Help me jazz up my English paper with science vocab

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around enhancing the language of an English paper by incorporating scientific vocabulary, particularly in the context of a sentence from Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five." Participants explore various ways to express the concept of carbon dioxide diffusion from champagne in a more vivid and scientifically nuanced manner.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a scientific term to describe the influence of low pressure systems on diffusion, suggesting a desire for a more dramatic phrasing.
  • Several alternatives to the original sentence are proposed, including phrases like "careless prolonged exposure to a carbon dioxide-sucking ambient atmosphere" and "slow vampirism of exposure to a CO2 hungry lower pressure system."
  • A participant introduces the term "efflux" as a synonym for diffusion, providing definitions and examples of its usage.
  • There is a discussion about the use of the word "cants" in a different context, with one participant expressing discomfort with its sound and obscurity.
  • Participants debate the correct usage of "its" versus "it's," with various opinions on grammatical correctness and personal interpretations of possessive forms.
  • One participant expresses a preference for the original sentence structure, arguing it is more succinct and accessible.
  • Another participant humorously reflects on the confusion surrounding contractions and possessives, contributing to the light-hearted nature of the debate.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the best way to phrase the sentence or the correct usage of "its" versus "it's." Multiple competing views and preferences are expressed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants exhibit uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of certain vocabulary choices and grammatical rules, indicating a lack of settled understanding on these points.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in the intersection of language and science, particularly in creative writing or academic contexts where scientific terminology can enhance expression.

  • #31
zoobyshoe said:
"...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.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
icvotria said:
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. :-p

icvotria said:
Edit: Definitelies? Definitely's? I don't know anything anymore... :bugeye: :-p
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.
 
  • #33
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. :biggrin:
Eh, I keep wanting to call determiners delimiters!
 
Last edited:
  • #34
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...
 
  • #35
honestrosewater said:
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".
 
  • #36
Gale17 said:
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...
I enjoyed this attempt to settle the matter:
Knavish said:
"Its" is the possessive. Stop this debate.
 
  • #37
zoobyshoe said:
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".
Yeah, the contraction is probably easiest. But I thought the problem was that the possessive case is usually formed by adding 's, making the contraction idea confusing. So I was suggesting basically the same thing; Instead of focusing on what the word looks like, look at how the word behaves in the sentence. Meh, I thought another option might be helpful.

So Strunk & White group its with theirs, yours, and ours. I think it makes more sense to group its with their, your, and our. Look how they behave:

That food is theirs.
?That food is its.
Their food is yummy.
Its food is yummy.
The food it yummy.

Maybe you can use its as a pronoun? The example they give is:

It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas.

It's a wise dog that scratches our own fleas.
*It's a wise dog that scratches ours own fleas.

Ugh.
 

Similar threads

News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K