The super macro guessing game (5)

Chet wrote in post #18349352
Possibly a wooden chaffing dish?

I don't know what you mean, but probably not.

ECC233 wrote in post #18349353
This looks like the things my grandmother put on furniture feet to stop the floor getting scratched. But would only work if it had a felt bottom (Chet!!!!) .... does this have a soft material bottom?

Similar, but this is deeper.
Soft bottom, which has come off this one now.

It reminds me of a cane tip. Only thing is, I have never seen a wooden one.

Is it some sort of end that goes on the bottom of something?

Nogo wrote in post #18349442
It reminds me of a cane tip. Only thing is, I have never seen a wooden one.

Is it some sort of end that goes on the bottom of something?

It doesn't fix to anything, if twym..

Chris.R wrote in post #18349484
It doesn't fix to anything, if twym..

We're already dealing with many varieties of English. Did you have to bring in Welsh?

OhLook wrote in post #18349531
We're already dealing with many varieties of English. Did you have to bring in Welsh?

Chris.R wrote in post #18349484
It doesn't fix to anything, if twym..

I was wondering about the wording of "fix to" too.

Nogo wrote in post #18349541
I was wondering about the wording of "fix to" too.

I think Americans would more likely say "affix to" or "attach to."

Ok - It doesn't fix on to anything, if that's what you mean.


"Fix to" is fine, over here.
There's no doubt about the meaning.
You're probably aware that needless American word variation inventions and word combination inventions annoy the hell out of educated Brits.
We meet people, we don't meet WITH people.
We show courtesy, not courteousness. What are the extra syllables doing there?
And obviously it's Ni(h)kon, not Nyekon .

Chris.R wrote in post #18349432
Similar, but this is deeper.
Soft bottom, which has come off this one now.

So it prevents the floor of getting scratches?

Chris.R wrote in post #18349633
You're probably aware that needless American word variation inventions and word combination inventions annoy the hell out of educated Brits.
We meet people, we don't meet WITH people.

As "meet" and "meet with" aren't synonymous, that "with" isn't a needless addition. It creates a meaning that "meet" alone lacks. I do hope that this explanation will meet your approval.

OhLook wrote in post #18349645
As "meet" and "meet with" aren't synonymous, that "with" isn't a needless addition. It creates a meaning that "meet" alone lacks. I do hope that this explanation will meet your approval.

Ah, the joys of being divided by a common langwij!

In our current linguistic precision, I conclude that an egg is ovate not spherical, so could this be an egg cup?

dbs_jd wrote in post #18349638
So it prevents the floor of getting scratches?

Yes it does have the aspect in preventionality to the floor becoming scratchificated.

ECC233 wrote in post #18349670
Ah, the joys of being divided by a common langwij!

In our current linguistic precision, I conclude that an egg is ovate not spherical, so could this be an egg cup?

When you say "could be" do you mean:

1) "Could it be that the the usage I'm looking for is as an egg cup?" - answer would be that it could be, but it isn't.

2) "Could it be used as an egg cup" - yes but it wouldn't be very good.

OhLook wrote in post #18349645
As "meet" and "meet with" aren't synonymous, that "with" isn't a needless addition. It creates a meaning that "meet" alone lacks. I do hope that this explanation will meet your approval.

That's not an explanation so much as an unexplained assertion - which implies unjustified authority. Therefore it's utterly unsatisfactory.

In this context, of ordinary use, there is no change in meaning whatsoever. It's what Fowler called a "needless variant".

How is "I meet you" different from "I meet with you"?
"With" can add specificity but one person meeting one other is completely specific, already, is it not?

Chris.R wrote in post #18349771
When you say "could be" do you mean:

1) "Could it be that the the usage I'm looking for is as an egg cup?" - answer would be that it could be, but it isn't.

2) "Could it be used as an egg cup" - yes but it wouldn't be very good.

OK so we are looking for an anti-scratchification device. It is also bigger than you would find on normal furniture feet (although perhaps not smaller than the feet of the ancestral wardrobe).

In its normal use, does a pole or something similar fit in this?