Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumasiotes | Hacker News Reader

> (Also, it’s “oblate”. To “ablate” is to erode.)

Perhaps, but the item "ablate" in "an ablate spheroid" is obviously not a verb, so it's hard to see how that's relevant.

"Ablate" isn't really well-formed for a verb, and indeed I see that the modern verb is a back-formation from the better-formed "ablation". If it had started as a verb, you'd expect "aufer", in the same way that we have the verb "offer" rather than "oblate".

Of course the meaning of "offer" doesn't tell you much about the meaning of "oblate", so once again it's hard to see why the meaning of the verb "ablate" should indicate anything about the meaning of a hypothetical adjective "ablate".

View on HN

Talk about doubling down with nonsense when you've patently spelled it the wrong way. SMH.

You might want to take another look at the usernames involved.

I'm not claiming that "an ablate spheroid" was correct usage. I'm pointing out that the response, "to 'ablate' is to erode", is a non sequitur. It is relevant neither to its parent comment nor to the comment in which it appears.

>I'm not claiming that "an ablate spheroid" was correct usage. I'm pointing out that the response, "to 'ablate' is to erode", is a non sequitur.

Which is still a wrong thing to say and a bad argument.

You appear to be arguing something like "I couldn't mean ablate, since it doesn't fit the context, so why mention it". Well, whether you meant it or not, you did write it, and you could very well have done it because you thought it meant "oblate".

This doesn't make the correction a "non sequitur" in any way. On the contrary, it's very relevant: it provides the actual meaning of the term used (whether it was used as a typo or because you didn't know the correct meaning).

And that's too many words for a non-issue. "Ablate" was the wrong word for your intended meaning, somebody pointed it while also explaining what it means. End of story.

> You appear to be arguing something like "I couldn't mean ablate, since it doesn't fit the context, so why mention it". Well, whether you meant it or not, you did write it, and you could very well have done it because you thought it meant "oblate".

This is a pretty stunning thing to write after I've already had to point out to someone else that I didn't write the sentence in question. Did you read my comment before responding to it?

Now consider this sentence:

> "Ablate" was the wrong word for your intended meaning

If I respond "but this makes no sense; to 'wrong' is to unfairly cause harm", would that be a good argument? Would it constitute any evidence of any kind about your usage of the word "wrong"?

Obviously not, but it's exactly the same as the original argument I responded to, "to 'ablate' is to erode".

Alright, I give up...

Ablate is exclusively a verb, and I am providing its definition as an aside, not as a definition that would make it fit into the context.

You appear to paint yourself in a corner and then try to talk your way out of it with irrelevant arguments nobody cares about.

Just admit that "ablate" was a mistake and be done with it.

I do admit that I hit o instead of a, I have no idea why because I am familiar with the difference between the two words, which are not remotely related in meaning.

I'm gerdesj who actually committed the original mistake and not the other person who dived in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com