Iceberg a 'once-in-a-lifetime' sighting

[sabra]

Source: SMH

A giant iceberg - 19km long - drifting towards Western Australia has been hailed as a once-in-a-lifetime rarity for both its size and the length of its journey.

The iceberg, known as B17B, is currently 1,700km from Australia's west coast on a lengthy and laborious journey from Antarctica.

It is one of the biggest icebergs ever seen in that part of the world and has amazed scientists for having maintained its impressive size without breaking apart.

"It's very rare, uncommon, but not unusual," Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist Dr Neal Young told AAP on Wednesday.

"Icebergs do come from time to time and they can be very big, but it can be a long time before we spot one - so it's really a once-in-a-lifetime sighting."

Read more: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/iceberg-a-onceinalifetime-sighting-20091209-kj87.html?loc=interstitialskip

[FBaggins]

1. Seems Dr Young knows more about glaciers than about the English language. :-)

"It's very rare, uncommon, but not unusual"

Rare, uncommon, and unusual are synonyms.

[Winterblues]

3. Once in a lifetime sighting but not unusual

:crazy:

[damntexdem]

7. Well, it's usually not rare to be so common.

Or something.

[FourScore]

40. LOL.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. I suspect that what he meant was that it may happen only rarely

but it is not extraordinary in size for that type, therefore not unusual, merely rare.

Kind of like 4' tall dodo birds are rare; 5' tall dodo birds are rare and unusual.

[damntexdem]

8. And uncommonly but not unusually.

Or something.

[harmonicon]

14. not in this instance

If these words really meant the same things, we would have done away with any two of them long ago.

common: occurring, found, or done often; prevalent
usual: habitually or typically occurring or done; customary

That is, for this to occur is to be expected, so it is not unusual. However, the frequency for this usual occurrence is over a very long time, so that this happening is uncommon.

[FBaggins]

15. That isn't how it works.

We don't "get rid of" words that mean the same thing...

...if we did, we would also get rid of the word "synonym"

I pull out the Random House Dictionary and see that the primary definition for "uncommon" says "not common; unusual; rare.

[harmonicon]

18. that's a pretty crap dictionary then

In fact, that IS how it works. Look up the actual definitions of these words and you see that they mean different things. In some cases either could be used, but in others only one would suffice. They have different definitions. I don't know what more you want here. English is my only language, and as such, I take it seriously.

[FBaggins]

20. Read your post again if you want to get a laugh.

You tell me to look up the actual definitions to see that they mean different things... right after I GAVE you the definition?

In some cases either could be used, but in others only one would suffice.

In some cases one would be preferable because synonyms do not always have entirely identical meanings. But that variation doesn't extend to usage as antonyms.


Rogets thesaurus.

Uncommon: 1 rarely occuring or appearing; infrequent, occasional, rare, scarce, sporadic, unusual. The second usage also includes "rare" and "unusual".

Websters includes "unusual" in the definition for "uncommon" (and has "rare" as a synonym)

English is my only language, and as such, I take it seriously

Don't feel bad. It's a big language. So what if you got a few words wrong? :)

No doubt Roget's and Websters are also cr@p?

[harmonicon]

21. yeah, they are both crap

Websters isn't a real dictionary at all, and thesauruses are basically there for party games or grade-school writing. These words mean different things, otherwise their definitions would be identical. They are not.

[FBaggins]

22. Lol...then why send me to a dictionary?

If someone who takes english so seriously thinks they're all cr@p?

You can't have identical definitions if the definition for A is B. But if the defintion for A is B and the definiton for B is A... you can't say "A and not B"

[harmonicon]

23. I posted the definitions of "common" and "usual" - you can extrapolate from there.

I even explained what the sentence meant. What more do you want?

[FBaggins]

24. You posted unsourced definitions of OTHER words.

And explained what the sentence meant to you.

What more I would like would be something other than claiming authoritative sources were "cr@p" while your source (you?) was authoritative.

My money says that your source was OED and you don't want to provide it since you've since looked up uncommon in it. :)

[harmonicon]

26. I give up - why do you fail to understand that one sentence in the OP?

I've explained what was meant by the statement in a step-by-step way. Not only did you not understand the sentence, but when it was cleared up for you, you keep insisting that the failure is not somehow in your understanding but in the speaker. Others have pointed this out to you as well. I'm done trying. Sort it out yourself sometime, or just keep reading words on pages devoid of meaning - it's not my problem.

[FBaggins]

31. Have you missed that everyone else spotted his error too?

Of course you did.

Did you think anyone missed your failure to back up your position with ANY source but your own opinion? That it isn't obvious that you went looking but can't post it because it doesn't support you position?

I've explained what was meant by the statement in a step-by-step way

Yep. And you "explained" it in a way that demonstrates further weaknes in your understanding of the language. Your key argument was: "That is, for this to occur is to be expected, so it is not unusual" - which itself shows your misunderstanding of the words. Do you realize that it's self-defeating?

[harmonicon]

32. to go on, I would just be repeating myself (nt)

[FBaggins]

38. Not at all. There's another option

You could correct yourself. :)

Or he could just have said "it's rare/uncommon/unusual, but it isn't unprecedented or unheard of"

[harmonicon]

39. ok, here we go, I'll construct some sentences for you.

"Considering that you ______ (this is a fill in the blank - my guesses are "are frequently kicked in the head by horse", "drink water from a hazardous waste containment pool", or maybe "were raised by wolves, only learned English as an adult, and thus far your only experience with the language is on DU and fast-food menus"), your failure to grasp these differences are not unusual, though such failures are uncommon."

Get it?!?! "Usual" deals with normalcy, while "common" deals with frequency. What is there not to get about that?! Here: "A black hole is not unusual, but is uncommon", or, "In the universe, carbon-based life-forms are not unusual, but are uncommon." Another: "While genetic disfigurement from nuclear exposure is uncommon, around Chernobyl, it is not unusual."

In the case of the iceberg, these qualifiers were not needed in the sentence which you have a problem with, because they had previously been laid out in the text. I got it. Your inability to understand is not some fault of mine.

Now, good luck on the GED - you're gonna need it (protip: "gonna" isn't a word you should use on those tests).

DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE. OVER AND OUT.

[FBaggins]

42. Lol... I get a kick out of yanking your chain.

Why could I just TELL that "I'm done" really meant "I want the last word" and you would keep coming back for more?

Get it?!?!

Nope. Do you note that you had to use somewhat different words? What you couldn't say was "they are unusual but not uncommon".

"Usual" deals with normalcy

It can deal with either... as can common. The "common man" is not a "frequent" man. It's far closer to "normal".

Another: "While genetic disfigurement from nuclear exposure is uncommon, around Chernobyl, it is not unusual."

Note how all you needed to do was refer to two different things in order to use two words and pretend they meant different things? Note that you DIDN'T say that "genetic disfigurement around Chernobyl is uncommon, but not unusual" ???

[unblock]

17. a medium-well steak being preferred by the ordinary class of people,

a rare steak is not unusual but it is uncommon.

there, three different meanings, ergo, not synonyms :)

[kestrel91316]

25. My assistant and I just had a WTF moment about that, lol.

[mopinko]

2. rare, uncommon but not unusual

is english the guys first language?

[damntexdem]

9. No, Stralian is.

;-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Maybe he was speaking both in terms of human time and geological time. Rare in the first case, but

common in the second?

[harmonicon]

41. thank you for being one of few who actually get it.

Yes, if thinking about time in that way, even something such as a mass extinction is uncommon, but not unusual.

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. Well, it made the most sense to me if applied in that way. :^)

[Alcibiades]

5. There will be more

What with the global warming and all.

[d_r]

11. is that a real picture?

It looks really phallic

[Exultant Democracy]

16. That certinly isn't the giant iceberg from the OP. The giant berg looks more like a block.

[RedSock]

19. IT'S THE CLENIS!!!!!! (eom)

[Alcibiades]

28. Repeat enough random events

and patterns emerge, because that's the way our brains work.

But, yeah, it looks like a giant ice cock.

[cynatnite]

37. Sarah Palin needs to see this photo. n/t

[rocktivity]

6. 19km is nearly 12 miles

Once in a lifetime? I would think an iceberg that size would be kind of hard to miss!

:crazy:
rocktivity

[damntexdem]

10. A Titanic conclusion, so say the least.

Hey, drought-struck Australia, go catch that sucker! ;-)

[rocktivity]

12. I feel an action movie script coming on...

Clint Eastwood was in a movie about a bunch of astronauts shot into outer space to deflect a metorite. What if we stuck a bunch of Hollywood's macho-est into a nuclear powered ship and/or submarine with the mission of steering a twelve-mile long iceberg towards drought-stricken Australia only to be hijacked by Somali pirates? Australian actresses Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett, and Judy Davis could play some of their suffering womenfolk, and we'll throw in Lady Gaga to bring in the youth demographic. We'll split the front-end gross straight down the middle, of course...
:think:
rocktivity

[Javaman]

13. and only have it melt before it gets there. The ironic ending. LOL nt

[dysfunctional press]

27. aren't they having drought problesm in australia?

put some engines on that baby and take it to perth to be harvested.

[Thor_MN]

30. not sure of my math and estimations, but that thing is on the order of 100 cubic miles of ice

it would take some amazing engines...

[dysfunctional press]

36. maybe they could put a big gob of soap on the back end...?

it works in the bathtub.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/soap-boat-activity.html

[alfredo]

29. here it is

[dysfunctional press]

33. it'll be more than once-in a-lifetime for the younger generations.

if/when the antarctic ice sheet starts breaking up/sliding into the sea on a large scale...things could get pretty dodgy in the south seas.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Sadly true.