| Author |
Message |
chabral
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:04 pm
Post subject: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
Last night in our English class, a doubt arised:
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons".
Thanks in advance,
--
chabral
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
"chabral" <chabral@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b04d6d$0$66397$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
| Quote: | Last night in our English class, a doubt arised:
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons".
Thanks in advance,
|
In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one
or the other.
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword,
pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but
"weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are
not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.
The term "armaments" encompasses all forms, and is functionally identical to
"weapons". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:01 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
| Quote: |
"chabral" <chabral@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b04d6d$0$66397$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
Last night in our English class, a doubt arised:
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons".
Thanks in advance,
In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one
or the other.
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword,
pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but
"weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are
not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.
|
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it?
--
Enrico C /testing Pimmy/
Reply to: enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:05 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:55:36 +0100, "Enrico C"
<use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
"chabral" <chabral@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b04d6d$0$66397$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
Last night in our English class, a doubt arised:
Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons".
Thanks in advance,
In a general sense, there is little practical difference and you can use one
or the other.
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword,
pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but
"weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are
not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it?
|
It could be.
"Weapons" seems to have a wider meaning than "arms".
"Arms" seems to be limited to weapons that have a physical effect.
The techniques of psychological warfare might be called "weapons", but are
less likely to be called "arms".
(I think.)
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:06 am
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
Enrico C wrote...
| Quote: | "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual - sword,
pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are all weapons, but
"weapons" also includes artillery, long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are
not, and cannot be, carried by an individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could it?
:-)
|
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
IMO, 'arms' suggests the overall capacity for destruction, whereas 'weapons'
refers to the specific implements used to do the job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
Tom wrote:
| Quote: | Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
|
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:48:37 GMT, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears
|
For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having
firearms?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:48:37 GMT, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having
firearms?
|
Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows!
--
enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it "Now let me correct you on a few
things, ok? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is
not Every Man For Himself. And the London Underground is not a political
movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:26:53 +0100, "Enrico C"
<use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:48:37 GMT, "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having
firearms?
Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows!
|
They're allowed matchlocks, flintlocks and goldilocks.
--
Phil C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FfGtd.232$0X2.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
| Quote: | Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction", could
it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears
|
I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the Constitution
needs to protect my right to have my upper limbs intact upon my person, and
clothe them as I wish, is a mystery to me, but then, the exact meaning of
the Second Amendment always has been in dispute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
John Mazor wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FfGtd.232$0X2.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the
Constitution needs to protect my right to have my upper limbs intact
upon my person, and clothe them as I wish, is a mystery to me, but
then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in
dispute.
|
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9DNtd.738$wP5.554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
| Quote: | John Mazor wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FfGtd.232$0X2.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual -
sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These are
all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery, long-range
rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be, carried by an
individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the
Constitution needs to protect my right to have my upper limbs intact
upon my person, and clothe them as I wish, is a mystery to me, but
then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in
dispute.
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
|
I went into a, uh, coma trying to parse that part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
John Mazor wrote:
| Quote: | "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9DNtd.738$wP5.554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
John Mazor wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FfGtd.232$0X2.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual
- sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These
are all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery,
long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be,
carried by an individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the
Constitution needs to protect my right to have my upper limbs intact
upon my person, and clothe them as I wish, is a mystery to me, but
then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in
dispute.
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
I went into a, uh, coma trying to parse that part.
|
Are you sure it wasn't a comma?
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mazor
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:10 am
Post subject: Re: arms vs. wapons |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3L%td.583$4b2.571@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
| Quote: | John Mazor wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9DNtd.738$wP5.554@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
John Mazor wrote:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FfGtd.232$0X2.170@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Tom wrote:
Enrico C wrote...
"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto:
However, "arms" often suggests weapons carried by an individual
- sword, pistol, rifle, grenade, anti-tank rocket, etc. These
are all weapons, but "weapons" also includes artillery,
long-range rockets, bombs, etc., that are not, and cannot be,
carried by an individual.
So that famous sentence couldn't be "Arms of mass destruction",
could it? :-)
And the famous weapons race
and the right to bear weapons?
No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-)
I thought it was the right to keep and bare arms. Why the
Constitution needs to protect my right to have my upper limbs intact
upon my person, and clothe them as I wish, is a mystery to me, but
then, the exact meaning of the Second Amendment always has been in
dispute.
Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation?
I went into a, uh, coma trying to parse that part.
Are you sure it wasn't a comma?
|
Precisely my point!
Another punctuational pun:
Mary had an aeroplane,
In it she loved to frisk,
Wasn't she a silly girl,
In it her *
Variants versions abound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in