle" club questions...
Â*
Also:
Â*
1. a 4-letter word ending in UNT that only refers to a female.
2. something a man does standing up, a female does sitting down, and a dog does on 3 legs.
3.Â* what does a dog do that a man steps in?
Â*
Â*

-- Toni Savage (who has a very mild-mannered donkey...)

From: Jim Hart <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
>To: Dixonary <dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
>Sent: Monday, July 4, 2011 5:06 AM
>Subject: [Dixonary] Re: OT: Actionable
>
>Keith - no I"m sure it wasn't Wodehouse, can't remember where I heard
>it and it probably didn't include Jeeves, I just used that as the
>archetypal butler's name. There are other variations.
>
>I've been a Barry Humphries fan since adolescence, he being something
>of a legend in these parts. I'm glad he is now appreciated by American
>audiences, I think it took a while for his style and material to
>travel well, especially to Texas.
>
>Jim
>
>On Jul 4, 2:05Â*pm, —Keith Hale— <thoughtsto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
>> Like it, like it! Â*I wonder if that is actual Wodehouse. Â*Probably not, just
>> a bit far, i guess.
>>
>> I just auditioned for a play adapted from the Jeeves\Bertie books.
>>
>> Humphries\Everage is a rare talent. Â*Saw her (!) in Dallas a few years
>> back. Â*Doesn't miss a beat. Â*Wit is very rarely that quick.
>
>
>
>

[Steve Graham]

I've heard the "talk" question as part of the "Are you a turtle" club questions...



Also:



1. a 4-letter word ending in UNT that only refers to a female.

Aunt



2. something a man does standing up, a female does sitting down, and a dog does on 3 legs.

Shake hands



3. what does a dog do that a man steps in?

Brings slippers



How'd I do?

[Dodi Schultz]

I think #3 is "pants".

#2 tells you this is about 100 years old.


Steve Graham wrote:
>
>
>
> I've heard the "talk" question as part of the "Are you a turtle" club
> questions...
>
>
>
> Also:
>
>
>
> 1. a 4-letter word ending in UNT that only refers to a female.
>
> Aunt
>
>
>
> 2. something a man does standing up, a female does sitting down, and
> a dog does on 3 legs.
>
> Shake hands
>
>
>
> 3. what does a dog do that a man steps in?
>
> Brings slippers
>
>
>
> How'd I do?
>