• fuel

    From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to alexander koryagin on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to All:

    As it is known, "fuel" is an uncountable noun. But is
    it true after "such"? Is it an error to write like this?
    My tongue puts "a" involuntary. ;)

    Uraninum is such a fuel that it causes more problems
    than benefits.


    And my tongue agrees with yours there.... ;-)

    In general the noun "fuel" is a classification involving anything which when burned provides heat, light, and/or other forms of energy. In the Christmas carol GOOD KING WENCESLAS the king notices "a poor man... gathering winter fuel". One might imagine him with an armload of sticks because that's how such people are often represented by illustrators of stories etc. But it seems to me... having been sent as a child to gather kindling in the woods... that dried moss & leaves & pine cones also qualify as "fuel" in this context.

    FOWLER'S alludes to idiomatic uses of "such" and offers examples, but makes no attempt to explain them. Idioms defy explanation... but maybe I can shed a bit more light on the use of the word "fuel" than the average desk dictionary evidently does. This rather broad category includes various items which are countable although others may not be. Dried leaves are a (type of) fuel... wood is a (type of) fuel... oil is a (type of) fuel. When folks grow weary of reiterating the same words & tend to decide in favour of leaving out the parenthesized bit, that's quite understandable AFAIC. Native speakers of English have been dropping inflections for a thousand years. With the Norman invasion of an island which had already been invaded umpteen times, they felt they had two choices... either head for the hills or learn that when somebody wants "beef" and you have "cattle" it may be worth your while to stay put. I sometimes wish those who try to make improvements on my native language had a better grasp of the big picture, but if they describe xxx as "a fuel" I won't quibble because they've left the essential meaning of the words intact. :-))




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Roy Witt on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Roy! Recently you wrote in a message to alexander koryagin:

    As it is known, "fuel" is an uncountable noun. But
    is it true after "such"? Is it an error to write
    like this? My tongue puts "a" involuntary. ;)

    It can be written in this manner if you're comparing
    fuels.


    ... as I did in my reply, which I was about to post when I saw yours. I appreciate knowing others share my perceptions if I'm trying to explain from scratch *why* native speakers of English do what they do. :-)

    You've given me another idea WRT how long this has been going on & in what context as well. Food = fuel for our bodies. I thought I'd seen similar examples in reading about nutrition, and sure enough...


    From the index of a Canadian home ec. textbook, 1932:

    Fruits [followed by an itemized list]


    From a heading in the appendix of a US publication, with
    detailed charts analyzing the nutritional content, 1975:

    Oils, Fats, and Shortenings



    Thankyou.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to alexander koryagin on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi yet again, Alexander! This is a further continuation of my reply to you:

    What a honey! Never tested anything like that!


    Dallas's reaction here was the same as mine... are you referring to (e.g.) a certain type of food produced by apis mellifera or to (e.g.) a nubile and/or beloved homo sapiens, who is probably also of the feminine gender? :-Q



    Is it correct? Probably such omitions are used in
    informal speech.


    No doubt they would pass muster on the local rock station or at the neighbourhood pub, but I don't imagine the latter is quite what you meant. In informal speech many things may be allowed which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole lest I be misunderstood. As a Canadian, I understand & accept that other folks make different choices. I'm also aware, however, that certain words may have more than one meaning... and the writer may not realize that folks on the other side of the ocean (or the other side of the mountains, or the other side of the railway tracks) interpret them differently. While a good dictionary is an asset here, few people will bother to read it if they think they know. :-)

    Anyway, I see you're equating "such a" with "what a"... but I agree that the same principle seems to apply in both cases. More examples: "what a mess", "such a clatter", "such a love". Detailed citation on request.... ;-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Roy Witt on Fri Mar 2 18:00:57 2018
    Hi, Roy! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    It can be written in this manner if you're comparing
    fuels.

    ... as I did in my reply, which I was about to post when
    I saw yours. I appreciate knowing others share my perceptions
    if I'm trying to explain from scratch *why* native speakers
    of English do what they do. :-)

    I noticed in yours that you included food as a fuel...good
    choice. I hadn't thought of it in that way.


    IMHO you deserve credit as well for providing the missing link which
    enabled me to make the connection! My focus was on what a 14th-century peasant
    might be able to scrounge from the woods & use in ye olde fireplace as a source
    of heat. Your focus was on automotive fuel, i.e. the stuff which keeps ye olde
    internal combustion engine running, and you used diesel oil as an example. Now
    we've covered two forms of energy, what about light? Whale oil, vegetable oil,
    and kerosene (AKA coal oil) come to mind there. Hmm... the word "oil" seems to
    keep popping up. I vaguely remember reading something on the Internet not long
    ago about the volatile oils (plural) in coffee and/or garlic. I can't find the
    same article(s) again, but I can check out whatever is on our bookshelves. ;-)



    The above should broaden the use of the word fuel for
    everyone...

    Thankyou....


    And again, thank*you*. Two heads are often better than one.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Roy Witt@1:387/22 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    25 Apr 23 15:10, alexander koryagin wrote to Roy Witt:

    However you can stop here (i.e. compare nothing) and still it will probably be correct.

    Maybe.

    Diesel is another fuel that is used in the automotive field, but is
    more popularly used in the commercial trucking industry.
    There are other fuels that aren't as easily used; uranium is such a
    fuel.

    I.e. when we use "a" before uncountable noun we single out the
    notion, even if it is uncountable in general. "Such" is another
    additional emphasis.

    That is we can say omitting "such":

    Uraninum is a fuel that it causes more problems than benefits.

    omit-------------------------^^- from this sentence too.

    Uraninum is a fuel that causes more problems than benefits.

    As compared to what other fuels and in what field of use?

    Any fuel is used for fueling. Take coal, wood, oil for instance. If
    people don't burn them - they will burn out themselves sooner or
    later. ;-) But by using Uranium we constantly create highly
    radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere for thousands of
    years. Is it possible to guarantee that nothing will have happened
    with these dirty boxes for thousands of years?

    I've often wondered why we don't send spent uranium fuel to the sun, for immediate depletion of all radioactivity upon arrival.

    [...The probabilty of crime in the country is in direct proportion to amount of the police]

    ...Crime is in direct proportion to the number of crooks not in jail.

    R\%/itt


    ... Mark Owen: "Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?
    ... Fellow SEAL: "You believed that s**t, I bet you voted for change too,
    ... SUCKER."


    --- GoldED+/W32 with D'Bridge 3.82
    * Origin: Texas Lone-Star - Texan, American, USAian (1:387/22)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Roy Witt on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Roy Witt! How are you?
    on Monday, 08 of October, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "fuel"


    [skipped]
    As compared to what other fuels and in what field of use?

    Any fuel is used for fueling. Take coal, wood, oil for instance. If
    people don't burn them - they will burn out themselves sooner or
    later. ;-) But by using Uranium we constantly create highly
    radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere for thousands of
    years. Is it possible to guarantee that nothing will have happened
    with these dirty boxes for thousands of years?

    I've often wondered why we don't send spent uranium fuel to the sun,
    for immediate depletion of all radioactivity upon arrival.

    Do you remember what a row we have on Earth when somebody tries to launch a rocket with atomic generator inside? The reason is clear - there is a probability that the rocket will fail and we'll get a radioactive contamination. The situation will be worse if we an accident happens with a rocket carrying extremely radioactive isotopes that we get after using U235 fuel. Probably there is only one solution - we must build plants to restore U235 fuel; all the work must be done by robots capable to work in a(?) highly radioactive environment.

    [...The probabilty of crime in the country is in direct proportion to
    amount of the police]

    ...Crime is in direct proportion to the number of crooks not in jail.

    in jail for life? ;)


    [...Skipped]
    Bye Roy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)
  • From Roy Witt@1:387/22 to alexander koryagin on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    29 Sep 16 15:10, alexander koryagin wrote to Roy Witt:

    As compared to what other fuels and in what field of use?

    Any fuel is used for fueling. Take coal, wood, oil for instance. If
    people don't burn them - they will burn out themselves sooner or
    later. ;-) But by using Uranium we constantly create highly
    radioactive waste that must be stored somewhere for thousands of
    years. Is it possible to guarantee that nothing will have happened
    with these dirty boxes for thousands of years?

    I've often wondered why we don't send spent uranium fuel to the sun,
    for immediate depletion of all radioactivity upon arrival.

    Do you remember what a row we have on Earth when somebody tries to
    launch a rocket with atomic generator inside?

    I didn't know that was even attempted.

    The reason is clear - there is a probability that the rocket will
    fail and we'll get a radioactive contamination.

    Not necessarily.

    The situation will be worse if we an accident happens with a rocket carrying extremely radioactive isotopes that we get after using U235
    fuel. Probably there is only one solution

    Perhaps two.

    - we must build plants to restore U235 fuel; all the work must be
    done by robots capable to work in a(?) highly radioactive
    environment.

    Why even store it?

    The best solution would be to neutralize the radioactivity to a level that
    can safely be handled.

    [...The probabilty of crime in the country is in direct proportion
    to amount of the police]

    ...Crime is in direct proportion to the number of crooks not in
    jail.

    in jail for life? ;)

    Only if they're capable of working toward their own cost of keeping them.

    R\%/itt


    ... Mark Owen: "Hey, did you ever hear anything about that beer?
    ... Fellow SEAL: "You believed that s**t, I bet you voted for change too,
    ... SUCKER."


    --- GoldED+/W32 with D'Bridge 3.82
    * Origin: Texas Lone-Star - Texan, American, USAian (1:387/22)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5020/400 to Roy Witt on Sat Mar 3 08:24:55 2018
    From: "alexander koryagin" <koryagin@erec.ru>

    F2EP
    Hi, Roy Witt! How are you?
    on Wednesday, 10 of October, I read your message to alexander koryagin
    about "fuel"

    years. Is it possible to guarantee that nothing will have happened
    with these dirty boxes for thousands of years?
    I've often wondered why we don't send spent uranium fuel to the sun,
    for immediate depletion of all radioactivity upon arrival.
    Do you remember what a row we have on Earth when somebody tries to
    launch a rocket with atomic generator inside?
    I didn't know that was even attempted.

    I heard of it many times. Almost all far space missions have Plutonium generator inside - the Sun is too weak at great distances. The most usable isotope Plutonium 239 beside its radioactivity (a half-decay is almost 25000 years) is a very toxic material.

    The reason is clear - there is a probability that the rocket will
    fail and we'll get a radioactive contamination.

    Not necessarily.

    Yes, the probability is low, but there were some precedents. For instance, one soviet military space apparatus with atomic reactor fell in Canada and contaminated some area. I.e. the danger is not only during the launch - nobody can guarantee that such an apparatus will not go out of control after the successful launch. In this case it can flop down in any place, even in New York.

    The situation will be worse if we an accident happens with a rocket
    carrying extremely radioactive isotopes that we get after using U235
    fuel. Probably there is only one solution
    Perhaps two.
    - we must build plants to restore U235 fuel; all the work must be
    done by robots capable to work in a(?) highly radioactive
    environment.

    Why even store it?

    Because it is almost a endless fuel. I.e. after having used a fuel U235 rod, we
    clear the fuel up and it is usable again! The problem is that in every fuel rod
    we use just a few per cent of U235 that is there. Practically, it the same situation as if we fill 100 liters of gas in a fuel tank and then throw it out after spending just a few liters, because of the feed pipe becomes clogged.

    The best solution would be to neutralize the radioactivity to a level
    that can safely be handled.

    If we reprocess all spent fuel from atomic plants we will reduce amount of radioactive waste very significantly. BTW, all places where spent U235 fuel is stored are real Klondikes if a country can clear up the atomic fuel. Western countries spend enormous money to get rid off of spent fuel. But some country can clear it and sell it back.

    [...The probabilty of crime in the country is in direct proportion
    to amount of the police]
    ...Crime is in direct proportion to the number of crooks not in
    jail.
    in jail for life? ;)

    Only if they're capable of working toward their own cost of keeping
    them.

    But how to make them to work if they don't want to? Stalin in the USSR did it using very harsh means, but how to do it in a democratic way?

    [...If a person barks at people he lives as a dog, too]
    Bye Roy!
    Alexander (yAlexKo[]yandex.ru) + 2:5020/2140.91
    fido7.english-tutor 2012



    --- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
    * Origin: Demos online service (2:5020/400)