Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.

[rufio]

I think it was probably meant to be hyperbole.

[rohina]

Have you read the book in question? NO? Are you familiar with Ransome's vernacular? No? Then STFU.

Thinking about rufio and Ransome in the same sentence makes me think of his comments about duffers and drowning. rufio is definitely a duffer.

[Nimrod]

"Pre-prepared"?  Wow.  I can actually feel a few logic buffers sizzling after parsing that input.

[rufio]

I am familiar with exactly what Sairsadel wrote, which is what I am responding to.  If I'm not being literary enough for you, I really don't give a shit.

Nimrod, if you don't know what sticking "pre-" onto the front of a participle means, I can't help you.

[Tsarina]

In that case, would you mind explaining what pre-prepared means? Before arranged beforehand?
I know what you meant, but the word itself makes no sense in that context.

[rufio]

Eh, prepared does not usually mean "arranged beforehand" to me, except in special cases.

"I drank a glass of water I had prepared." = I just now filled it from the sink.
"I drank the prepared glass of water." = Someone else just filled it from the sink.
"I drank a glass of water that had been pre-prepared." = It was sitting out on the counter when I got here.

It's a little weird to talk about glasses of water being prepared anyway, but then again we are talking about strange usage of "water" as a count noun anyway.  I'm sure everyone is now going to accuse me of being horribly non-standard.  Yawn.  I am not interested anymore.  Have fun.

[Tsarina]

If someone filled the glass BEFORE you were about to drink from it, it would indeed be arranged beforehand. 'Pre-prepared' is a pleonasm. 'Pre' is already a part of the word, and adding another 'pre' is silly if your meaning is any of the definitions mentioned here.
I could understand adding the other 'pre' if you were to express the state the glass was in before it was prepared for you, but that seems a bit muddy, and I'm sure there's a more fitting word for it.

[rufio]

Well, as you can see from the etymology in Jordi's cite, "prepare" is not actually an English compound, but was borrowed wholesale from Latin, and English is not Latin, etc., etc.  While "prepare" does (to me) mean that the glass was filled before I drank it, it can't be used to mean that it was filled much more than a minute beforehand, and in this case I wanted to say that it had been prepared a long time in advance.  (Incidentally, if the "pre" in "prepare" were a standard English prefix, "prepared a long time in advance" would be redundant.)

Does that make more sense to you?

[Marhis]

On a side note,

While "prepare" does (to me) mean that the glass was filled before I drank it, it can't be used to mean that it was filled much more than a minute beforehand, and in this case I wanted to say that it had been prepared a long time in advance.

I really don't get why it can't be used to mean that it was filled long time beforehand, regardless it's derived from Latin or not.

[rufio]

Heh.  Reminds me for conventions for naming important syllables; the fourth-to-last syllable is called the "preantepenult," where they basically just found three different prefixes that meant "before".

[Tsarina]

Well, as you can see from the etymology in Jordi's cite, "prepare" is not actually an English compound, but was borrowed wholesale from Latin, and English is not Latin, etc., etc.  While "prepare" does (to me) mean that the glass was filled before I drank it, it can't be used to mean that it was filled much more than a minute beforehand, and in this case I wanted to say that it had been prepared a long time in advance.  (Incidentally, if the "pre" in "prepare" were a standard English prefix, "prepared a long time in advance" would be redundant.)

Does that make more sense to you?

I understand your reasoning, however, I do not find it very logical.
The very foundation of communication is to have roughly the same concepts of what words mean. Having a word mean something else to you than it does to the rest of the world can lead to interesting misunderstandings.
I don't quite get how you make Jordi's post with etymology support your point. It looks more like it confirms the traditional meaning of 'prepare' - to produce before intended use.
You may use the word as you wish, but must then expect that people will question it and perhaps even laugh at you. And if using it in posts, expect to clarify what you really meant like now. IMO, just accepting the standard usage would be less of a hassle.

[Rothchild]

Since this is the grammar thread, I'd like to ask for help.  I have trouble knowing when to use effect and affect.  Most of the times when affect is used, it seems effect could be used in it's place.  Any grammar gods willing to help me out?

[Tsarina]

I'm not a grammar god by any means, but this and this site explain the effect/affect difference nicely.

[rufio]

Ultima: last
Penult: first from last
Antepenult: second from last
Preantepenult: third from last

You're right - I fail at counting.  

No, I take that back, actually.  The penult is the second-to-last.  "First-to-last" is the same as last.  What the heck?

What's next? Postprenatepenult?

That sounds like it would be a synonym for antepenult, though.  Maybe forepreantepenult?  Are there any other languages that are classical enough to use in linguistics jargon?  Interestingly, I actually did find a hit for "preantepenult" in a paper about Palestinian Arabic.  I was surprised; I did not know anybody actually used it.

Tsarina - the usage is standard with people I normally talk to.

[Marhis]

Hey it's fun; priorpreantepenult, propiorpreantepenult, priuspreantepenult...

[Nimrod]

In my experience, "a water/lemonade/juice/etc." is mostly limited to restaurants, where it refers to a specific standardized drink order.  At home I wouldn't say, "I'm going to get a water" unless I was referring to an unopened bottle of water or one of many pre-prepared glasses of water, as opposed to, say, filling up a glass from the sink.

Regardless of your idol technicalities, your context above demands the use of "prepared", unless you're going to dictate what amount of time qualifies as "beforehand".  So far as I know, beforehand simply means BEFORE the intended result.  One second, many years, no matter.  On top of that, you already presented the image of a tray or counter full of "many" vessels, of course you didn't "just now fill it from the sink".

"I drank a glass of water that had been pre-prepared." = It was sitting out on the counter when I got here.

There you go again, dictating qualifiers and definitions, just because "it's your normal usage", stubborn you are.  Whether you just now filled a glass to drink immediately, or sat it on the counter, or the glass had been there for hours, the thing has been prepared before it is used.

Semantics are fun.  


ETA:  Wouldn't "pre-made" make more sense, or at least provide better imagery?  I was just thinking that the words "making" and "made" would be in better accordance with your examples.

[rufio]

Semantics are is fun.

Too bad you don't actually seem to be interested in it.

ETA:  Wouldn't "pre-made" make more sense, or at least provide better imagery?  I was just thinking that the words "making" and "made" would be in better accordance with your examples.

Not to me.  All glasses are pre-made, and water is not made at all, unless it's not really water you're talking about.

[rohina]

Since this is the grammar thread, I'd like to ask for help.  I have trouble knowing when to use effect and affect.  Most of the times when affect is used, it seems effect could be used in it's place.  Any grammar gods willing to help me out?

Remember
Affect is a
Verb
Effect is a
Noun

This simple mnemonic is pretty useful, except if you a) don't know what a verb and noun are, b) are a psychology student or c) rufio.

[rufio]

Well, affect can also be a noun and effect can also be a verb.  But I'm sure you knew that already.

[rohina]

Well, affect can also be a noun and effect can also be a verb.  But I'm sure you knew that already.

Yes, fuckknuckle, hence the mentioned exceptions. I also knew you were going to headpeen it, hence the listing of "rufio" in the exceptions.

On the other hand, for morons who are clearly having trouble with the basic distinction, the mnemonic covers 95% of cases. So, whose explanation is more FUNCTIONAL, Oh-great-wanker-of-the-functional? Mine. That's whose.

[rufio]

I didn't see any exceptions, unless you are trying to imply that the noun "affect" and the verb "effect" are only relevant to psychology students, which is not the case.

[rohina]

That's because you are a certified moron. However, for regular non-moronic people, as I said, in 95% of cases, they will be using affect and effect in the way the mnemonic suggests. Which was my point. So now I have made it 3 times.

Let's have a deadpool on how many times I will need to make it before it makes it past the headpeen and into the teeny tiny little brain that sits behind the headpeen. I am going with 4 more, for a total of 7.

[witch]

I think 7 is a trifle optimistic. I'm going for 9, as it is 3x3, 3 being my favourite number. 

[rufio]

I'm not disagreeing with you, rohina.

[Audrey]

I love this thread because I am anal when it comes to spelling, grammar and the correct usage of words.  Rohina's acronym is right except in one or two percent of the cases.   An example of affect being used as noun would be:  'Darcy used an affect which was quite foreign to his disagreeable nature.  The misuse of effect and affect drives me nuts.  They are so commonly confused.  What are kids taught in school these days?

Do you 'make' or 'take' a decision?  If you 'take' a decision, I have to ask where are you taking it to?  If you 'make' a decision, it is a process going on in your head.  I cringe everytime someone says or writes 'take' as this, to me, is just wrong.