• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

I don't think it's possible to be startled by news of the death of a close relative (say), although one might be both surprised and shocked. I could startle you in the process of delivering the news, but not by the news.
 
Shock:
  • Shock is a life-threatening medical condition and is a medical emergency. If shock is suspected call 911 or get to an emergency department immediately.
  • The main symptom of shock is low blood pressure. Other symptoms include rapid, shallow breathing; cold, clammy skin; rapid, weak pulse; dizziness, fainting, or weakness.
  • There are several types of shock: septic shock caused by bacteria, anaphylactic shock caused by hypersensitivity or allergic reaction, cardiogenic shock from heart damage, hypovolemic shock from blood or fluid loss, and neurogenic shock from spinal cord trauma.
I don't think that the above applies in the use of the word 'shock' so far mentioned, with the possible exception of the death of a close relative. Even then it strikes me that it would be extremely unlikely.
Black Hole said:
I could startle you in the process of delivering the news, but not by the news.
Click to expand...
I don't think so, unless you sneaked up behind me and announced your presence with a loud "boo" before you told me.:roflmao: Or is that what you meant?

However OED says:
startle
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
  • Cause to feel sudden shock or alarm.
I give in.:(:frantic:
 
Trev said:
Or is that what you meant?
Click to expand...
Yes.

A state of shock (that would qualify as such medically) can be induced by bereavement (for example), and therefore by receiving the news of bereavement. One does not, and cannot, function with full mental and physical capacity in that situation.
 
Certainly can be - "died of a broken heart" is not hyperbole. However, you appear to have only accessed the medical definition of shock. The state of shock has wider understanding than just medical.
 
Possibly posting this to the wrong thread, but to keep the noise off the original thread:
Black Hole said:
Anything you don't want to lose should never be only stored in one place, preferably three places.
Click to expand...
If only I could do that with money :D. Trouble is, the law doesn't like photocopied money.
(There is a serious point, where this does apply to money - keep your large amounts of money in banks owned by different banking groups to take advantage of the £85k protection per institution)
 
According to Metro "Nasa spots 'stick-like figures' on Mars which resemble alien fossils"

My understanding of the word "resemble" means that you need to have something you know about to compare it to.
My understanding is that we (the human race) haven't yet discovered any alien fossils, or indeed anything (proven to be) alien at all.
So this headline is b**locks - IMHO.
 
It does look like a load of shoe repairers!
Anything alien would probably be held in Area 51. Whether Nasa has access to anything there - who knows? If so, somebody has given the game away.
 
This is very curious. The New Zealand prime minister, in news reports announcing being pregnant, repeatedly used "womans" as the plural form of woman, instead of women. I take it she's not of uneducated back-woods origin, so this must be a NZ dialect trait.
 
Black Hole said:
This is very curious. The New Zealand prime minister, in news reports announcing being pregnant, repeatedly used "womans" as the plural form of woman, instead of women. I take it she's not of uneducated back-woods origin, so this must be a NZ dialect trait.
Click to expand...
Have you got a link to the announcement you were listening to?
My ears are hearing woman, woman, women, women and women - no 's' on the end and 'woman' in the context of singular and 'women' in the context of plural. I was listening to the version on the Guardian and Independent. I also listened to a recording from last year where she said "women's". On that 2017 recording she said the "s" very pronounced and so I don't think I'm being deaf when it came to this week's announcement.
 
At risk of starting a war: my observation is that they are such a pain in the arse if men in any way try to contradict them it's easier to just let them think you think they're right - which doesn't mean they are.
 
Black Hole said:
...seems to have women pronounced women not wimen, which may have been what caught me out.
Click to expand...
Most unusual for NZ.
I'm surprised the production company for "The Brokenwood Mysteries" (a NZ series on Drama) didn't get into trouble with the copyright owners of Hergé's most famous creation (as did the new version of Thunderbirds). An actor playing a police officer was heard calling "tin tin". I think he meant 10-10.
 
From the FOXSAT thread "Channel 4 HD Leaving Freesat Thu 22 Feb 2018!"
Black Hole: The word is "decrypted", rather than "unencrypted" - which implies the payload was never encrypted in the first place.
Trev: Once something has been decrypted it is no longer encrypted and thus unencrypted (i.e. not encrypted). In that scenario, the 'payload' had been encrypted, but no longer is.
EEPhil: I found myself substituting words into this, to see if it makes sense...Once something has been declassified it is no longer classified and thus [is now] unclassified. Makes perfect sense.
Matthew said:
When a document is declassified its status becomes a declassified document to signify it once was a classified one, the only documents that can be unclassified are those that always have been. ;)
Click to expand...
:oops: That would support BH's distinction between decrypted and unencrypted.
Whilst I take the point, and note that Wikipedia is not always accurate - Wikipedia mentions declassified in the unclassified section. Argh! :confused:
 
You didn't mention that the usage of "unencrypted" which sparked the debate was as a verb. I refuse to recognise it as a verb, usage should be restricted to an adjective.

As to Wikipedia: whether or not their "facts" are accurate, unless the particular author has a wide appreciation of English usage the writing is likely to be sloppy.
 
Just thought I'd move the discussion, if anyone wanted to continue it, from the FOXSAT thread. (rhetorical) Was it worth it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top