|
Post by goofy on May 27, 2008 13:53:30 GMT
Also, it suggests that whatever is being referred to cannot improve in any way. Once you reach a plateau that’s it. That is exactly what the verb means, AIUI. BTW, M-W dates it to 1939.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on May 27, 2008 14:02:59 GMT
There are no nouns that cannot be verbed. Whether it is a good idea to do so is another matter ...
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 27, 2008 14:43:39 GMT
> Once you reach a plateau that’s it. <
Mmmm ... maybe that's the geographical, strict, definition, but I must admit I'd happily apply "plateau" to any area (or section of a line, etc) having an extensive part which is, well, "plat". We might say that the rates of infection with HIV in western Europe, for example, increased steadily through the 1980s and 1990s, before steadying out at a plateau. The hope of decline was then dashed, as the rates started again to rise (as generations too young to have been influenced by the heavy publicity in those decades began to be infected through carelessness).
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 27, 2008 14:46:45 GMT
And ...
I'd happily describe a line on a graph as "plateauing", if it rises but then reaches a steady height. If I didn't say that, I might say it "levelled out", which I'm guessing others would find acceptable - but why should the noun-to-verb combination be any worse than the adjective-to-verb version?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 15:04:14 GMT
> Once you reach a plateau that’s it. < Mmmm ... maybe that's the geographical, strict, definition, but I must admit I'd happily apply "plateau" to any area (or section of a line, etc) having an extensive part which is, well, "plat". I think the geographical definition is just a flat area, not the highest possible with no further upwardness ( ;D) available. For example, the Tibetan Plateau is not the highest point on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 15:06:02 GMT
> Once you reach a plateau that’s it. < Mmmm ... maybe that's the geographical, strict, definition, but I must admit I'd happily apply "plateau" to any area (or section of a line, etc) having an extensive part which is, well, "plat". I think the geographical definition is just a flat area, not the highest possible with no further upwardness ( ;D) available. For example, the Tibetan Plateau is not the highest point on Earth. Although, further thought suggests there must be an element of height to a plateau. We don't talk about the Dead Sea plateau, for example, and we wouldn't refer to the graph of AIDS infections having plateaued at nil.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on May 27, 2008 15:25:55 GMT
There's certainly nothing to say that a plateau has to be the highest point; merely that it is an elevated tract of relatively level land. There can certainly be hills and mountains nearby that are higher. The essential thing is that it's relatively flat.
The same can be said of a line on a graph. Although it might reach a plateau where the line levels off for a while, it can still then continue in an upward direction without negating the 'plateau' concept.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on May 27, 2008 16:13:55 GMT
Curb, date, elbow, head, interview, panic, park, service, feature, chair, loan, office and contact were all nouns that were later verbed. Invite, command, meld and request were verbs that were later nouned. Past was an adjective that was later nouned. Clean and obsolete were adjectives that were later verbed (in 1640 in the case of obsolete). Against was a preposition that was later conjunctified.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 27, 2008 16:28:21 GMT
To office? To obsolete?
How are they used?
|
|
|
Post by goofy on May 27, 2008 16:50:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 27, 2008 17:04:57 GMT
Yes, definitely heard it's been obsoleted.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 27, 2008 20:23:45 GMT
> We don't talk about the Dead Sea plateau <We, or at least they who come after, will when the seas dry up. It's just that, geographically, we tend to think of a plateau as being exposed (dry) land of some notable level area. In other words, two of the three (conventional) dimensions are noted whilst the third (up/down) holds steady. When we go graphical (as in a graph) we, generally are only considering two dimensions. I'm quite happy with (and would find it difficult to work without) acknowledgement that a graph can rise (or, indeed, fall), hold steady for while, and then either fall or continue to rise. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 20:41:29 GMT
> We don't talk about the Dead Sea plateau <We, or at least they who come after, will when the seas dry up. It's just that, geographically, we tend to think of a plateau as being exposed (dry) land of some notable level area. In other words, two of the three (conventional) dimensions are noted whilst the third (up/down) holds steady. When we go graphical (as in a graph) we, generally are only considering two dimensions. I'm quite happy with (and would find it difficult to work without) acknowledgement that a graph can rise (or, indeed, fall), hold steady for while, and then either fall or continue to rise. Tone But if it drops to a low flat value, would that be a plateau?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 27, 2008 20:56:03 GMT
>But if it drops to a low flat value, would that be a plateau?<
I thought that I said that.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 23:34:38 GMT
>But if it drops to a low flat value, would that be a plateau?<I thought that I said that. Tone I think the lack of clarity was on my part, Tone. I agree that there can be plateaus at many levels but it just feels to me that something low cannot be a plateau. A plateau to me involves some element of height, hence my comment about the Dead Sea area. So, Tibet is on a plateau, Patagonia and the Atacama Desert are a plateau, but the Netherlands, despite being a large flat area of land, is not a plateau, because it's at sea level (or below). Does anyone else agree or is this drivel?
|
|