Thread:Gsbr/@comment-4655954-20150507124430/@comment-4655954-20150510040203

Gsbr wrote: You said dropped is "the more grammatically term" when referring to "something that has fallen from something's grip" and fall and fell are "used to describe something that was upright and then fell over," not mentioning its other definition. I know "fall" is a more generic term, but how many other ways could it be interpreted in the context of these articles?

Yes, I did say that and I still stand by it, because it is correct. If we are describing what happened - dropped infers that something fell from something's grip- fall does not. It's really that simple and that distinction matters which makes "dropped" the more correct word to use in that context. You keep insisting that "Dropped" implies intent, but that simply is not true. It never is. The word "drop" does not ever inherently imply conscious intent on behalf of the subject that is doing the dropping. There is not a statute in the English language that makes this an established rule of language. So your insistence that it is so, is false.

Zara wasn't just snatched; she was grabbed by a pteranodon. This indicates she winds up in the air since the pteranodon is a flying reptile. So when it's stated that she fell, people are going to interpret that as the definition I mentioned; she descended from the place the pteranodon brought her up to.

Readers could interpret it that way, and probably would, or the could not. Either way it's beside the point. If there is a word that offers a more concise depiction, then that word should be used. The technicality remains that with the use of a generic word that offers no specific description her falling could, again technically, imply anything. Such as she fell into the enclosure, not because she was dropped by the pteranodon, but by some other means simply because she was near it at some time after she was snatched.

With dropped, as I stated before, it does not automatically denote intention, but without an adverb, most people assume it was intentional. This is due to the way the English language is structured; it places blame on people.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18823_5-insane-ways-words-can-control-your-mind.html - #5

So as a result, it's easy to interpret the pteranodon "dropping" Zara as it intentionally letting her go. This seems absurd because the pteranodon wouldn't release her until it reached its intended destination and it likely wasn't the enclosure of a much larger carnivore. But we aren't certain yet if it was intentional or not, so we can't add an adverb until we know for sure.

Sorry this claim of your is still incorrect, and your link isn't helping you. Your source isn't discussing that actual mechanics of written English and it's propers uses. Not to mention that you are falsely equivocating the scenario in your link with the scenario involving Zara. Furthermore, what is being discussed in your link has nothing to do with what is correct it what isn't but just how people perceive things. There are many funny rules in the English Language that native speaker find jarring, however, that doesn't mean that those rules and those standards should be broken to placate what is, ultimately ignorance on proper use of words and grammar.

So again the word "drop" has no inherent meaning of intent. It never does. The only way it could be defined as such is with context. So in this instances - "zara was snatched by the pteranodon who then dropped her into the mosasaurus  enclosures in an attempt to drown its prey" <- Here we know the she was dropped intentionally, because the context establishes that. Without that context the word dropped simply means she fell from its grip.

s for "pool," like I said before, I don't mind if "enclosure" is used instead. I was pointing out that "pool" was not an incorrect term to use. The reason why I used pool is because it made it more clear she landed in water. "Enclosure" does not specify that. Since not all readers are aware the giant aquatic reptile is called a "mosasaurus," establishing she fell into water informs readers of which creature she wound up right next to, without having to click on the mosasaurus' page.

I can understand and appreciate your concern for readers who may not understand certain things. But I don't agree that the quality of writing needs to be diminished to do so. It's a safer bet to assume that the reader has enough knowledge to understand what they are reading, and if not, has enough know how to find out what any word or concept they do not understand means. Trying to spoon feed the content here makes the articles come across as juvenile.