Talk:1661: Podium - Revision history

141.101.98.13 at 13:43, 11 December 2023

2023-12-11T13:43:34Z

Wilh3lm: I FORGOT TO SIGN

2023-03-12T13:24:36Z

I FORGOT TO SIGN

Wilh3lm: @NotPodium on twitter

2023-03-12T13:24:10Z

@NotPodium on twitter

141.101.98.7 at 01:44, 3 April 2016

2016-04-03T01:44:37Z

173.245.54.43 at 12:30, 1 April 2016

2016-04-01T12:30:10Z

Miamiclay: Dais question

2016-03-31T00:20:02Z

Dais question

173.245.54.53: link to etymological fallacy

2016-03-30T23:56:52Z

link to etymological fallacy

173.245.54.43 at 12:55, 30 March 2016

2016-03-30T12:55:45Z

Kansas City SEO Agency: added the edit at the bottom about the latin root of podium and lectern

2016-03-30T06:35:48Z

added the edit at the bottom about the latin root of podium and lectern

173.245.54.43 at 23:41, 29 March 2016

2016-03-29T23:41:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 11 December 2023
Line 35:		Line 35:

	Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 13:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)		Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 13:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	Personally I would take the podium standpoint ''and'' be fully behind the lecturn position. Because that's the single best place to make a speech from. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.13\|141.101.98.13]] 13:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 12 March 2023
Line 34:		Line 34:
	::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear. Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7\|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)		::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear. Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7\|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

−	Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw	+	Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 13:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 12 March 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones). A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)		:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones). A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
	::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear. Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7\|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)		::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear. Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7\|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	Check out the funny twitter account @NotPodium (https://twitter.com/NotPodium) btw

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 3 April 2016
Line 32:		Line 32:
	So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)		So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
	:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones). A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)		:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones). A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
		+	::That may not be true when multiple persons are 'on display' upon the platform, but whilst one is proclaiming (or two or more, but ''not all of them'', are taking the front as part of a dialogue/interaction between them) the others are seated to the rear. Although I appreciate that the seating isn't part of the presentation part, merely a storage solution for all 'not currently at the front' individuals. (Also consider the wheelchair-bound, whilst simultaneously empodiumed to proclaim their POV. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.7\|141.101.98.7]] 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 1 April 2016
Line 31:		Line 31:

	So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)		So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
		+	:A dais usually has some sort of seating (e.g., thrones). A podium never has seating. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 31 March 2016
Line 29:		Line 29:

	Since people typically stand on a podium behind a lectern, there's a subtle pun in "getting to the bottom of this". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)		Since people typically stand on a podium behind a lectern, there's a subtle pun in "getting to the bottom of this". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	So, is there a difference between a 'podium' and a 'dais'? [[User:Miamiclay\|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay\|talk]]) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 30 March 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:I agree that "podium" is just wrong. Just because so-called "dictionaries" want to coddle people who use words incorrectly doesn't mean we should allow them to ruin our language. Allowing people to use "podium" to mean a stand for notes is as bad as allowing people to use "explain" to mean to describe or make intelligible. The word "explain" comes from Old French, where it meant "flatten out", as is obvious from the etymology: Latin "ex-" + "plano", or "out-" + "(I) flatten". This is easy to remember because it sounds like "esplanade", a cleared or leveled space, a noun with related etymology. English has a perfectly good verb, "irecchen", with the desired meaning. Clearly, this site is meant to level out XKCD, to make it flat and featureless, not to make it easier to understand, and I applaud it for using the word correctly. However, I would like to take issue with the misuse of the word "discuss" on this site. This word was borrowed from Norman French with the meaning "shaken apart", but is only properly used in medical history and archaeology—and, even then, it is often misused as "discussed", ignoring the fact that it is already a past participle. In the common language of the uneducated, it is nearly always used to mean "converse about", but the Latin etymology as a participle of "dis-" + "quatere", or "apart-" + "shake", should make it clear how ridiculous this is. Even if we were to allow the medieval monastic fad for using "discuss" figuratively to mean sifting the truth out of text by arguing over them vigorously, that still cannot justify the so-called modern meaning that our dictionaries promulgate. Wé mōton standen for Englisc propre! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105\|162.158.255.105]] 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)		:I agree that "podium" is just wrong. Just because so-called "dictionaries" want to coddle people who use words incorrectly doesn't mean we should allow them to ruin our language. Allowing people to use "podium" to mean a stand for notes is as bad as allowing people to use "explain" to mean to describe or make intelligible. The word "explain" comes from Old French, where it meant "flatten out", as is obvious from the etymology: Latin "ex-" + "plano", or "out-" + "(I) flatten". This is easy to remember because it sounds like "esplanade", a cleared or leveled space, a noun with related etymology. English has a perfectly good verb, "irecchen", with the desired meaning. Clearly, this site is meant to level out XKCD, to make it flat and featureless, not to make it easier to understand, and I applaud it for using the word correctly. However, I would like to take issue with the misuse of the word "discuss" on this site. This word was borrowed from Norman French with the meaning "shaken apart", but is only properly used in medical history and archaeology—and, even then, it is often misused as "discussed", ignoring the fact that it is already a past participle. In the common language of the uneducated, it is nearly always used to mean "converse about", but the Latin etymology as a participle of "dis-" + "quatere", or "apart-" + "shake", should make it clear how ridiculous this is. Even if we were to allow the medieval monastic fad for using "discuss" figuratively to mean sifting the truth out of text by arguing over them vigorously, that still cannot justify the so-called modern meaning that our dictionaries promulgate. Wé mōton standen for Englisc propre! --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105\|162.158.255.105]] 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	::I was all ready to go on an [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html etymological fallacy] rant, but then I kept reading and my sarcasm detector finally went off. :) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.53\|173.245.54.53]] 23:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

	I have huge reference libraries personally, including science and tech, law, medicine, philosophy, arts, etc. I find it a Chinese curse, to need an online subscription for OED 3, after managing to acquire OED 2 v 3 & v4 in forms suitable for both PC and mobile carry, plus Merriam-Webster unabridged as an offline mobile app. Ullman's (industrial chemistry) dwarfs those, however. That noted, dictionaries require active public input, and are plagued by inarticulate speakers. The degradation of "unique" into a comparative is contrary to core etymology. OTOH, "yawl" and "ketch" remain difficult to define as to the basic rigs, while their comparison to each other and "sloop" has been improved as lexicographers have been called out for failing to focus on the key distinction of whether a mizzen mast is stepped fore or aft of the rudder post, not the rudder, or arbitrary relative sail sizes. Nudist and naturist are scrambled by common usage to be both ambiguous, versus to reflect philosophical or religious aspects of naturism versus outward practices or social and business based nudism, while misuse as if conflated with naturalist has decreased, and inclusion of naturist improved. Many dictionaries have recognized schadenfreude as becoming an English word, while despite circa 1981 origins well over the 20 year rule, only a few better dictionaries are yet listing compersion.		I have huge reference libraries personally, including science and tech, law, medicine, philosophy, arts, etc. I find it a Chinese curse, to need an online subscription for OED 3, after managing to acquire OED 2 v 3 & v4 in forms suitable for both PC and mobile carry, plus Merriam-Webster unabridged as an offline mobile app. Ullman's (industrial chemistry) dwarfs those, however. That noted, dictionaries require active public input, and are plagued by inarticulate speakers. The degradation of "unique" into a comparative is contrary to core etymology. OTOH, "yawl" and "ketch" remain difficult to define as to the basic rigs, while their comparison to each other and "sloop" has been improved as lexicographers have been called out for failing to focus on the key distinction of whether a mizzen mast is stepped fore or aft of the rudder post, not the rudder, or arbitrary relative sail sizes. Nudist and naturist are scrambled by common usage to be both ambiguous, versus to reflect philosophical or religious aspects of naturism versus outward practices or social and business based nudism, while misuse as if conflated with naturalist has decreased, and inclusion of naturist improved. Many dictionaries have recognized schadenfreude as becoming an English word, while despite circa 1981 origins well over the 20 year rule, only a few better dictionaries are yet listing compersion.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, 30 March 2016
Line 25:		Line 25:

	EDIT: (I'm new to this), the basic fact is that the latin root of podium is pod- which means foot, or the thing up on which you stand, and the root of "lectern" is Lectio-" which means "to read". In medieval times, the "lecturer" literally was just the "reader" and he read at his lectern. I feel like this is the simplest solution. -KCSEO		EDIT: (I'm new to this), the basic fact is that the latin root of podium is pod- which means foot, or the thing up on which you stand, and the root of "lectern" is Lectio-" which means "to read". In medieval times, the "lecturer" literally was just the "reader" and he read at his lectern. I feel like this is the simplest solution. -KCSEO
		+
		+	Since people typically stand on a podium behind a lectern, there's a subtle pun in "getting to the bottom of this". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.43\|173.245.54.43]] 12:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:35, 30 March 2016
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Two dramatic examples from recent US history are when Tom Foley (then the Republican Speaker of the House) faced (and lost) a primary challenge from the more conservative George Nethercutt in 1994, and when Richard Lugar (a widely respected senior Republican senator) lost a primary challenge to the more conservative Richard Mourdock in 2012. Here is an article on the latter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/lugar-loses-primary-challenge-in-indiana.html <br>		Two dramatic examples from recent US history are when Tom Foley (then the Republican Speaker of the House) faced (and lost) a primary challenge from the more conservative George Nethercutt in 1994, and when Richard Lugar (a widely respected senior Republican senator) lost a primary challenge to the more conservative Richard Mourdock in 2012. Here is an article on the latter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/lugar-loses-primary-challenge-in-indiana.html <br>
	Part of the joke here is that by using "prescriptivist base" in the same way that political commentators do when referring to the extreme right or left wing elements of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, Randall is comparing the extreme mindset and behavior of linguistic prescriptivists with radical right-wing and left-wing ideologues. 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)!		Part of the joke here is that by using "prescriptivist base" in the same way that political commentators do when referring to the extreme right or left wing elements of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, Randall is comparing the extreme mindset and behavior of linguistic prescriptivists with radical right-wing and left-wing ideologues. 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)!
		+
		+	EDIT: (I'm new to this), the basic fact is that the latin root of podium is pod- which means foot, or the thing up on which you stand, and the root of "lectern" is Lectio-" which means "to read". In medieval times, the "lecturer" literally was just the "reader" and he read at his lectern. I feel like this is the simplest solution. -KCSEO

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 29 March 2016
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:The different connotations of "pulpit" and "podium" definitely lead to different metaphorical or figurative uses. For example, it's hard to imagine Teddy Roosevelt talking about the Presidency as a "bully podium". (Of course "bully pulpit" is also hard to imagine a century later, with "bully" no longer meaning "excellent", and sermonizing now being something you accuse religious-right or PC-left politicians of rather than something politicians of high integrity are credited with…) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105\|162.158.255.105]] 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)		:The different connotations of "pulpit" and "podium" definitely lead to different metaphorical or figurative uses. For example, it's hard to imagine Teddy Roosevelt talking about the Presidency as a "bully podium". (Of course "bully pulpit" is also hard to imagine a century later, with "bully" no longer meaning "excellent", and sermonizing now being something you accuse religious-right or PC-left politicians of rather than something politicians of high integrity are credited with…) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.105\|162.158.255.105]] 16:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
	::Yes Wikipedia defines a {{w\|pulpit}} as "a raised stand for preachers in a Christian church." But they can look quite like a lectern in some situations, as can be seen by searching for pictures of pulpit. --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)		::Yes Wikipedia defines a {{w\|pulpit}} as "a raised stand for preachers in a Christian church." But they can look quite like a lectern in some situations, as can be seen by searching for pictures of pulpit. --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	There isn't a good explanation yet for what "a primary challenge from the prescriptivist base" means.<br>
		+	Wikipedia has a good definition for a "primary challenge" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge) but a bit more may be necessary for people who don't closely follow American politics.<br>
		+	In American politics, a primary challenge usually occurs when an incumbent politician has offended the more radical wing of their party. For example a Republican politician (this is usually seen as the more right-wing party in US politics) who takes moderate-to-liberal actions while in office will often face a primary challenge from a much more conservative Republican (someone on the extreme right), while a Democrat politician (the more left-wing party in the US) who takes moderate-to-conservative actions will often face a primary challenge from a much more liberal Democrat (someone on the extreme left). <br>
		+	Two dramatic examples from recent US history are when Tom Foley (then the Republican Speaker of the House) faced (and lost) a primary challenge from the more conservative George Nethercutt in 1994, and when Richard Lugar (a widely respected senior Republican senator) lost a primary challenge to the more conservative Richard Mourdock in 2012. Here is an article on the latter: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/lugar-loses-primary-challenge-in-indiana.html <br>
		+	Part of the joke here is that by using "prescriptivist base" in the same way that political commentators do when referring to the extreme right or left wing elements of the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, Randall is comparing the extreme mindset and behavior of linguistic prescriptivists with radical right-wing and left-wing ideologues. 23:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)!