Common Misconceptions

[nightwolf]

Yeah, there's name for three of them, how do you explain that?

 

Laziness? We shouldn't assume there's just three unless it says so, which it doesn't.

[Kirkatronics]

Three wise men.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Three wise men.

We know what this is saying. Odwin mentioned it earlier.

[Kirkatronics]

We know what this is saying. Odwin mentioned it earlier.

People were still asking questions about it, was just giving a source.

[EEVILMURRAY]

People were still asking questions about it, was just giving a source.

We're not asking questions as such, just speculating.

 

Odwin mentions the lack of stated number of Wise men, we make cheeky comments. I recall the mentionings of names [Assuming this isn't a misconception] which implies there were at least 3, which could mean the aforementioned points that there were ungrateful fuckers who didn't bring presents.

[somme]

We don't have one moon. We have two.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Misconception: Ancient Egyptians were all caucasoid and 'Mediterranean' in culture. Wrong. Earlier ages (before Asiatic/Greek/Roman/Arab conquests) depicted very much Africoid people, in facial features and skin colour. And was definitely African in culture. Racial mixture has provided the population of north Africa we know today.

 

[Supergrunch]

About the katana, I think I've read somewhere that the katana are in fact no stronger or better than medieval broadswords - that the katana's superiority over other swords is simply a myth.

Katanas are sharper and lighter, and so while they do not have much force behind them they can cut more readily - this makes them good for killing lightly armoured people like Japanese peasants. (and to some extent, other samurai - Japanese armour was never that thick) Broadswords, on the other hand, are heavier and blunter, and so are better at cutting through the heavy armour that people like knights would have worn. It's like the difference between a penknife and a razor blade. It makes swords kind of less romantic when you think about what they were actually used for...

[MoogleViper]

Katanas are sharper and lighter, and so while they do not have much force behind them they can cut more readily - this makes them good for killing lightly armoured people like Japanese peasants. (and to some extent, other samurai - Japanese armour was never that thick) Broadswords, on the other hand, are heavier and blunter, and so are better at cutting through the heavy armour that people like knights would have worn. It's like the difference between a penknife and a razor blade. It makes swords kind of less romantic when you think about what they were actually used for...

 

Yeah no type of sword is better than another. Both are good at different things. It depends on the user.

[Raining_again]

Having had a lot of experience, I find people think that a lot of skin conditions are catching. Which is a bit sad and ignorant. Don't think I'd be allowed out for the good of the public if I was catching

[Mr_Odwin]

We're not asking questions as such, just speculating.

 

Odwin mentions the lack of stated number of Wise men, we make cheeky comments. I recall the mentionings of names [Assuming this isn't a misconception] which implies there were at least 3, which could mean the aforementioned points that there were ungrateful fuckers who didn't bring presents.

 

They are not named in the Bible. That has been added over the years. The Snopes link pretty much lays it out.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Katanas are sharper and lighter, and so while they do not have much force behind them they can cut more readily - this makes them good for killing lightly armoured people like Japanese peasants. (and to some extent, other samurai - Japanese armour was never that thick) Broadswords, on the other hand, are heavier and blunter, and so are better at cutting through the heavy armour that people like knights would have worn. It's like the difference between a penknife and a razor blade. It makes swords kind of less romantic when you think about what they were actually used for...

Thanks for clearing it up.

[Ashley]

Stuff like "NE" (Nintendo-Europe), "NYC" (New York City) and "BT" (British Telecom) are acronyms. This is a lie! They are initialisations. Acronyms are similar but they have to make a word such as "TARDIS" (even if thats a fictional word), "radar" and "BOG OFF".

 

Always bugs me.

[Supergrunch]

Stuff like "NE" (Nintendo-Europe), "NYC" (New York City) and "BT" (British Telecom) are acronyms. This is a lie! They are initialisations. Acronyms are similar but they have to make a word such as "TARDIS" (even if thats a fictional word), "radar" and "BOG OFF".

 

Always bugs me.

Erm, initialisms actually, but it's not like everyone makes the distinction. I've actually written a bit about them on the internets before:

There are two distinct common uses here for the word acronym, the first of which refers generally to any abbreviation of a sequence of words by using their initial letters, and the second of which refers only to the proper subset of such abbreviations which are pronounced as single words, contrasting with initialisms, where each letter is individually pronounced. This leads to lots of pedantic arguments, and dictionaries aren't going to help you as they only give information on how words are commonly used, and as we have seen, the usage here is inconsistent. Such arguments are silly, it's best just to accept that you're both using the word acronym differently, but what's more interesting (and relates to your questions) is why a distinction can be drawn between acronyms and initialisms in the first place.

 

You're right that such a distinction relies on our definition of "word," which is a notoriously difficult thing to define. To an educated English speaker, the most obvious definition is orthographical (i.e. the things separated by spaces), but this is fraught with problems and has little to do with spoken language, so isn't really going to help in this case, not least because under it both initialisms and acronyms count as words. More helpful is a phonological word - (roughly) a word identified by various things such as pauses in speech, and indeed here BBC (an initialism) seems to be three phonological words, whereas an acronym such as NATO appears to be only one.

 

But we can also turn to syntax to provide a distinction here. You note that both BBC and NATO are grammatically treated as nouns, and while they aren't identical (for instance, they probably have different rules governing the use of articles - in many cases you'd say "the BBC" in place of "NATO" as opposed to just "BBC"), they are both much the same and this is because the phrases they abbreviate are noun phrases. This isn't quite the same as a noun, as it can be a string of words, but the whole phrase is basically treated as "noun" by grammar. Of course this noun phrase could just consist of a single noun, but we could also have something more complex like "man who passed me in the street." Here, both BBC and NATO abbreviate noun phrases - British Broadcasting Service and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. These behave just like individual nouns - you can substitute them for nouns in sentences with grammatical (but not necessarily meaningful) results, add possessive apostrophes on the end, whatever.

 

This means that we need to revise what we said earlier - BBC and NATO are both undeniably noun phrases, but there's nothing about them that makes them necessarily nouns (apart from orthographical evidence, which is really just a matter of convention - this is why orthographic definitions can be a bit rubbish). Coupled with our phonological observations, this suggests that NATO is a simple noun phrase consisting only of a single word, whereas BBC is more complex. Hence, if we wish to, we can draw a clear distinction between acronyms and initialisms.

[Chris the great]

About the katana, I think I've read somewhere that the katana are in fact no stronger or better than medieval broadswords - that the katana's superiority over other swords is simply a myth.

 

katanas carry a sharper edge the outher swords, they are infact, very dangerous weapons. i have the scar to prove it

 

Makes sense since broadswords are like 2x the width of a katana.

 

a basball bat is as wide as a broad sword, but carrys less of an edge :p. broad swords are actualy not what most people expect, they infact, usualy have a hand guard and are single handed weapons.

 

Katanas are sharper and lighter, and so while they do not have much force behind them they can cut more readily - this makes them good for killing lightly armoured people like Japanese peasants. (and to some extent, other samurai - Japanese armour was never that thick) Broadswords, on the other hand, are heavier and blunter, and so are better at cutting through the heavy armour that people like knights would have worn. It's like the difference between a penknife and a razor blade. It makes swords kind of less romantic when you think about what they were actually used for...

 

the japanise made swords to defeat armor, the europians made armor to defeat swords.

usualy, a sword wouldnt be used to cut through armour, youd go for the gaps, like at the groin or shoulder, or the face behind the visor.

 

if i was us against a knight in armour id want a pole axe or mace or axe. beating high quality armour with a sword would be a huge task, not one id like to take.

[EEVILMURRAY]

They are not named in the Bible. That has been added over the years. The Snopes link pretty much lays it out.

Another misconception! Where did the names come from?

[Jav_NE]

Erm, initialisms actually, but it's not like everyone makes the distinction. I've actually written a bit about them on the internets before:

 

 

That was really interesting. So where do abbreviations fit in with all that?

[Supergrunch]

That was really interesting. So where do abbreviations fit in with all that?

Well, abbreviations are a more general class, including any shortened words, so as well as acronyms and initialisms, things like Dr. and so on. I'd imagine these are mostly instances of the phrases they abbreviate - usually noun phrases, although not necessarily. Abbreviations are by their very nature orthographical, and so not always relevant to how we use and process natural language, but it's interesting when the way we use them actually ends up changing the language, as is the case for acronyms.

[Sheikah]

Misconception: Ancient Egyptians were all caucasoid and 'Mediterranean' in culture. Wrong. Earlier ages (before Asiatic/Greek/Roman/Arab conquests) depicted very much Africoid people, in facial features and skin colour. And was definitely African in culture. Racial mixture has provided the population of north Africa we know today.

Eh? You mean people think Ancient Egyptians weren't most like Africans? That is really odd, and I don't know people who think that.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Eh? You mean people think Ancient Egyptians weren't most like Africans? That is really odd, and I don't know people who think that.

 

Its just generally due to some supremacist ideas and confusion with todays demographics of north Africa. I mean, back in the day when you got a fair few African slaves who really wants them to believe they came somewhere other than a mudhut in a hell hole lol. Dampen their spirits by all means necessary and say they weren't shit in the history books.

[BlueStar]

Bank notes are still made out of paper, it's just paper made from cotton. Paper doesn't have to be made from wood.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_paper

[LazyBoy]

- Hitler was a vegetarian.

 

 

Really? Where's this coming from.

[Dan_Dare]

I've heard that one before. To be honest, I believed it. I suppose it's because it means jack shit

[Jav_NE]

Did Hitler have one testicle or was that all a big joke?!

[Chris the great]

Did Hitler have one testicle or was that all a big joke?!

 

apparently yes. though i belive he lost it in WW1