this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1069 points (98.5% liked)

Science Memes

10340 readers
1097 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1069
unwatchable!! (mander.xyz)
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (17 children)

As a non native English speaker, where does toxic fit into the poisonous/venevenomous question?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (8 children)

If "poisonous" are parallelograms and "venomous" are trapezoids, "toxic" would be quadrilaterals in general. (Can't use square/rectangle analogy, because squares are a type of rectangle, and venom/poison is not a type of poison/venom.)

Aside from that, there aren't too many rules on "toxic".

Poison and venom will both cause serious acute injury with the possibility of immediate death. Both can be considered "toxic".

Just to be confusing, "poison" and "poisoning" can have substantially different connotations. For example, the heavy metal "lead" would not normally* be considered a "poison". Lead would generally be considered "toxic".

But, repeated exposure to lead to the point that it causes physical symptoms is referred to as "lead poisoning".

Same thing with mercury: it would be considered "toxic"; it wouldn't normally* be considered a poison. But repeated exposure to mercury would be considered "mercury poisoning".

(* If a third party were to deliberately introduce lead or mercury into the body of an individual, the substance would then be considered a "poison".)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Thank you for your thorough explanation.

It's always a bit confusing when your language has one word for something another language makes distinctions within.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Bro, look at "かける (kakeru)” in Japanese. It's a verb with a bajillion different meanings depending on context. Kill me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I thought it couldn't be that bad but as I was scrolling it just keeps going

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There is a lot of pedantry in English despite there being no central governing body over the language like French has.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yep!

Personally, I'm deprecating "its".

The "its/it's" distinction requires violation of the apostrophe-s rule for possessive forms. This exception to that rule is entirely arbitrary. The meaning is never ambiguous in context; the distinction exists solely to enable pedantry and confuse spell checkers.

So, English will be better off by retiring "its", relegating it to the trash heap along with "chuse".

"It's" is now a homonym. Both the contraction rules and the possessive rules for apostrophe-s construction are maintained, and the only people who will cry about it are English teachers and other worthless pedants.

I have spoken.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

1000002686

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

On the contrary, what if we bring back 'tis?

'Tis good!

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)