Help me jazz up my English paper with science vocab

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion revolves around enhancing a sentence from Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" by incorporating scientific vocabulary related to diffusion and atmospheric pressure. Users suggest various alternatives to describe the loss of carbon dioxide from champagne, emphasizing terms like "efflux" and "assimilation." The conversation also delves into the grammatical distinction between "its" and "it's," with participants providing insights on possessive forms and contractions. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards maintaining clarity and simplicity in writing while integrating scientific terminology.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic scientific concepts such as diffusion and atmospheric pressure.
  • Familiarity with literary analysis, particularly in the context of Kurt Vonnegut's works.
  • Knowledge of English grammar rules, specifically the use of possessive forms and contractions.
  • Experience with vocabulary enhancement techniques in academic writing.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of "efflux" in biological and chemical contexts.
  • Explore the principles of diffusion and its applications in various scientific fields.
  • Study advanced grammar rules regarding possessive forms and contractions in English.
  • Examine literary techniques for integrating scientific vocabulary into creative writing.
USEFUL FOR

Writers, students, and educators looking to enhance their academic writing with scientific vocabulary, as well as those interested in the grammatical nuances of the English language.

wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
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?
 
Science news on Phys.org
wasteofo2 said:
...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."
 
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..
 
klusener said:
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.
 
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."
 
Isn't it "its" and not "it's"?
 
wasteofo2 said:
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.
 
klusener said:
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."
 
  • #10
wasteofo2 said:
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"
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.
 
  • #13
"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.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
icvotria said:
It's definitely it's. "Its" is the plural of "it". "It's" is the possessive.
What's "its'"
 
  • #15
icvotria said:
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."
 
  • #16
  • #17
Knavish said:
"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 :rolleyes: *hangs head in shame* Sorry!
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Yes, "it's" does seem very logical. But, remember, English isn't very logical.

Read the others' posts for explanations.
 
  • #19
Knavish said:
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.
 
  • #20
icvotria said:
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! :smile: :-p
 
  • #21
icvotria said:
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.
 
  • #22
zoobyshoe said:
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...
 
  • #23
Don't be. I only learned this last year, myself, after being teased by Nereid about misusing "it's" and "its".
 
  • #24
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.
 
  • #25
icvotria said:
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. :biggrin: (I wasn't even quite sure if you were serious or just trying to be funny.)
 
  • #26
Knavish said:
So.. I wonder if wasteofo2 even cares about this thread anymore.
Why should he? You called his sentence "pompous."
 
  • #27
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... :bugeye: :-p
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him. :-p
 
  • #29
Knavish said:
Notice how I was careful to call his sentence pompous, and not him. :-p
Hmmmm...have you met Math Is Hard yet? She is an infinite well of mischief, and might appreciate your talents.
 
  • #30
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!)
 

Similar threads

News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K