You're the editor with absolute control over a story. In writing about a teenage project, the author has written about the "erection of a treehouse" - in several scattered sentences.
Do you change the author's wording?
You're the editor with absolute control over a story. In writing about a teenage project, the author has written about the "erection of a treehouse" - in several scattered sentences.
Do you change the author's wording?
Why? It is a correct term for referring to construction of something that is elevated or above ground level, be it by adults or teens.
That it has sometimes been borrowed for use in other situations unless such a situation has come into play during the construction ...
That it has sometimes been borrowed for use in other situations unless such a situation has come into play during the construction ...
However, if you have a construction fetish ... But, that's different than a "treehouse's erection".
Do you change the author's wording?
No, it's the correct usage of the word.
Definition of erection
1a: the state marked by firm turgid form and erect or elevated position of a previously flaccid bodily part containing cavernous tissue when that tissue becomes dilated with blood
b: an occurrence of such a state in the penis or clitoris
2: the act or process of erecting something : CONSTRUCTION
3: something erected
You're the editor with absolute control over a story. In writing about a teenage project, the author has written about the "erection of a treehouse" - in several scattered sentences.
Do you change the author's wording?
It is stated correctly as is. It would likely need to change if it was stated as "tree house erection."
It's not incorrect, but because the adage that everyone on the internet is (mentally) twelve goes doubly for SOL, I'd consider whether it's worth changing the wording to "erecting a treehouse" or possibly "constructing a treehouse" — if it didn't warp the writer's voice to do so, that is. Instances where the author is trying to induce a snigger would be kept, though.
Instances where the author is trying to induce a snigger would be kept, though.
In the movie "Kate and Leopold," the guy who built the Brooklyn bridge kept referring to it as his greatest erection in a speech.
Did you know that in China, it is illegal to erect a treehouse?
Buildings are not even allowed to run for office.
(Urf. L-R confusion isn't a Chinese thing. Really. Mandarin and Cantonese have both sounds. Not only is that a bad joke, it's flat out wrong. Japanese, now — total L-R confusion there. Only one consonant in that vicinity, usually rendered as R, and pronounced closer to the D of "pudding".)
In writing about a teenage project, the author has written about the "erection of a treehouse" - in several scattered sentences.
I see two possible meanings for your post, and I find it interesting that the responders to your question seem to have interpreted the above sentence the same way. The word "about" is causing the confusion.
1. If the word "about" is retained, then your question regards rewording of several sentences that the author wrote about the topic of erecting a treehouse, which is not the interpretation of the responders.
2. If the word "about" is deleted, then your question is about rewording the phrase "erection of a treehouse" that occurs in several scattered sentences, which is what the responders answered.
I believe 2 was your intent, but it seems to me that including "about" changed the meaning of the sentence.
My half penn'orth.
It's fine to leave it as is, although I can understand some reluctance. 'Erection' has the nuance of 'from the ground up', hence it would intuitively sound wrong in the context 'erecting a basement'. Is a treehouse constructed from the ground up? Not really, unless it's built on the ground and hauled into place. But it is constructed upwards so that's a negligible nitpick.
AJ
'Erection' has the nuance of 'from the ground up', hence it would intuitively sound wrong in the context 'erecting a basement'.
I've seen 'suspect a treehouse' or even 'raising a treehouse' fairly often. Those are likely safer alternatives.
suspect a treehouse
That one makes no sense to me. What was the treehouse suspected of?
'Erection' has the nuance of 'from the ground up'
I'd dispute that - I don't think it's necessarily ground-referenced, just having some vertical extent. You'd erect an aerial on your roof, for instance.
Speaking of which, being in the Bilsdale footprint, I'm lucky to have escaped the chore of redirecting my T.V. aerial (antenna) as they got a temporary replacement up to cover this area quick enough to satisfy 'er indoors.
I'd dispute that - I don't think it's necessarily ground-referenced, just having some vertical extent. You'd erect an aerial on your roof, for instance.
'From the ground up' may well only apply to buildings - that was the context I got it from.
It certainly doesn't apply to penile erections unless the organ is some 30 inches in length when soft ;-)
AJ
being in the Bilsdale footprint, I'm lucky to have escaped the chore of redirecting my T.V. aerial (antenna) as they got a temporary replacement up to cover this area quick enough to satisfy 'er indoors.
The govt is already making noises about switching off Freeview, having already curtailed the bandwidth and allocated the less salubrious frequencies to it. But it looks as though the analogue phone system will go first.
Big Data seems to be driving our telecomms policy, with the aim of maximising the amount of info Apple and Google can glean from digital phones, and similarly internet TV services.
We are not people, we are numbers :-(
AJ
In writing about a teenage project, the author has written about the "erection of a treehouse" - in several scattered sentences.
I doubt teenagers 'erect' a tree house, more likely they 'cobble it together'. Since it's a teenage project different wording might be better although technically 'erecting' is correct. I'm not an author or editor but to me it seems 'building a tree house' would fit better.
I doubt teenagers 'erect' a tree house, more likely they 'cobble it together'.
Do you really consider the erection of a treehouse to be beyond the abilities of a teenager?
Perhaps you should consider that more carefully, whilst acknowledging the things that have been achieved by teenagers?
Do you really consider the erection of a treehouse to be beyond the abilities of a teenager?
No way, they are definitely capable of building a tree house. What I was trying to say is that 'erecting' a tree house sounds more 'official' to me, like building a real house. It really depends on the teenager's capabilities and the availability of materials what kind of tree house they can build. Mind you, I call it 'build', not 'erect'.
When I was in middle school (U.S.) i and several friends built/dug fairly extensive tunnels, including the necessary supporting structures just like a mine. Kids might not have the technical expertise, but they can figure out a 'close enough' approximation. Then you have those who have construction education (i.e. Boy School badges). And treehouse construction is pretty common, what isn't is the necessary supports and guide wires to entire it'll stay in place with weathering and storms.
When I was in middle school (U.S.) (...)
If I look at the current youths around here they are lucky if they know what a hammer is, let alone how to use it. When we were young that was common knowledge and every boy and girl had the capabilities. Nowadays it's horrible how uneducated (city-)youth is with using their hands. One of the problems may be that they just don't have the opportunities because everything around them is stone and concrete. When I was young we just took our bikes and within minutes we were outside the 'controlled' living areas where we could build anything we wanted and had the materials just laying around. Those opportunities are just not longer available to a lot of teenagers. I am lucky that I had a father who taught me a lot. He could just about create everything himself and taught me how to use the tools. Some of it I have been able to pass on to my daughters but when I look around me I see the system of teaching your children the common 'fix-it' knowledge declining to where it's almost non-existing anymore. I realize this is first and foremost a city problem but it's also a social problem because a lot of parents already lost the knowledge and just pick up a phone to call someone to fix the most simple problems.
this is first and foremost a city problem but it's also a social problem because a lot of parents already lost the knowledge and just pick up a phone to call someone to fix the most simple problems.
It's a first world problem imo. Losing skillsets necessary to maintain that first world infrastructure is going to (already has in some cases) bite them in the arse. At the rate things are moving, there will no longer be anyone to call either. At that time, the system collapses.
The message sent via media and schools is that a degree is the only acceptable path forward to earn a living. The general disdain presented to blue collar workers doesn't help either. America alone will need 100,000 new welders by 2050 and that only to maintain what we already have.
Losing skillsets necessary to maintain that first world infrastructure is going to (already has in some cases) bite them in the arse.
Too few people realize that craftsmen are the most valuable people for a successful and flourishing society. I rate them way above politicians.
Another problem is the attitude of parents and others. Their first thought when seeing a child (including teenagers) using a tool is he/she may get harmed and they were held responsible. I don't know if there is a similar saying in English. In German it's:
"Messer, Gabel, Schere, Licht
ist für kleine Kinder nicht."
But today they expand it from little children to late teens. Add to this that – at least in Germany - about 80% of grade 1 + 2 teachers are female and most of them are technophobe, and you get the result.
HM.
When I was young we just took our bikes and within minutes we were outside the 'controlled' living areas where we could build anything we wanted and had the materials just laying around.
Thaat is when the 'cobbling' would come in.
Thaat is when the 'cobbling' would come in.
At first yes, but when you build your fifth it becomes pretty solid. Especially when you start bringing the right tools.
What I was trying to say is that 'erecting' a tree house sounds more 'official' to me, like building a real house.
Actually erect is arguably a more accurate/official choice than build.
The origin of Erect is late Middle English: from Latin erect- 'set up', from the verb erigere, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out' + regere 'to direct'.
The origin of Build is Old English byldan, from bold, botl 'dwelling', of Germanic origin; related to bower.
I doubt teenagers 'erect' a tree house, more likely they 'cobble it together'.
Maybe they built it using a whole bunch of Erector Sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erector_Set
I doubt teenagers 'erect' a tree house, more likely they 'cobble it together'.
I know a teenage (at the time) girl who could read prints, weld, machine, and about anything else she put her mind to. There is a chance that if you fly in a Boeing 767, she may well have some of her welds on the craft.
You're making a mistake in your assumptions.
I doubt teenagers 'erect' a tree house, more likely they 'cobble it together'.
If you were referring to kids around 10-12 years old, then they probably would 'cobble it together'. If kids older than that are doing it, they're going to do it right. I've seen 'teenagers' working together stick build sheds and farm buildings, cutting the 2x4's, putting flooring down, and everything all by themselves.
Are there teenagers out there totally worthless? Oh, yeah. We all knew some like that, even when WE were teenagers. Are there ones out there with a work ethic, that take pride in what they do and have accomplished? Definitely.
If you were referring to kids around 10-12 years old, then they probably would 'cobble it together'. If kids older than that are doing it, they're going to do it right. I've seen 'teenagers' working together stick build sheds and farm buildings, cutting the 2x4's, putting flooring down, and everything all by themselves.
In the UK, the majority of teenagers are unable to change a lightbulb or a fuse. As for wiring a plug ...
AJ
In the UK, the majority of teenagers are unable to change a lightbulb
Change the lightbulb! My granddaddy put in that lightbulb. It's historically protected!
Change the lightbulb! My granddaddy put in that lightbulb. It's historically protected!
I'm sorry but it's so powerful that you can read by it. It's destroying the planet. It must be replaced immediately!
AJ
In the UK, the majority of teenagers are unable to change a lightbulb or a fuse. As for wiring a plug ...
It's not so different here among those from large cities. I believe that to be a worldwide problem. Rural areas of various countries tend to produce higher aptitudes for such things.
Rural areas of various countries tend to produce higher aptitudes for such things.
But they're less likely to be able to read and speak Latin ;-)
AJ
The OP's statement was "erection of a treehouse".
That's the treehouse having an erection, not giving some guy and erection.
That's the treehouse having an erection, not giving some guy and erection.
Is there a female treehouse in the next tree? And the next tree is deciduous?
AJ
The problem of government without politics and politicians is that the options then are dictatorship or monarchy without any limitations on the monarch's authority. Since benevolent dictators and monarchs are fairly rare, governments likely will be even more obnoxious than they are now. The advantage of elections making a difference is that we, the people, can throw the bastards out. And replace them with new bastards, probably even more incompetent than the last lot. It is possible that if we admire politicians more, more competent ones will be attracted to the job. We have in the past have somewhat better ones than seem to occupy the jobs now. Or maybe their deficiencies were less publicized?
It is possible that if we admire politicians more, more competent ones will be attracted to the job.
I don't see competence as the primary problem.
The problem is that elective office attracts those who desire power for it's own sake, and those are exactly the kind of people we shouldn't want to have running the government.
I think a case can be made that incompetent, idiotic, power hungry politicians are marginally less dangerous than highly competent, intelligent, power hungry politicians.