# My General Questions \[consolidated thread for questions on English usage\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 3, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390 "2010-07-03T03:23:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/141 "2010-07-24T14:50:17Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > still have some confusion . Hence posting the same again… > > Davison River farmers are currently deciding between planting winter wheat this fall or spring wheat next spring.Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profi table. Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average. Therefore, planting spring wheat will be more profi table than planting winter wheat, since .the smaller-than-average size of a winter wheat harvest this year would not be compensated for by higher winter wheat prices. > > \>\>\>higher winter wheat prices > > but is not they said “_Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profitable_” …does that not mean Winter wheat and spring wheat price are same ? how come we say winter wheat prices are higher ? There are clues in the sentence. They are used so often that they are worth noting and looking out for in the future. > [@](#): > > Davison River farmers are currently deciding between planting winter wheat this fall or spring wheat next spring. Whenever you see “currently” it is a clue that the writer wants you to know that the situation is a change from normal practice. Normally, Davison River farmers do not have to make this decision. However, something has changed and they must make this decision now. > [@](#): > > Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profitable. “Usually” is a clue that means “not in this case”. The two kinds of wheat are usually equally profitable. This year they are not expected to be equally profitable. > [@](#): > > Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average. What follows “because” tells you why the usual or the normal does not apply. A condition has changed. Irrigation water will be less available. > [@](#): > > Therefore, planting spring wheat will be more profi table than planting winter wheat, [COLOR=“Red”]since .the smaller-than-average size of a winter wheat harvest this year would not be compensated for by higher winter wheat prices. “Therefore” is the conclusion. In a change from normal practice, the lower amount of irrigation means that less winter wheat can be grown. It is like a little logic puzzle. Currently - a change is contemplated Usually - what happens in the past Because - what is happening in the present Therefore - why the future will not be like the past ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/142 "2010-07-24T15:57:51Z")
No, it’s using “modern” to mean both “existing right now at this time”, which these forager societies also do, and to mean “in contact with advanced societies”. In other words, the forager societies that exist now have had some contact with global civilization and may not be reliably equated with ancient forager societies. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/143 "2010-07-24T20:49:49Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > oh god , I had been assuming that Winter wheat for winter season and Spring wheat from Spring season . Are you saying these can be harvested in another season also and still would give a considerable yield ? No, your original assumption was correct, but it didn’t capture the whole story. Winter wheat is a particular set of species of wheat, but the term also describes its growing cycle. It’s planted in the fall, it sprouts before freezing weather, but then it goes dormant during the coldest part of winter, and then finishes its growing cycle in the spring. Spring wheat, on the other hand, describes those species of wheat which are planted in the springtime, and harvested in the summer or fall (making it more similar to most other crops). ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/144 "2010-07-25T08:42:38Z")
please look at this English text… **One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.** \>\>\>\>no less plastic refuseper container refuse ? refuse = deny. I refuse . you refuse . How come a plastic refuse ? it says "no less plastic refuse " . \>\>\>when such containers which container ? \*\*partially \*\*biodegradable container ? ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/145 "2010-07-25T10:44:55Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > please look at this English text.. > > **One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.** > > \>\>\>\>no less plastic refuseper container > > refuse ? refuse = deny. > > I refuse . you refuse . How come a plastic refuse ? > > it says "no less plastic refuse " . > > \>\>\>when such containers > > which container ? \*\*partially \*\*biodegradable container ? Refuse can also be used as a noun to mean “rubbish”. In the sense that its something you “refuse” to keep. “Plastic refuse” just means “rubbish which consists of plastic”. ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/146 "2010-07-25T11:06:05Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > > [@themajestic](#): > > > > \>\>\>**[COLOR=“Red”]any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar**[/COLOR] > > > > is that ancient forager society or modern forager society ? is not it a ambiguous construction ? or we can really guess here ? > > > [@](#): > > > > The “any” would indicated that it means both ancient and modern ones but “familiar” implies first hand experience which would logically exclude ancient societies. > > \>\>\>which would logically exclude ancient societies. > > I think the opposite . > > because it says.. > > _has had considerable contact with **modern** , non-forager societies_ > > so, this means the “_any forager society_” is NOT modern i.e ancient …what say ? > > Well, this is just my guess. I’m not sure . No it says “modern, non-forager society”. To have contact with them a forager society would have to be modern by definition. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/147 "2010-07-25T11:21:47Z")
OK . I map this way > [@](#): > > Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded = Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic \*\*RUBBISH \*\*per container is produced when such containers are discarded. why it says no plastic rubbish is produced ?? .it said when bonding agent degrades, it produces small bits of plastic is not plastic rubbish = small bits of plastic ?? are they different ? ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/148 "2010-07-25T12:36:38Z")
It says no _less_ rubbish is produced. In other words it’s saying that it doesn’t help because in the end the same amount of plastic rubbish is present. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/149 "2010-07-25T13:45:24Z")
\>\>\>\>Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded. I summarize this way then partially biodegradable and nonbiodegradable plastic beverage container both produce same amount plastic RUBBISH when degrades. hope , this time I got it 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/150 "2010-07-25T15:53:45Z")
Yes, that would be another way to say that idea. Partially biodegradable and nonbiodegradable plastic beverage containers both produce the same amount of plastic rubbish when they degrade. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/151 "2010-07-25T18:38:31Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > OK . I map this way > > > [@](#): > > > > Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded > > = > > Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic \*\*RUBBISH \*\*per container is produced when such containers are discarded. > why it says no plastic rubbish is produced ?? .it said when bonding agent degrades, it produces small bits of plastic > is not plastic rubbish = small bits of plastic ?? are they different ? What they are saying is that the volume of plastic is not less after the non-plastic elements have dissolved. That means the bonding agent must be a very small proportion of the container. Container consists of: 99% plastic+ 1% bonding agents. After the bonding agents have dissolved, you still have all the plastic. The volume is no smaller (no less) – 99% of the plastic container remains. By the way, when “refuse” is used as a noun, it is pronounced differently; there’s a different s sound and different emphasis. noun: REFuss verb: reFUZE ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/152 "2010-07-27T15:42:16Z")
Please look at this English text… **The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify [COLOR=“Red”]fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions[/COLOR]** What is **fee arrangements**? I don’t understand this part . ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/153 "2010-07-27T16:08:10Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > Please look at this English text… > > **The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify [COLOR=“Red”]fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions[/COLOR]** > > What is **fee arrangements**? > > I don’t understand this part . A “fee” is a payment for a service of some sort. “Fee arrangements” just means “the _arrangements_ for paying the _fees_”. In other words, how they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/154 "2010-07-27T16:58:45Z")
> [@Bisected8](#): > > > [@themajestic](#): > > > > Please look at this English text… > > > > **The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify [COLOR=“Red”]fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions[/COLOR]** > > > > What is **fee arrangements**? > > > > I don’t understand this part . > > A “fee” is a payment for a service of some sort. “Fee arrangements” just means “the _arrangements_ for paying the _fees_”. In other words, how they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services. \>\>\>\*\*how \*\*they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services. do you mean whether the fee will be paid by cash or by cheque or by wire transfer ? \>\>\>\>against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements what is the problem with this ? suppose I’m a lawyer . Now if I put an advertisements and SPECIFY there that the fees can ONLY be paid by cheque for all criminal cases. DO you call it a \*\*restriction \*\*which the argument is arguing ? or we are talking about a different kind of legal restrictions here ? Also, does it really matter if someone specify how they want to be paid ? (in reality) I don’t get the logic here. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/155 "2010-07-27T17:18:51Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > \>\>\>\*\*how \*\*they will expect to be paid by their client for ther services. > > do you mean whether the fee will be paid by cash or by cheque or by wire transfer ? More likely: is there an upfront fee? Do they charge an hourly rate for consultation? If you’re filing a lawsuit, what percentage will they take if you win? This is particularly an issue among lawyers who take on poorer individuals, and especially those who deal in bankruptcy or lawsuits (which, in the U.S., is often the type of lawyer who advertises). ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/156 "2010-07-27T17:57:34Z")
\>\>\>The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services in US, does the US govt put restrictions on advertisements by lawyer ? advertisements are good .otherwise how people will know ? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/157 "2010-07-27T18:05:59Z")
I don’t actually know the answer to your question, but I suspect a thorough answer is much more complicated than you’re really interested in. To start with, in the US, most laws of this type are made by the state government rather than the federal government. That means there may be 50+ different answers to your question. Reading between the lines of your text, I suspect the advertising restrictions were put in place to discourage predatory practices, such as charging a large amount for a consultation, but not telling the client about the fee up front in the advertisement. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/158 "2010-07-27T18:13:23Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > in US, does the US govt put restrictions on advertisements by lawyer ? > > advertisements are good .otherwise how people will know ? In theory, advertisements are good. The concern has always been that the ads could be misleading (and some lawyers have had concerns that allowing advertising makes the profession as a whole look unseemly). In the U.S., lawyers were often barred from advertising by their state bar associations, which are the organizations which grant lawyers the right to practice law in each state (I may be mistaken, but I don’t think there was ever a federal law which banned legal advertising). In a [1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_v._Arizona_State_Bar), it was determined that legal advertising fell under the First Amendment as protected free speech. A lot of the legal advertising we see here is for personal-injury attorneys (“Were you injured in an accident? We can get you money!”) and personal-bankruptcy attorneys. And, honestly, a lot of it is pretty bad, and it clearly targets poor or ignorant people who may not know any better. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/159 "2010-07-27T18:16:37Z")
“fee arrangements” in legal terms refer to the manner in which the fee is calculated, not the means by which payment is made. Some examples of different fee arrangements include: Hourly fee – you pay a per-hour rate for the work that is needed Flat fee – you pay a single price for any amount of work that is necessary Contingency Fee – you don’t pay anything; the attorney takes a percentage if you win (if you lose, the attorney cannot seek payment except for very minor expenses such as the fee for filing papers with the court) (a contingency arrangement for a criminal matter is an ethical violation for the attorney and may be specifically illegal in some states). Other arrangements are possible. Yes, in the US there are rules for advertising by attorneys. They vary by state but have some general things in common, intended to eliminate deceiving or misleading people who do not know much about the legal system. For example, you cannot promise a particular result. There are complicated rules for contingency arrangements, and rules about advertising that you work on contingency. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/160 "2010-07-27T18:40:18Z")
\>\>\>\> **The fewer** restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,\*\* the more\*\* lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. lawyers who advertise charge less. lawyers who does not advertise charge more. so, I really can’t tell that the lawyers who advertise are doing predatory practices …because they are charging less . do you mean lawyers ( who advertise their service) charge less , they don’t tell the client up front and later they charge hefty amount , hidden cost . …is it the odd things happening here ? if this is true ,then these lawyers are bad lawyers… How government put restrictions ?does the govt circular says that each legal service advertisement have to \*\*mention \*\*hourly fee/contingency fee/flat fee / up front ? is it the kind of restriction govt impose ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390.md?page=9)