English Grammar

du·op·o·ly according to Google

noun

a situation in which two suppliers dominate the market for a commodity or service.

Google

https://www.google.com/search?q=duopoly&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS774US774&oq=duopoly&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6158j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

du·op·o·ly according to Mark Jamison of AEI

a situation in which two suppliers control 100% of the market for a commodity or service.

"To constitute a duopoly, they must have 100 percent of the market."

AEI

https://www.aei.org/publication/when-did-making-customers-happy-become-a-reason-for-regulation-or-breakup/?utm_content=bufferd0fb9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Like Democrats and Republicans?
.. it's not 100% - except for POTUS, but it's certainly dominant for most other offices.

Well, I suppose politics makes for odd definitions.

A decrease in spending may not be a decrease. It might be a decrease in the increase.

I know that during the cold war, American hawkish politicians often accused the Russians of using a private definition of peace. They would joke, "The Russians want peace. A piece of Alaska; a piece of California.

Same can be said about terrorist groups like ISIS, but also one Jewish terrorist, who wants Israel to have a piece of Iraq and a piece of Egypt.

But I was thinking about words like prodigal, dilemma, and decimate. The dictionary definitions don't match that way people use the word.

For example, would a prodigal horse be a nag with a maxed-out credit card or one, which finished out of the money? People use dilemma to mean any problem, not problem with two bad choices. When people say decimate, they normally mean annihilate.

Well, were's a word I can't say I recall ever hearing:

We all know what's happening when someone is donning a suit (or a hat, or costume).

What's the opposite?

Doffing!

Really! It's a word - I googled it. And if the internet says so, it must be true!

Some people use the word, were, as an alternate spelling (and I suppose also an alternate pronunciation) of the word, wear. The would make it an approximate antonym for the word, doff.

I think an author of stories or novels might like to know that because using it to give a character a unique style of speech might help readers to distinguish one character for another.

Ohh.. I was wondering where that came from - I just saw I had a Typo "here's" not "were's"

I would call it a typo, but spell check does not flag it with the red underline, so maybe it has another meaning.

My English teachers, ever since the sixth grade, have encouraged us to use the verb, to be, as little as possible.

In that context any of them might have said, "Count your are's, be's, is's, was's and were's. The lower the number, the better the writing."

Or maybe the more correct style to use: "Count your ares, bes, ises, wases and weres. The lower the number, the better the writing."

I get quotes from Thomas Sowell in my email probably because I had a Twitter account. People around here genuflect when they hear his name, but that is not the reason I get his quotes. I has something to do with English assignments.

Latest quote:

"I cannot understand why people who say that minorities should be represented everywhere and yet are upset when blacks are represented in the conservative movement."

I often wonder that myself because I have seen CSpan videos of black politicians talking about Justice Thomas, but in school the quote had a different purpose, namely a rewriting exercise.

Why do people insist that minorities find representation everywhere except as conservatives.

My English teachers would accept this an an improvement because of the 50% reduction in words and the elimination of the verb, to be.

I agree the quote is clumsy, or I thought maybe incomplete.
All you have to do is remove "and yet" to make an improvement.
Or you could just remove the "who"

I am in love with reading POTUS' tweeter feed, like it makes my giddy.

English can be fun... if you try...

Or damaging if you don't!
(see my "Post your Mind" post .. it crossed my mind to post it here
... feel free to drag it over if you feel it is relevant and want to discuss here)

Speaking English is over rated... only 20% of the world's population speaks English.

LEARN CHINESE AND RUSSIAN!

Don't learn learn Spanish... they are bad people... really bad... like an infestation...

.. I've also been taught that when writing professional papers, reports or presentations to avoid writing in the first person.


Though if MrMHead speaks that way, MrMHead sounds like a particular POTUS, ... Bigly.

I should apologize to Thomas Sowell for using his quotes. Probably almost any talking head would offer the same opportunity. But anyway today's quote:

"The fundamental difference between equal treatment and equal performance is repeatedly confused. In equal performance terms, virtually no one is equal to anyone. The same individual is not even equal to himself on different days."

This could become:

Many people confuse equal treatment with equal performance. Virtually no one performs equally to anyone else, not even one's self from one day to the next.

I'm not totally convinced with the superiority of the shorter version. Sowell speaks his quotes. Maybe the longer version sounds better.

What about "Treatment" - nothing is said about Treatment and how it is confused with performance.