Help me jazz up my English paper with science vocab

[wasteofo2]

Here is the sentence in question which needs a jazz infusion:

"In Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut is so jaded by death that he is unable to draw any meaningful distinction between any different kinds of death, whether they are the deaths of the innocent millions killed in Nazi concentration camps, the innocent millions killed in Allied bombings of civilian cities, or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow diffusion of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."

I want to change the last bit so it doesn't sound like the carbon dioxide diffused out of the champagne and into the atmosphere on it's own free will, but rather that the atmosphere maliciously sucked the carbon dioxide out of it's natural habitation in the champagne. Is there any sciencey word for the quality of a low pressure systems to induce diffusion where it would otherwise not occur?

 

[zoobyshoe]

...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow diffusion of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by careless prolonged exposure to a carbon dioxide-sucking ambient atmosphere."

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by deliberate, prolonged exposure to the open air."

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow vampirism of exposure to a CO2 hungry lower pressure system."

 

[dduardo]

Synonym to diffusion:

efflux

def. A flowing outward.
Usage 1: the red-blood-cell sodium ion efflux
Usage 2: the uptake and efflux of sodium ions

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=efflux

 

[klusener]

How is the word can't used when it means empty, solemn speech, implying what is not felt; insincere talk; hypocrisy. Is it right if I use it as the media had nothing in mind except releasing a barrage of cants to the public. "Cants" doesn't sound right to me..

 

[zoobyshoe]

How is the word can't used when it means empty, solemn speech, implying what is not felt; insincere talk; hypocrisy. Is it right if I use it as the media had nothing in mind except releasing a barrage of cants to the public. "Cants" doesn't sound right to me..

I wouldn't use it at all. It's a very obscure word.

 

[wasteofo2]

I think I've settled on "or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow assimilation of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."

 

[klusener]

Isn't it "its" and not "it's"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think I've settled on "or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by the slow assimilation of it’s carbon dioxide out of solution and into the atmosphere."

Whatever pops your cork.

 

[wasteofo2]

Isn't it "its" and not "it's"?

I don't know, no one can ever convince me one way or another.

If you were to rephrase "The dog of Mr. Shapiro," you would say "Mr. Shapiro's dog," not "Mr. Shapiros dog," so it makes sense to me that you would just as well say "The carbon dioxide of it," and "It's carbon dioxide."

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know, no one can ever convince me one way or another.

If you were to rephrase "The dog of Mr. Shapiro," you would say "Mr. Shapiro's dog," not "Mr. Shapiros dog," so it makes sense to me that you would just as well say "The carbon dioxide of it," and "It's carbon dioxide."

Conventional usage: its = possessive of "it"
it's = "it is"

 

[Danger]

If you don't mind my saying so, I liked your original version better than any of the alternatives. It's succinct and more easily comprehended by someone with no scientific background.

 

[icvotria]

It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.

 

[Knavish]

"Its" is the possessive. Stop this debate.

**Anyway, I agree with Danger. Although I don't like the sentence -- or perhaps paragraph -- in the first place, how it was first is probably the best. I think you just made the sentence more overblown and pompous =P.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.

What's "its'"

 

[Moonbear]

It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.

Ack, no, the possessive of "it" is "its." The contraction for "it is" is "it's." And unless you're talking about clones of Cousin It, then the plural of "it" is "they."

 

[zoobyshoe]

§ 49. possessive constructions. 1. Grammar. The American Heritage Book of English Usage. 1996
Address:http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/049.html

 

[icvotria]

"Its" is the possessive. Stop this debate.

Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."

Edit: "Pronouns have their own possessive forms (my, your, his, her, its, our, their)" Hmmm, I guess I was wrong *hangs head in shame* Sorry!

 

[Knavish]

Yes, "it's" does seem very logical. But, remember, English isn't very logical.

Read the others' posts for explanations.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think you just made the sentence more overblown and pompous =P.

I agree. You just want to make your point about Vonnegut, and get out of that sentence. No need to draw attention to the sentence itself.

 

[Moonbear]

Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."

Sorry, but it's its. And I blame you Brits for this idiosyncrasy of possessives!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Don't make me question my grasp of the written english language! It's DEFINITELY "it's". Definitely definitely definitely. Like "the bone was the dog's," not "the bone was the dogs." "Its" is the plural of "it."

Go to the link I posted. Pronouns have their own possessive forms: my, your, his, her, its, our, their.

"It's bone," is the grammar of too much champagne.

 

[icvotria]

Go to the link I posted. Pronouns have their own possessive forms: my, your, his, her, its, our, their.

"It's bone," is the grammar of too much champagne.

I went, I've edited, I'm embarrassed...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Don't be. I only learned this last year, myself, after being teased by Nereid about misusing "it's" and "its".

 

[Knavish]

Haha, don't worry about it; I've seen this mistake made even in newspapers..

So.. I wonder if wasteofo2 even cares about this thread anymore.

 

[Moonbear]

I went, I've edited, I'm embarrassed...

No need to be embarrassed. We all come here to learn, and sometimes we are surprised and it's not just science we learn. (I wasn't even quite sure if you were serious or just trying to be funny.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

So.. I wonder if wasteofo2 even cares about this thread anymore.

Why should he? You called his sentence "pompous."

 

[icvotria]

You're all so nice! I'd've teased me about all the definitelys till kingdom come. (I'm so scared of contractions now, I had to read that through four times!)

Edit: Definitelies? Definitely's? I don't know anything anymore...

 

[Knavish]

Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him.

Hmmmm...have you met Math Is Hard yet? She is an infinite well of mischief, and might appreciate your talents.

 

[Knavish]

Well, you can say I know most of the posters.. I peek in here every so often. (Since I just got out of high school, I don't have to greatest knowledge of physics to share...as of yet anyway!)

 

[BobG]

"...or an innocent bottle of champagne killed by careless prolonged exposure to a carbon dioxide-sucking ambient atmosphere."

This one gets my vote.

Or ... "the life of an innocent bottle of champagne drained by the disinterested carbon-dioxide sucking ambient atmosphere." ... but only if you want to convey that life is heartlessly ended one way or another with the method of death a mere triviality. Personally, I find it hard to compare the holocaust with the deaths in the Dresden bombings. One was true evil while the other was callous.

 

[Danger]

You're all so nice! I'd've teased me about all the definitelys till kingdom come.

If it'll make you feel any better, I'll tease you for the rest of your life. I don't want to, though, because I know what kind of night-life you lead and consider it amazing that you can post at all.

Edit: Definitelies? Definitely's? I don't know anything anymore...

This is something of an unregulated situation. Usually for something like that, just for the sake of clarity, I use "definitely"'s or definitely's. The apostrophe is used to separate the original quote from the pluralizer. It's optional for use in numbers. ie: "4s" and "4's" are both technically correct.

 

[honestrosewater]

Heh, I was just reading about this here. If there is any confusion, its usually doesn't act as a pronoun (in fact, I can't think of any time it acts as a pronoun); Its usually (always?) acts as a determiner, and a determiner always comes before and modifies a noun. Some words that act as determiners: the, a, this, two, and some. The distinction is important because pronouns function much like nouns while determiners do not (they function more like adjectives).

Anywho, I think the easiest trick is to try to replace its with the in the sentence. The always acts as a determiner, so if the works, use its. Otherwise, use it's. Meh, I don't know if this trick is foolproof though... That book is great so far, easy to follow, and has practice questions if anyone needs clarification.
Edit: Oh, right, how are you to remember? Well, its and the both have three symbols, while the apostrophe in it's makes four symbols. Just a suggestion.
Eh, I keep wanting to call determiners delimiters!

 

[Gale]

i just wanted to thank you guys for those first few posts about its vs it's... really made me laugh... "it's its... no its it's... no its its... nuh it's it's!" hehe... wow I'm amused...

at any rate, not that i think wastofo2 is around to care... but i think i'd use a completely different analogy than the champagne one... i realize the idea... but i think i'd talk about like... yeast or something that conceivably dies at least... but meh...

 

[zoobyshoe]

If there is any confusion, its usually doesn't act as a pronoun (in fact, I can't think of any time it acts as a pronoun); Its usually (always?) acts as a determiner, and a determiner always comes before and modifies a noun. Some words that act as determiners: the, a, this, two, and some. The distinction is important because pronouns function much like nouns while determiners do not (they function more like adjectives).

This is such a complex way to do it, though. It's easier just to ask if what you're expressing is a possessive, or a contraction of "it is".