Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 19 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 21 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I am curious: are there any types of software (somewhat akin to Google Translate or such) available that will "translate" Shakespeare into "normal" every-day contemporary English? Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
I'm interested in the word bombshell. Wiktionary gives three meanings:
I understand that "shell" is often used to mean a bomb. "The enemy shelled the beach".
Now the meaning of shell in this context is:
First of all, if it's hollow, how can it contain an explosive substance, or anything else? I suppose it has to mean "substantially hollow". Put that aside for the moment.
So, when military types talk about bombing something, they use "bombs" or "shells".
But a "bombshell" is something different, surely. I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery. Yet it seems to be used to mean a bomb or a non-hollow shell. Why would they use a word made from two others, when either of those two by themselves would be fine? I'm confused. Calling someone a "Bolivian Bomb" doesn’t have the same ring as "Bolivian Bombshell", but when the word is used, as it mostly is these days, to refer to some breaking news about some scandalous revelation, the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all. Yet I'm sure that's not what they intend it to mean. I'm still confused. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery.. Judging by the definitions you've quoted, you've always understood wrong.
the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all: see etymological fallacy. -- ColinFine ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
In a historic military context, projectiles fired from a mortar (weapon) were called "bombs". Originally, these were solid metal or stone, but when a means was devised in the 16th century to make hollow ones which could be filled with explosive and ignited by a simple fuze, the term "bomb-shell" was adopted to distinguish them from the solid kind. 'The figurative sense of "shattering or devastating thing or event" is attested by 1859'. The use of bombs by aeroplanes is obviously much later and I've never heard "bombshell" used in the context of an air-dropped weapon. Now that all mortar ammunition is explosive, the term bomb is used exclusively. Alansplodge ( talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< February 19 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 21 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I am curious: are there any types of software (somewhat akin to Google Translate or such) available that will "translate" Shakespeare into "normal" every-day contemporary English? Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
I'm interested in the word bombshell. Wiktionary gives three meanings:
I understand that "shell" is often used to mean a bomb. "The enemy shelled the beach".
Now the meaning of shell in this context is:
First of all, if it's hollow, how can it contain an explosive substance, or anything else? I suppose it has to mean "substantially hollow". Put that aside for the moment.
So, when military types talk about bombing something, they use "bombs" or "shells".
But a "bombshell" is something different, surely. I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery. Yet it seems to be used to mean a bomb or a non-hollow shell. Why would they use a word made from two others, when either of those two by themselves would be fine? I'm confused. Calling someone a "Bolivian Bomb" doesn’t have the same ring as "Bolivian Bombshell", but when the word is used, as it mostly is these days, to refer to some breaking news about some scandalous revelation, the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all. Yet I'm sure that's not what they intend it to mean. I'm still confused. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I've always understood it to mean the outer casing only, completely hollow, completely inert and safe, and useless as form of artillery.. Judging by the definitions you've quoted, you've always understood wrong.
the word almost means the issue has the appearance of seriousness but actually contains no substance at all: see etymological fallacy. -- ColinFine ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
In a historic military context, projectiles fired from a mortar (weapon) were called "bombs". Originally, these were solid metal or stone, but when a means was devised in the 16th century to make hollow ones which could be filled with explosive and ignited by a simple fuze, the term "bomb-shell" was adopted to distinguish them from the solid kind. 'The figurative sense of "shattering or devastating thing or event" is attested by 1859'. The use of bombs by aeroplanes is obviously much later and I've never heard "bombshell" used in the context of an air-dropped weapon. Now that all mortar ammunition is explosive, the term bomb is used exclusively. Alansplodge ( talk) 14:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)