h a l f b a k e r yWhy on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I'm writing a document, and I want to explain to someone that if the project I've been dumped on had been specced out properly, then I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable.
The phrase in question goes something along the lines of,
"If information gathered during the design phase had not simply
been *taken as read*, then the necessity for the recent onslaught of changes to the business requirements (and subsequently the need to entirely redesign the process model) might have been spotted earlier on."
However, I'm not sure I'm happy with the *taken as read* part. I know what I want to say, and I know that I could use, for example;
taken at face value
taken on spec
taken as gospel
etc. But I can't help feeling that there's a well used idiom that's waiting behind the surface that would make that sentence leap off the page and express all the incredulous frustration I'm currently experiencing and direct it full square at the reader.
A dictionary that allowed you to put in a phrase, and then returned, google style, the top 25 matches based on closeness of meaning, frequency of usage, synonyms, antonyms and any other type of nyms that might be of assistance would come in most handy.
A Zillion Kajillion Clichés
http://www.eccentri...are.com/zkdemo.html
"our new cliché, catch phrase, and idiom thesaurus." But maybe someone could invent a _good_ one. [HaltAndCatchFire, May 09 2006]
Overused Metaphor Thesaurus
Overused_20Metaphor_20Thesaurus
[theircompetitor, May 09 2006]
How Not To Say What You Mean: A Dictionary of Euphemisms
http://www.amazon.c...0198604025?v=glance
not exactly what's asked for, but still a good, fun phrase dictionary. [calum, May 11 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I could use it, mainly because I usually need to ratchet down the linguistic complexity of my sentences to accommodate my coworkers levels of reading comprehension. |
|
| |
That particular phrase seems to work in context: whoever wrote the spec assumed that everyone had already read the findings, rather than making sure they were fully validated with everyone involved. |
|
| |
But perhaps "buried in a shoebox" would also convey your meaning more clearly. |
|
| |
[DC] in this case, the person writing the spec was unable to read between the lines (the people responsible for providing the information were doing so from an imperfect position with regards to their level of knowledge) and the spec was written without looking beyond the most superficial of requirements. |
|
| |
Not so much "buried in a shoebox" (although I do like that a lot) as "a tissue-thin and almost entirely transparent membrane of error, misinformation and lies - that should have, under even the most perfunctory analysis have evaporated like so many whisps of shimmering gossamer". |
|
| |
[zen_tom], are you a associate of mine? Sounds like some of our customer-supplied specifications. |
|
| |
are you laying the blame at the wrong feet, zen? |
|
| |
heh [normzone] customers, they're the same all over the world. |
|
| |
And po, please? I am currently employed in a purely consultative role i.e. I'm impervious to blame, because I don't actually do anything! (and that's the way I like it) |
|
| |
I'm not blaming you, if thats what you meant... |
|
| |
just think you should be a bit more sympathetic to the one who failed to read between the lines and interpret the gobbledegook incorrectly |
|
| |
but then I'm probably misinterpreting wrongly too. |
|
| |
You're not misinterpreting at all - The truth be told, I never did send the email I was planning to - Instead I copped out and sent a watered down version that pointed out problems without actually fingering anyone with blame. |
|
| |
If I'm really frustrated, I type up the nastiest, most scathing, to the point email I can, and then let it sit somewhere to ripen overnight. The next day, you read it, and then delete it. |
|
| |
Sometimes though, it would feel nice to send the email you wanted to, the one that cut to the core of the problem (as you saw it) rather than the carefully measured, neutrally worded one that you (I) always end up sending in the end. |
|
| |
Yes, and I've learned not to have any eddresses on that email, either, in case the send button gets clicked. |
|
| |
I do that too. Maybe there should be a site for unsent (and anonymized) emails, just for giggles. Mine usually run towards "How someone who seriously believes {X} can even operate a computer well enough to promote this opinion continues to baffle me." Once baffling gets involved, I know I'm not going to send it. |
|
| |
The major problem with your sentence is the grammar of the end part. You talk about spotting an onslaught earlier on, and that's not what you mean. |
|
| |
I like this idea. Thesauruses should include phrases, not just words. |
|
| |
An anonymous rant site - that should be a halfaked idea in itself (can't find one quickly in Google). |
|
| |
You could probably use one of the anonymous confession sites in a pinch. |
|
| |
re: onslaughts, thanks [jutta] Grammar is another one of those things that's best left to breathe and later returned to (after someone else has had a good look). |
|
| |
This is another problem I have, I tend to think and write with heavy use of parentheses (perhaps it's a natural tendency to explain, or tangentalise) but this tendency, if I'm not careful, often tries to express itself in speech. Confused expressions abound. |
|
| |
re the purging qualities of the unsent mail, I'm not sure whether to advocate putting the right address in there or not. Yes it poses a risk - but at the same time, it's so much more satisfying venting spleen freely when you can see the person's email address sitting precariously in the <to> box. |
|
| |
po, are you referring to Ian's they're, or mine? I haven't got any good reply if it's mine, so hopefully it's not - Either way, after we have a few pints, we can all have a laugh, and look up Ian's idioms. |
|
| |
Ian's - yeah, lets look up Ian's |
|
| |
The toughest principle to follow while explaining things is to state your observation in positive terms, because for most people that entails eliminating the negative. |
|
| |
// .. "If information gathered during the design phase _had not_ simply been *taken as read*, then the necessity for the recent onslaught of changes to the business requirements (and subsequently the need to entirely redesign the process model) _might have_ been spotted earlier on." |
|
| |
"had not " here, sets up "might have " later on and frankly [zen-tom] "You lost me". When I see a sentence construction like that, I feel either an idiom or a zinger coming on. I recognize your style as constructive, so it's obvious to me you'd avoid flaming someone over misunderstandings not attributable to their ability to carry on with instruction. |
|
| |
** Note ** We're facing a similar "new development" at work. Some believe that when faced with unassailable force to change a process, an adequate response is to whip together and formallize a mnemonic, or worse, a powerpoint that addresses the change. "Now, why not have every vendor check off every receipt with an affirmation that 'I viewed the powerpoint'?" |
|
| |
God help us in our search for context. |
|
| |
I have two thesuarii; the standard Collins and the "International Thesaurus"(also Collins) which does contain idioms. Idiom-rich Languages such as French may be a problem, so just give a gallic Shrug |
|
| |
I love this idea as much as a rattlesnake with a hole in its head, wearing a funny hat, taking a sh1t in the woods. |
|
| |
If all dictionaries/thesauruses had reverse lookups, the world would be a better place. [+] |
|
| |
//"If information gathered during the design phase had not simply been *taken as read*, then the necessity for the recent onslaught of changes to the business requirements (and subsequently the need to entirely redesign the process model) might have been spotted earlier on."//
A minor point - this would have more impact split into two short sentences. I'm not sure "necessity" is the word you're looking for - I would have gone for "inevitability". Then, for "taken as read", do you mean "assumed" ("taken as read") or "mistakenly ignored" ("in the dark") or "wilfully ignored" ("the elephant in the room")or "buried" ("brushed under the carpet")?
I'm not sure I understand [jutta]'s grammar point - the subject of the verb "might have been spotted" is "the necessity", not "onslaught". |
|
| |
Hi zen_tom - from your comments half-way down the page, I wonder if the phrase you're looking for should be "taken on trust" rather than "taken as read". |
|
| |
"Taken as read" implies that all the parties concerned were satisfied they knew what each other's meaning was. But it sounds like your complaint is not that the original parties did not think they understood each other, but that your predecessor made no effort to establish the reliabitility of what he/she was told - i.e. they took it on trust. |
|
| |