Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

link

Love is an action verb. . . . Infatuation is a noun.

Well, in addition to being a verb (both transitive and intransitive), love is also a noun. (And I'm not even sure what to make of the phrase "action verb"—are there any "inaction verbs"?) I completely agree that love is more work than infatuation, but I'm not a fan of looking for deep philosophical meaning in simple word classes.

When I answered that question I almost went into a rant about their way of presenting the question. I knew what the person was trying to say, but it seemed like they were too stuck on semantics. Anyway, point being, I agree with you, Katya.

Katya wrote:are there any "inaction verbs"?

Sleeping!

Katya wrote:are there any "inaction verbs"?

Generally speaking, I would say all transitive verbs.

Katya wrote:I'm not a fan of looking for deep philosophical meaning in simple word classes.

Amen. It really bugs me when people do this. Or when they play off of coincidental spelling parallels (like splitting "assume" into words to explain that assumptions can cause problems—sure, you can do that, but that's not how the word was formed!) Using etymology to explain a facet of a word's meaning that people might not think about is valid, but this is not. (Side note: the "at-one-ment" way of splitting up atonement really is how the word was originally formed. I was surprised to find this out.)

Marduk wrote:

Katya wrote:are there any "inaction verbs"?

Generally speaking, I would say all transitive verbs.

So if I hit you, "hit" is not an action verb?

Laser Jock wrote:

Katya wrote:I'm not a fan of looking for deep philosophical meaning in simple word classes.

Amen. It really bugs me when people do this. Or when they play off of coincidental spelling parallels (like splitting "assume" into words to explain that assumptions can cause problems—sure, you can do that, but that's not how the word was formed!) Using etymology to explain a facet of a word's meaning that people might not think about is valid, but this is not.

Right. And even then, words can take detours in meaning over time that lead them far enough from their original source that the etymology, while still interesting, no longer sheds light on the modern usage.

Laser Jock wrote:(Side note: the "at-one-ment" way of splitting up atonement really is how the word was originally formed. I was surprised to find this out.)

Likewise. I assumed it was a folk etymology until I learned otherwise.

Cognoscente wrote:

Katya wrote:are there any "inaction verbs"?

Sleeping!

Very true. And given the heat in my office this week, "working" has been an inaction verb, as well.

Laser Jock wrote:

Katya wrote:I'm not a fan of looking for deep philosophical meaning in simple word classes.

Amen. It really bugs me when people do this. Or when they play off of coincidental spelling parallels (like splitting "assume" into words to explain that assumptions can cause problems—sure, you can do that, but that's not how the word was formed!) Using etymology to explain a facet of a word's meaning that people might not think about is valid, but this is not. (Side note: the "at-one-ment" way of splitting up atonement really is how the word was originally formed. I was surprised to find this out.)

It bugs me almost as much as people who look for deep philosophical meaning in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then find out you're a physicist and tell you all about how the atonement overcomes entropy and how Satan is the author of all entropy.

NerdGirl wrote:

Laser Jock wrote:

Katya wrote:I'm not a fan of looking for deep philosophical meaning in simple word classes.

Amen. It really bugs me when people do this. Or when they play off of coincidental spelling parallels (like splitting "assume" into words to explain that assumptions can cause problems—sure, you can do that, but that's not how the word was formed!) Using etymology to explain a facet of a word's meaning that people might not think about is valid, but this is not. (Side note: the "at-one-ment" way of splitting up atonement really is how the word was originally formed. I was surprised to find this out.)

It bugs me almost as much as people who look for deep philosophical meaning in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then find out you're a physicist and tell you all about how the atonement overcomes entropy and how Satan is the author of all entropy.

I admit, though, that I'm a sucker for a good science metaphor, if the science actually holds up.

NerdGirl wrote:It bugs me almost as much as people who look for deep philosophical meaning in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then find out you're a physicist and tell you all about how the atonement overcomes entropy and how Satan is the author of all entropy.

Heh. I've never gotten that one. I admit that I'm really curious as to how the second law works with our understanding of eternity; to me, it's at least as big of a question as evolution. I don't see a good way to reconcile the second law, yet, but I figure that's one of those things I'll find out later, probably after this life.

"Sin is like a black hole...but Christ's atonement made it so no one can or ever will have to cross the event horizon...."

What the heck? I suppose I never thought about figuring out how the gospel fits in with physics, or vice versa. However, as a biologist, the question of evolution doesn't really concern me- it makes sense that as the environment on earth shifts, the organisms who live on it change along with it. Unless you were referring specifically to human evolution, which most people seem to. In that case, I have no idea why there are humanoid remains on the earth or whether or not God used evolution to create physical bodies for His children, but I am open to both possibilities.

Wisteria wrote:What the heck? I suppose I never thought about figuring out how the gospel fits in with physics, or vice versa. However, as a biologist, the question of evolution doesn't really concern me- it makes sense that as the environment on earth shifts, the organisms who live on it change along with it. Unless you were referring specifically to human evolution, which most people seem to. In that case, I have no idea why there are humanoid remains on the earth or whether or not God used evolution to create physical bodies for His children, but I am open to both possibilities.

Yeah, I don't think most LDS people have any problem with the idea that once created, organisms will change based on their surroundings. (Shoot, we can see it happen with things like infectious diseases becoming resistant to drugs.) It's the role of evolution in the creation, mainly in relation to humans, that's problematic. I have no problem with setting it aside for now, but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation that fully reconciles mainstream biology with LDS doctrine as far as human evolution goes. (However, as I also said, that's hardly unique to biology. Physics presents its own questions. And so do other disciplines.)