Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
21st Century Man said:
Pre is often used in an oxymoronic context (pre-existing is a particularly stupid one).
Wine is poured, and that's all there is to it, you can no more pre-pour it (pour it before you've poured it), than you can post-pour it (pour it after you've poured it). There's no pre-pour about it, because it's been poured earlier, pre-arrival, anymore than there is a post-pour, because it's been poured later, post-arrival.
Frank, if you poured your wife's wine after she got in, you wouldn't say you post-poured it would you?
"Poured beforehand in anticipation of the request", if you want to use a much more long-winded and clumsy phrase.Wine is poured, and that's all there is to it, you can no more pre-pour it (pour it before you've poured it), than you can post-pour it (pour it after you've poured it). There's no pre-pour about it, because it's been poured earlier, pre-arrival, anymore than there is a post-pour, because it's been poured later, post-arrival.
Frank, if you poured your wife's wine after she got in, you wouldn't say you post-poured it would you?
Food that has been prepared beforehand can be described as "pre-prepared" surely.
Prepare already has the "pre" element, if my year 9 Latin hasn't failed me after 25 years.
And pare - is in paring knife - means to trim or cut.
So prepare is pre-trimming.
Pre-preparing is like pre-pre-trimming.
Or something. f
k knows. But it's a word I've been pondering for a week or so myself, bizarrely.Perhaps you learned it in Preparatory School
21st Century Man said:
Pre is often used in an oxymoronic context (pre-existing is a particularly stupid one).
Wine is poured, and that's all there is to it, you can no more pre-pour it (pour it before you've poured it), than you can post-pour it (pour it after you've poured it). There's no pre-pour about it, because it's been poured earlier, pre-arrival, anymore than there is a post-pour, because it's been poured later, post-arrival.
Frank, if you poured your wife's wine after she got in, you wouldn't say you post-poured it would you?
While I am surprised and delighted that Clockwork Cupcake seems to agree that my post made sense, I find it impossible to dispute 21st Century Man’s logic re post-poured.Wine is poured, and that's all there is to it, you can no more pre-pour it (pour it before you've poured it), than you can post-pour it (pour it after you've poured it). There's no pre-pour about it, because it's been poured earlier, pre-arrival, anymore than there is a post-pour, because it's been poured later, post-arrival.
Frank, if you poured your wife's wine after she got in, you wouldn't say you post-poured it would you?
popeyewhite said:
Ayahuasca said:
Pre-poured wine is wine that is still in the bottle!
Exactly. It hasn't been poured yet. Geez.I can only help by explaining my grammar. I'll struggle if you want me to explain your lack of accurate recall.
But if pushed I'd go for later teens/early 20s substance abuse
If someone anticipates someone else anticipating someone wanting a glass of wine, would the glass they produce be pre-pre-poured?
Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
SpeckledJim said:
If someone anticipates someone else anticipating someone wanting a glass of wine, would the glass they produce be pre-pre-poured?
Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
This could go way back to the ma oops, person picking the grapes.Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
nonsequitur said:
SpeckledJim said:
If someone anticipates someone else anticipating someone wanting a glass of wine, would the glass they produce be pre-pre-poured?
Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
This could go way back to the ma oops, person picking the grapes.Or is it like relativity and depends on the perspective of the observer? Is it all of poured, pre-poured and pre-pre-poured simultaneously, depending on who you are in the chain?
StevieBee said:
I've often wondered what the alternative to a 'free gift' is other than something you'd buy which is neither free nor, therefore, a gift!
Most gifts have to be bought by the giver to give to the recipient, so they are not free. Unless they were given to the giver in the first place, in which case it would then be a free gift.
But in the wonderful world of merchandising, a 'free gift' is usually an inducement to make a larger purchase or investment.
vonuber said:
Frank7 said:
bottle of Viognier
I had to Google that. Does that make me common?At what point do you turn from working class to middle class?
Personally I almost turned from working class to middle class when I started earning bundles at a particularly well paying oil tanker driving gig, I started to eat in good restaurants, and tried to discern what was a good champagne and not just a run of the mill champagne.
I quit going to Portugal and Greece for holidays, and began going to Argentina, Ecuador, and Tahiti, but it was to no avail, I was born working class, and try as I might, I couldn’t pull the middle class bit off, I’d ask for a Premium marque of vodka, “wiv” lots of ice, or if offered generic tonic water, I’d slip up and say, “ain’t you got Schweppes?”
In all honesty, I’m glad that I couldn’t quite climb up to middle class, I get a buzz from mixing with “my own”, that I never got among people who consider themselves one rung higher than me.
bigpriest said:
Ayahuasca said:
flashbang said:
popeyewhite said:
glazbagun said:
Robbo 27 said:
Why do we have fingerprints, how did they evolve?
It is said that they are to amplify textures but that sounds like a guess by a scientist.
The prints on my right hand have all but disappeared due to work, they are as sensitive to texture as my left hand.
Don't know how they evolved, but their function is to increase the surface area of the skin. It is said that they are to amplify textures but that sounds like a guess by a scientist.
The prints on my right hand have all but disappeared due to work, they are as sensitive to texture as my left hand.
Where you say you have lost your fingertips, the skin is actually thicker and protected by dead cells, like on your foot but less extreme. Underneath the fingerprints are still there.
Just as they increase surface area with the air, or whatever you're holding, they also increase surface area with the lower layers of skin which provide blood and nutrients.
From an evolutionarry POV, I don't know, but would guess that they are a response to the increased wear that these areas suffer requiring more resources and benefitting from more cells concentrated in a smaller area.
Changes to the skin on our fingertips gave some advantage in the environment our ancestors were living in. It may have been for extra grip, keeping warm, allowing water to drain away or they may have just made the owner irresistible to females, allowing genes to be passed on. I haven't checked, but you'd expect some 'grippy' members of the animal kingdom to have fingerprints or similar.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff