 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / December 2004arms 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 > 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". "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: >> Last night in our English class, a doubt arised: >> Which is the difference in saying "arms" or saying "weapons". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"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? :-)  SignatureEnrico C /testing Pimmy/ Reply to: enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it >"John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >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.) SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) Enrico C wrote... > "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > :-) > 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. > Enrico C wrote... >> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And the famous weapons race :) > and the right to bear weapons? No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-) SignatureJohn Briggs >> Enrico C wrote... >>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >No, no. It's the right to arm and keep bears :-) For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having firearms? SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >>> Enrico C wrote... >>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >For pity's sake! Aren't bears dangerous enough without their having >firearms? Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows! Signatureenrico /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!" >>>> Enrico C wrote... >>>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Right! Bears should wear only bows and arrows! They're allowed matchlocks, flintlocks and goldilocks. SignaturePhil C. > > Enrico C wrote... > >> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> > >> 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. >>> Enrico C wrote... >>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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? SignatureJohn Briggs > >>> Enrico C wrote... > >>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Never mind the exact meaning, what do you make of the punctuation? I went into a, uh, coma trying to parse that part. >>>>> Enrico C wrote... >>>>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I went into a, uh, coma trying to parse that part. Are you sure it wasn't a comma? :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > >>>>> Enrico C wrote... > >>>>>> "John Mazor" <mazorj@erols.com> ha scritto: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.