You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Improve Your English

    Do not divorce words

    I am starting a fresh thread to discuss the divorcing of words. Learned members may share their knowledge here.

    The word that I am referring to is 'waterlogging'. Is it written as one word, as I have illustrated or is it written as 'water logging', split into two words?

    The reason for this doubt is the recently concluded monsoon quiz. I discussed the quiz with my husband who pointed out that 'waterlog' was one word and not two words.

    Incidentally, the Cambridge, the Oxford and the Merriam Webster dictionaries show it as one word - waterlog/waterlogging/waterlogged.

    This is important because it is critical that we spell words correctly. Any guidance on the correctness of the word will be appreciated.
  • #603727
    Juana,
    No doubt. Waterlogging is surely a single word, a lone word, a combined word. The Quiz Master failed to notice this waterlogging and treated as two different words. This is another feather added to the conduct of Quiz contest.

    I asked my wife. Then I asked my daughter. They both confirmed it as one single word.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #603748
    As soon as you break those words, you start describing the water in this incident.
    But waterlogging is a noun. Just splitting of words can change their part of speech.
    So how to know when to split and when not to?
    Depends on what kind of part of speech you want to use.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #603749
    We get to see the same used in both ways even in popular and well circulated English newspapers and magazines. So much so that practically it is being used as two words or even a hyphenated word.

    However the 'auto correct' facility in MS shows water logging as two words or hyphenated word; and 'waterlogged' as one word.

    Logically in comparing with 'waterproofing' waterlogging should be one word.

  • #603755
    Whether knowingly or unknowingly, we tend to make mistakes by splitting the words which are supposed to be one single word in reality. This tutorial is one more lesson for us to learn.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #603757
    Duplicate.
    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #603777
    The autocorrect on my laptops is not making any corrections to either form of the word. So, according to MS Word, both appear to be acceptable forms. However, when in doubt, I prefer to go with what is given in the dictionaries. I referred to the Macmillan dictionary, and that too lists it as one word. I did a Google search using the split form of the word, and received a prompt that read – "Did you mean: UK spellings waterlogging". The same prompt shows for the US spelling as well. Screenshot attached.
    Underestimate me...that'll be fun!

    Delete Attachment

  • #603911
    As far as I know, 'waterlogging' is a single word. But I don't know about the origin of this word or past practice. May be hundred of years ago, people used to write it as 'water-logging'. But nowadays, it is written as a single word.
    Caution: Explosive. Handle with care.

  • #603914
    [Response removed by Admin. Read forum policies.]
    No life without Sun ¤

  • #603938
    Is the title of the thread appropriate? Does the author give some instruction or expresses her doubt ? If it is an instruction then is it justified to issue such instruction without being sure about its correctness?

    Now coming to the point, as already pointed out in one of the responses (#603749) there are ample examples of using the word/words in either way. Even the dictionaries and the 'auto correct' facility in MS differ on the issue. The Wikipedia also says 'waterlogging' or 'water' 'logging' which means both are same.

    Hence, it depends on the user how one wants to use it. It is better for one to judge it according to one's prudence.

    @#603727

    Should the extra feather be removed now or remain intact?

  • #603941
    I have read some articles in internet where different people used this word as differently. In some cases they used this as waterlogging. In other cases they used water logging. the meaning of both is same. Both the versions are correct because different people are using it differently for conveying the same meaning.
    drrao
    always confident

  • #603946
    Nomita Mitra,
    The dictionary meaning of the words log- logs- logging- logged alone differs entirely with no connection to water. Waterlog/waterlogging is a different thing much connected to the water. Hence, it is not to be divorced or separated. They should live together with no confusion in anybody's mind. The feather added remains intact forever.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #603959
    A very threadbare discussion on waterlogging and its correct form. Such threads in ISC really provide the members to learn various things at their ultimate height.

    It appears that waterlogging and water logging are used interchangeably and during the evolution of a language in long run such things are accepted by the lexicographers and illustrated in dictionaries to avoid any confusion.

    Just for information I want to add that the second version 'water logging' has a different meaning also. In groundwater department or companies who are in the business of water production from tubewells or deep wells they use some electronic instrument which are lowered in the drilled well to record some log or chart of physical parameters of rocks below which are containing fresh water or saline water. These recording methods are commonly known as water logging and record is known as water log. From this we can find out at what depth water is there so that we can lower the pipes with holes at that point only.

    Anyway these are the technical sides but I thought it will add complimentary dimension to the discussion.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #603977
    Nomita,

    What do you find inappropriate about the title? There is a bigger issue here than the title of my thread. The issue here is of propagating incorrect words, in a bid to enhance vocabulary.

    Examples can be aplenty. I can use an incorrect word and cite it as an example. The word under discussion has a specific spelling. You may choose to select the auto correct feature on MS Word or go by what Wikipedia says, but they aren't the last word on the English language. Wikipedia is built by people like you and me. Auto correct is not correct all the time.

    Discretion can be allowed if the dictionaries mention both forms to describe the same thing. Just because a few unknowledgeable people use an incorrect spelling in their writing doesn't make the spelling correct. I can highlight cases where celebrated writers have used 'revert back', 'prepone' or 'cope up' in their writing, but that doesn't make the usage of those phrases correct. If we are out to teach something we cannot rely on our judgement and prudence, for in such instances we have to rely on facts and specifics, not our 'limited' knowledge or understanding.

    For example, in one of your recent threads, you have used the word 'economical' to describe the burning problems our country faces. I would have used the word 'economic', for economical means cheap or not costing much. Auto correct on Word would not be smart enough to identify the very significant differences between economical and economic, the same way it doesn't differentiate between waterlogging (inundating) and water logging (maintaining logs).

    Umesh has given a different meaning to the word and it in no way defines inundation.

    Underestimate me...that'll be fun!

  • #603999
    [Response removed by Admin. Read forum policies.]
    No life without Sun ¤

  • #604004
    Juana,

    I have gone through many of your posts on various topics and found them really enjoyable and thought provoking. It appeared to me that you are really one of the most intelligent members with a great command over the language. I sincerely appreciate your knowledge and hope to learn many new things from you.

    But I would like to say one thing. Don't you think that the forum would become a mere classroom and extremely boring if we always try to find fault with others? would the members then feel comfortable to come up with their innovative ideas and thinkings?

    It is an open forum and anybody can see it. I agree that some minor mistakes, knowingly or unknowingly, might crop up here and there in our writings But is it not the greatness of the reader to overlook them to the best possible extents? That would surely help us to avoid many of the untoward controversies and also maintain the sanctity of the forum.

    What I have learnt here so far is , all the members of the site are treated like members of a big family and if there is any altercation amongst the members petty issues, it would surely bring disgrace not only to the site but also to its members.
    In the end, I would only say that you are the best judge and act up to your conscience.

  • #604006
    Yes, I too find the title to be inappropriate. Inappropriate in the sense that the title & the intentions behind the thread do not match. There is a hidden agenda behind the thread, which has been confirmed, to a little extent, by the thread initiator herself in her response 60397723. A bigger & sinister plot is also visible to those who are willing to see it.

    @ Juana - May I know the answer you sent for the blank under discussion? Was it 'water logging' or 'waterlogging'? From your response, I can assume that it was 'water logging' since you said that your husband told you that it is a single word.

    Till now, Juana has been the final word for me regarding English, but now-onward, Juana is not the final word for me since she can and has made a mistake regarding 'water logging' or 'waterlogging'. She has admitted her ignorance about the correctness of the word(s) by telling us that her husband pointed the mistake out to her.

    Now coming to the point of correctness of the words - water logging or waterlogging - I would like to say that a language is never stagnant & keeps on evolving through the usage of words by different generations. Language is not a proprietary of any one person or one nation or any particular publication such as a particular dictionary. Had English been a proprietary of some individuals/entities, new words like roti or chapatti would never have been added to the reputed dictionaries.

    I am sure that 'water logging is correct'. Just to be sure, I used my favourite method - searched online for "water logging" with double quotes. Searching for anything with double quotes gives better & specific results.

    The search with double quotes for "water logging" yielded the desired results. There were a lot of instances of usage of "water logging". A lot of newspaper reports had the word "water logging". Then some research reports too had the word "water logging". Some sites related to weather forecast too had the words "water logging".

    All those results were not nation-specific. They were from different nations, which implies that the word "water logging" is correct.

    P S
    Here is another confirmation:- I typed out this response in a notepad and copy-pasted it here. The spelling mistake feature in my browser underlined all the "waterlogging " instances in this response with red implying that the word "waterlogging " is incorrect. It did not underline the word - 'water logging'. A screenshot thereof is attached herewith for reference.

    When I right-clicked on the underlined word -"waterlogging ", it threw up the answer to the words in dispute. Just see the screenshot. It has given me three options:-
    1. water logging (two words)
    2. water-logging (hyphenated words)
    3. waterlogged

    Is that a proof enough, Juana?

    Nomita Mitra :- I could not agree more with you when you asked Sun whether the extra feather be removed now or not.

    Of course, Juana & Sun will still find it inconclusive for the reasons known best to them.

    When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new!

    Delete Attachment

  • #604012
    Nomita,

    I appreciate the thought behind your post. But, didn't the same thoughts skim through your mind when you posted your previous message. Merely, finding fault - isn't that what you did? Wouldn't it have been better had you promoted your values by sticking to them, aka, practised what you preach!

    As far as I see you are just over a day old in ISC but are conducting yourself like an old, seasoned player. Your comments do not suggest that you announced your 'newbie' status just yesterday (22 July 2017). Anyway, that is beside the point, but I had to make mention of it since it did strike me as odd that a day old member is making statements like an old member would, especially the 'extra feather' statement that was addressed to Sun. Your choice of words and your views give me this uncanny feeling that you are someone else or have been planted here. That's the opinion I have formed, just by reading through your responses in this thread.

    Yes, it is an open forum and it is also an educational site, so there is all the more reason that we maintain its sanctity. My conscience does not allow me to ignore something that is wrongly being passed off as correct.

    I would have ignored your 'economical' comment because you were at your innovative best. I wouldn't have spoilt your "innovative ideas and thinkings", since you were 'merely' expressing yourself. However, I had to highlight it, to prove to you that the auto correct feature is not always correct. And any number of people using a word incorrectly doesn't make it right.

    Gypsy – I used neither 'water logging' nor 'waterlogging'.

    Incidentally, I tried your trusted double quote method to search for "Water Logging meaning" and it did give better and specific results, just like you mentioned. A prompt asking me – Did you mean: "waterlogging meaning".

    Of course, you are free to Google search and use auto correct. However, I suggest you also try using Google to search for UK or US spelling for 'water logging' and see what you get. I got this - No results found for "UK spelling for water logging".

    On my part, I prefer to use credible online dictionaries - the likes of Cambridge, Oxford, Webster and Macmillan.

    As for your 'bigger and sinister plot' theory - well, I made no bones about where this was coming from.

    Underestimate me...that'll be fun!

    Water-logging-meaning.txt

    Delete Attachment

  • #604034
    It was Okay if waterlogging or waterlogged was used elsewhere in our communication to ignore. No one would have cared the word so seriously. But it was used in a quiz to fill in the blanks where 100 percent correctness was required. I too filled the blanks with the words water & logged separately as I could not find any other suitable word to put it in that place. I too referred the dictionaries and found water logging was incorrect. I searched google and found waterlog. Water logging would mean the recording of details of the water. Waterlogging would mean blocking the free water flow.

    @Nomita Mitra: As Juana rightly pointed out, I too suspect that you are some old wine in a new bottle. Who are you Dear?

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #604040
    It makes me feel proud that my threads have been able to draw the attention of at least some of the most intelligent members of this site.

    It gives me more inspiration and with your kind patronage, I hope to continue my journey here.

  • #604041
    [Response removed by Admin. Read forum policies.]
    No life without Sun ¤

  • #604160
    Having said so and having tried to prove a point, can we have a grammatically correct answer here? From Juana who has brought up this point regarding divorcing of words ( with reference to a thread raised by Vanadana) and Mr Sun (edited) who is quick in shifting sides? Water logging is not wrong and so isn't waterlogging!
    "To be proud of knowledge is to be blind with light" - Benjamin Franklin

  • #604167
    Saji Ganesh,

    You have this penchant for keeping my threads alive. You generally revive my threads that get pushed back. Makes me wonder why!

    1. "…can we have a grammatically correct answer here?" Have you not been following my posts? If you want my view read through my posts, if you want views of your ilk, check the responses that have been given CC.
    2. "…Mr Master Sun who is quick in shifting sides…" Really! Do we need this now, from an editor?
    3. "Water logging is not wrong and so isn't waterlogging!" – Not clear what you had wanted to project in the last sentence. Anyway, there is no point in me educating the lot about wrong usage of words.
    4. The footer, you use, is so apt. I am reminded of another famous quote - "How easy it is for so many of us today to be undoubtedly full of information yet fully deprived of accurate information." - Criss Jami

    I'll not be responding to any more comments made on this thread. I have a tight schedule with important things to do and deadlines to meet. People can stick to what they believe is correct. And, yes, those who are eager to, may continue to prove me wrong. They will have the stage to themselves. I'll not be taking the bait.

    Cheerio!

    Underestimate me...that'll be fun!

  • #604176
    Saji Ganesh,
    I did not shift sides, I am steady on my same course. No alteration or deviation from my stand. I stand by Juana with respect to waterlogging.

    As per your language, In this present world, nothing is wrong. Everything is acceptable as long as we understand and interpret the right meaning of that word. But we don't expect such English at ISC.

    As a responsible intelligent editor, you can post your views and conclude this thread saying what is correct.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #604206
    Juana, that's okay at #604167. Its nice that the curtains has been downed. Can I remain enlightened with the fact that 'water logging' is as correct as 'waterlogging' and can be divorced as per context? I think I will do so; and as you said, no more replies here!
    "To be proud of knowledge is to be blind with light" - Benjamin Franklin


  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.