on-stream, go or come?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Kevin - 14 Jan 2010 01:44 GMT Hello,
When we say a plant that is in operation, I saw people say "goes on- stream" and "comes on-stream", I wonder if there are differences between the two? I only know that a friend from Australia comes to Hong Kong to see me, and I go to the UK to meet my pen-pal.
With thanks.
Kevin
Pete - 14 Jan 2010 08:07 GMT Kevin <parogon@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- bb857d96cd06@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kevin I would use 'goes on stream' for the plant and 'comes on stream' for the product of the plant. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because the plant is some distance away, but whatever it produces comes to me (potentially). The lights in this house come on, but the lights in that house over there go on.
Peter
Kevin - 14 Jan 2010 08:21 GMT > Kevin <paro...@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- > bb857d96c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Peter Thanks again Peter. When I googled, it returned something like follows:
1. First osmosis power plant goes on stream in Norway - environment ... 2. Zirconium complex goes on stream in Tuticorin . 3. Shell Lubricants' Zhuhai plant goes on stream 4. Amarkantak synchronised IKU II goes on stream 5. Iran's largest aluminum plant comes on stream 6. Ghadir Petrochemical Complex comes on stream
They did not mention products when using "comes", perhaps they are wrong. Kevin
Pete - 14 Jan 2010 14:49 GMT >> Kevin <paro...@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- >> bb857d96c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > wrong. > Kevin No, not wrong. People use the two expressions interchangeably. I'm suggesting there is a subtle shade of difference between them.
If whatever comes out of the plant is going to affect me, or us, or THIS country, then 'comes on stream' seems more appropriate. If it's all happening a long way away and whatever it produces isn't going to affect me, or us, or this country, then 'goes' seems more appropriate.
'I am sitting in my chair when the light GOES on' suggests that the light is outside, or some way away from the speaker. 'The light in the house over there COMES on' suggests that the speaker is somehow involved: that he is expecting it, or waiting for it, or has arranged for it to be switched on.
Similarly 'Comes on stream' suggests that we may be affected or involved in some way. 'Goes on stream' doesn't suggest that.
Peter
Farmer Giles - 14 Jan 2010 15:11 GMT >>> Kevin <paro...@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- >>> bb857d96c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Similarly 'Comes on stream' suggests that we may be affected or involved > in some way. 'Goes on stream' doesn't suggest that. Wouldn't we tend to say 'Comes on stream' when the process brings something in to us - like, say, an oil field or an oil rig? With a process that has an output function - say a power station or an effluent plant - being regarded as 'going' on stream?
Pete - 15 Jan 2010 02:15 GMT >>>> Kevin <paro...@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- >>>> bb857d96c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > process that has an output function - say a power station or an > effluent plant - being regarded as 'going' on stream? I think we're barking up the same tree, but don't all four of your examples have an output?
I agree: the idea of an effluent plant 'coming on stream' certainly sounds a bit worrying :-)
Peter
Farmer Giles - 15 Jan 2010 09:07 GMT >>>>> Kevin <paro...@gmail.com> wrote in news:00f2c248-3cac-4019-ba80- >>>>> bb857d96c...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > I think we're barking up the same tree, but don't all four of your > examples have an output? Perhaps my examples weren't perfect, but I think the idea is quite clear.
> I agree: the idea of an effluent plant 'coming on stream' certainly > sounds a bit worrying :-) Indeed!
mm - 14 Jan 2010 14:24 GMT >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Kevin Don't think about it. Just use whatever comes out of your mouth. Since these people are the only ones you know using this phrase, yo'll end up using it like they do. There is no really no difference in the two except the way people use it.
 Signature Posters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years
John Varela - 14 Jan 2010 18:21 GMT > Hello, > > When we say a plant that is in operation, I saw people say "goes on- > stream" and "comes on-stream", When a plant FIRST BEGINS operation, it "goes on-stream". And you heard, not saw, people say that.
I agree with others that "go" and "come" differ at most only subtly.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Patok - 14 Jan 2010 18:29 GMT >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When a plant FIRST BEGINS operation, it "goes on-stream". And you > heard, not saw, people say that. That's not always the case. Sometimes one /sees/ people say things, instead of hearing them. Especially with the volume on mute, and subtitles on.
 Signature You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
Kevin - 15 Jan 2010 01:15 GMT > >> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. That's a terrific answer. Actually, I saw people write it.
Kevin
John Varela - 16 Jan 2010 02:41 GMT > >> Hello, > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > instead of hearing them. Especially with the volume on mute, and > subtitles on. There's a word for that condition: synaesthesia.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
John Lawler - 15 Jan 2010 22:00 GMT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Kevin There's no consistent distinction. Either can be used, though some people may make subtle distinctions between them, or hear such distinctions, whether the original users did or not.
The discussion on this thread, and on many other threads on a.e.u and a.u.e, can serve as an example of a prominent fallacy about English and language use in general, what Arnold Zwicky calls the One Right Way (ORW) theory, with two parts (to quote Arnold):
"(1) There is One Right Way to use an expression; a form should have only one meaning.
"(2) There is One Right Way to express a meaning; a meaning should be expressed by only one form. No true synonyms."
This is of course nonsense. No language (certainly not English) has *ever* worked like that. For a list of the many posts addressing individual cases of ORW, see http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/one-right-way/
There are of course many other fallacies, like Avoid Needless Words (ANW) and Include All Necessary Words (IANW), which always hang up on what counts as Needless or Necessary. You can find out about them from Arnold's blog, too. Check the "For reference" category there: http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/category/for-reference/
I forbear to deal with them here, however. Life is short, though silliness goes on forever.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile. -- Hippocrates
Pete - 16 Jan 2010 05:29 GMT John Lawler <johnmlawler@gmail.com> wrote in news:eac53925-c42e-4710-a639- 307f7af6f28c@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile. > -- Hippocrates Zwicky seems only to be describing the current orthodoxy, but doing it in a tedious fashion.
Who in this thread has said there is only one right way (sorry, that's ORW) to express the meaning 'coming/going on stream'? Name names! Haven't most of us said it doesn't matter too much and that the words are used interchangeably?
BTW, I prefer recipes that ANW, but I like the instructions on a medicine bottle to IANW.
Peter
Bill McCray - 16 Jan 2010 14:26 GMT > Zwicky seems only to be describing the current orthodoxy, but doing it in a > tedious fashion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of us said it doesn't matter too much and that the words are used > interchangeably? I don't recall if this has been mentioned in this thread:
Both "coming on stream" and "going on stream" sound wrong to me. I don't recall have heard or seen written anything about "on stream" except in this thread. "Coming on line" and "going on line" (beginning to do whatever the facility is intended to do) are the terms I'm familiar with.
Bill in Kentucky
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 16 Jan 2010 14:51 GMT >> Zwicky seems only to be describing the current orthodoxy, but doing it in a >> tedious fashion. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >to do whatever the facility is intended to do) are the terms I'm >familiar with. Google finds 995,000 for "coming on stream" and 8,240,000 for "coming on line".
Even allowing for those numbers to be wildly inaccurate I'd suggest that "coming on stream" is sufficiently frequent to be seen as mainstream although not the most common version.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage)
John Varela - 16 Jan 2010 22:18 GMT > Google finds 995,000 for "coming on stream" and 8,240,000 for "coming on > line". > > Even allowing for those numbers to be wildly inaccurate I'd suggest that > "coming on stream" is sufficiently frequent to be seen as mainstream > although not the most common version. Many of the "on line" uses may be in a computer context. I would use "coming on stream" in the context of an assembly line or industrial chemical process where a stream metaphor applies. A new machine in the assembly line comes on line; then the line as a whole comes on stream. YMMV
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
|
|
|