Misinterpretation of name of a Civil War bullet

[Laurence Horn]

On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
>> I think an argument could be made either way.
>
> You can construct an argument in defense of the claim that it makes
> sense to state that a weapon merely "effective" in combat at 250 yards
> is "deadly" in combat at 500 yards, instead of the other way around?
>
> Do it, then.

"effective" = 'achieving the intended purpose', in this case hitting the intended target
"deadly" = 'resulting in death', not necessarily of the intended target

My example in the earlier part of the excerpted e-mail was intended to illustrate this possibility.  Let's see…yes,

"If I had some varmints in my back yard and decided to eliminate them by dropping a tactical nuclear device on the critters, wiping them out along with my house, the neighborhood, and half the city, the bomb would certainly be deadly, but would it be effective?"



LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org