Should We Include, 'Disclude?'

Page 2 of 2<12
Poll
2 votes (33.33%)
4 votes (66.66%)

6 members have voted

February 19th, 2014 at 8:32:46 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Face
"Discussed" To discuss is to talk about something with another or a group of people
To cuss is to swear or curse.What am I missing?


It is back to my original point. Whereas Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian all are derivations of Latin, they tend to be much more rational.

In Spanish discutir and cutir have opposing meanings. "Cutir" means to "to knock or dash one thing against another". The word "discutir" means "to discuss" which at least allows the possibility of coming to an agreement.

In English discuss and cuss have completely different derivations. The word discuss and discutir come from the same Latin word. The word cuss is just a variation on curse, and comes from Old English (the original Germanic language).

It is similar to display which is a word based on Latin and play which is based on a word from Old English.

English got all these Latin based words after the Norman invasion in 1066 brought Norman language (a variation of Old French). Most of the vocabulary of English is now based on Latin, but most of the quantity of words we use are still based on Old English.

Old English cannot be understood by modern speakers without training. You will be lucky to pick up one word in twenty.
February 19th, 2014 at 10:20:44 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Quote: chickenman

Ultimately, it became "unabated to the quarterback" so the question is: if a defender strolled or sashayed across the line of scrimmage and thus "abated to the quarterback" then no penalty and no flag would be thrown? :-)


I laughed right out loud XD

"Sashayed", OMG, I'm dying XD


Thanks for the lesson, Paco =)
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
February 19th, 2014 at 12:06:57 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: chickenman
Ultimately, it became "unabated to the quarterback" so the question is: if a defender strolled or sashayed across the line of scrimmage and thus "abated to the quarterback" then no penalty and no flag would be thrown? :-)



Quote: Ask Jerry Markbreit

An offside penalty is committed when a player is in the neutral zone at the snap of the ball.

Unabated to the quarterback is when a defensive player charges across the line and is on his way to the quarterback before the ball is snapped.

Encroachment is when a defensive player makes contact with an offensive player at the line of scrimmage prior to the ball being snapped.

And delay of game by the defense is when a defensive player who is within a yard of the line of scrimmage makes a non-football move in an attempt to draw the offensive player into a false start. A non-football move would be jerking the body or arms or head in such a way as to trick the offense into moving without the defender actually coming into the neutral zone.


Abated means "aggressive". It is assumed that the defensive player is aggressive.

The word in the penalty refers to the actions of the offensive players. If the offensive line is behaving in an "unabated" manner, then they are doing nothing to protect their quarterback from the defensive players.
February 19th, 2014 at 10:43:03 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: Pacomartin
Quote: Ask Jerry Markbreit

An offside penalty is committed when a player is in the neutral zone at the snap of the ball.

Unabated to the quarterback is when a defensive player charges across the line and is on his way to the quarterback before the ball is snapped.

Encroachment is when a defensive player makes contact with an offensive player at the line of scrimmage prior to the ball being snapped.

And delay of game by the defense is when a defensive player who is within a yard of the line of scrimmage makes a non-football move in an attempt to draw the offensive player into a false start. A non-football move would be jerking the body or arms or head in such a way as to trick the offense into moving without the defender actually coming into the neutral zone.


Abated means "aggressive". It is assumed that the defensive player is aggressive.

The word in the penalty refers to the actions of the offensive players. If the offensive line is behaving in an "unabated" manner, then they are doing nothing to protect their quarterback from the defensive players.


I don't think that is correct:

un•a•bat•ed (ˌʌn əˈbeɪ tɪd) adj. with undiminished force, power, or vigor.

Unabated winds, don't mean they are calm, it means they are powerful. While abate means to diminished and end something. Unabated to the quarterback means unimpeded, not stopped or blocked. This call ends the play, and a 5 yard penalty on the defence. Nothing to do with the offence being unabated.

Offsides is a free play, as no contact has been made, whereas a encroachment call is when contact is made before the whistle, which blows the play dead. Finally, Neutral Zone Infraction is when the actions of the defence into the neutral zone makes the offence move (possibly to defend themselves) and causes them to false start. This also blows the play dead.

All are five yard penalties on the defence.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
February 20th, 2014 at 8:12:49 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: TheCesspit
I don't think that is correct:


Technically, we are both correct. The verb is both transitive and intransitive.

If it is transitive (my definition) then some other force (i.e. the offensive linemen) reduce the intensity of the defensive player.
If it is intransitive (your definition) then the defensive player reduces his own intensity.

But you are probably correct, in that the person who wrote that rule meant to use it in the "intransitive" sense.

It is still a funny choice of words. The word "unimpeded" would have less ambiguity.

Also since both penalties are 5 yards, then why should the referee differentiate between someone just lining up over the line of scrimmage , and someone charging early?
February 20th, 2014 at 11:00:49 AM permalink
chickenman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 0
Posts: 368
Ah, yes, I'm fully aware of the technical fine points and that all are 5 yards (potentially) against the defense. The post was tongue in cheek mostly pivoting around the choice of words as Paco points out and the sometimes humorous evolution in football since the leather helmet era.

With the likelihood that an openly gay player will join an NFL defense this year, what are the odds that the choice of "sashayed" was totally fortuitous? Face? Any line judge...? ;-)
He's everywhere, he's everywhere...!
February 20th, 2014 at 12:34:19 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: Pacomartin
Technically, we are both correct. The verb is both transitive and intransitive.

If it is transitive (my definition) then some other force (i.e. the offensive linemen) reduce the intensity of the defensive player.
If it is intransitive (your definition) then the defensive player reduces his own intensity.


(edited) Okay I see what you were getting at now.

Quote:
But you are probably correct, in that the person who wrote that rule meant to use it in the "intransitive" sense.

It is still a funny choice of words. The word "unimpeded" would have less ambiguity.


Quite so.

Quote:
Also since both penalties are 5 yards, then why should the referee differentiate between someone just lining up over the line of scrimmage , and someone charging early?


Because the former doesn't blow the play dead, where as the later does. There's 4 different calls. One looks like an offensive false start (neutral zone infraction) but isn't, one is called as there's an issue if the QB doesn't get a chance to be defended (thus the free play is pointless), one gives the offense a free play and the last is early contact that also blows the play dead.

Only offside gives a free play to the offense. The other three don't, but all look different, hence three different penalties.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
February 20th, 2014 at 1:43:23 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: TheCesspit
Because the former doesn't blow the play dead, where as the latter does.


Of course! I should have thought of that. You may want to decline an offside penalty, but you can't fix an injured quarterback.

We have this issue in Spanish word of the day. Sometimes English or Spanish words exist in the dictionary, like English words impignorate, or ulotrichous but even native speakers have never heard of them.

Sometimes they are two variants of a word, like viscerate and eviscerate or embowel and disembowel, where both variants mean the same thing, but the former is archaic.

Other times it is like "abate" which has two uses, but one is more common than the other.

Other words like "quite" actually have different meanings, that have evolved over the centuries. The word can be taken differently in Britain or the USA. A lot of the Spanish words are used differently in europe or Latin America. Look at these three sentences, and say what you think "quite" means.
1. you're quite right
2. she's quite pretty
3. the room is quite decent
4. she's quite a girl

There are also two purely British uses, like "He is quite." and "Quite!". The first is a way of leaving off an implied word, and the second is an exclamation.

The argument comes up if you say "It was quite a nice meal" are you being insulting or complementary. Does it matter what continent you are on.
Page 2 of 2<12