Shark_Force wrote:does not indicate that there are more books that may help you. particularly and specifically simply mean that it is referring to one thing, not necessarily that it is one thing more so than others (although it could be one thing that is amongst others, as the definition does not require the thing to be completely isolated in every way from everything ever).
I disagree; that is entirely the indication.
Otherwise it would say "there is only one book that may help you," or "there is one book that may help you."
The entire point of "in particular" in that sentence is to indicate that while there are a number of books that might be helpful, there is one book specifically that may be helpful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+particular
in particular
Particularly; especially: The children enjoyed the zoo; in particular, they liked the monkeys.
might slightly imply that they liked things other than the monkeys. might also imply that they liked the monkeys, and that was enough to make them like the zoo. again, particularly can simply mean that specific thing, without inherently meaning that there are other things that the statement is intended to apply to. it is not identical in meaning to especially, so the definition of especially is not the only one to consider.
No. It only makes sense if the phrase is used to show that they liked the monkeys more than they liked the other parts that they liked.
The main part of the sentence is "the children enjoyed the zoo." The part about the monkeys is within that context--it does NOT change the context to the children only liking the monkeys specifically, and not liking the rest of the zoo.
The children liked
the zoo. Out of the things in the zoo that they enjoyed, the particularly liked the monkeys.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/in-particular
especially
"I liked the last candidate in particular."
does not tell you that the speaker liked other candidates. merely that they liked the last one.
Yeah, it does. Same as before.
There is no reason for the phrase to exist in the sentence unless it means that there were other candidates that were also liked.
This one isn't explained as well, but it doesn't make sense for the dictionaries to all use the synonym "especially" in different ways for the same definition.
Just like if 5 dictionaries defined "beagle" as "a kind of dog," it wouldn't make any sense to assume that each dictionary (or even any one dictionary) meant the word "dog" in a different way than the other dictionaries.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/particular
especially:
"What in particular did you like about the last apartment that we saw?"
"Are you looking for anything in particular?"
is actually not really a good example for especially. in this case, it's much closer to specifically, seeing as how neither requires multiple things to emphasise one above the others. you can like nothing about the apartment, you could only like one thing about the apartment, you could like some things but not all, and you could even like all the things about the apartment. the second does not imply that there is a set of things that you are not looking for that need to be considered either.
Okay, I actually kind of agree with you on this one, in that those questions are bad examples.
especially (used to show that a statement applies to one person or thing more than any other).
"he socialized with the other young people, one boy in particular"
I count 28 words in that definition. The key synonym, a contextual explanation of what definition of that synonym applies, and a specific example of how the phrase is used.
is not the definition you used, which was originally just "especially". is also still not complete, as it isn't always used in this way, as the examples above show. also, if you exclude the examples, most of those definitions are one word, or two words, which as noted do not in fact share the exact same meaning and thus cannot serve as definitions on their own.[/quote]
It is most commonly used this way.
or, individuals and small groups specifically or particularly, simply indicating that it is those things and not something else.
Nope.
Definitely not in this usage.
Grab your book, take it to an English teacher, and have a good chat about it.
I've put in my time on this one.
Got a direct quote/citation for that?
earlier in the thread. it's late here, i'll see if i can dig it up.
Don't bother. I've learned that "what people say the books said" and "what the books actually say" are often not the same.
That's why I tend to use (and ask for) direct quotes from the books.
yup. one bug fights one person, potentially to the death, and then they all fly away. sounds quite a lot unlike the bugs killing tons of people and not flying away to me.
I guess, if you take "fly away" to always necessarily mean "fly all the way back to the hive."
Even then, the context of the passage is:
such an unwanted intruder may be challenged by one particular Warrior or Hunter while the rest of his squad (and probably scores of other Xiticix) watch from above.and
If the Warrior wins, he may challenge another member of the group, or fly away (with his squad) triumphant and happy."The others fly away" doesn't seem to refer to every xiticix within x number of miles, but merely to the specific Warrior's squad.
And the "fly away" could simply refer to them joining the scores of other Xiticix who are watching from above.
we're back to needing every single soldier to just stand there and watch their friends get killed by bugs. not one person snaps. not one person tries to help. i find it highly implausible that the entire army perfectly obeyed these orders while being killed for three days, with the bugs never leaving.
Find and quote a place where the books actually state that that's what happened. I don't see any point in my trying to defend--or even discuss--an argument that might not even exist.
and if one guy misinterprets and thinks they're in the challenge but aren't, the whole thing goes to hell. and again, the bugs didn't leave. they're supposed to leave after this challenge. they didn't. they stayed for quite some time.
However, if other members of the traveling group join the battle, it will become a free-for-all, with the other Xiticix jumping in to teach the "cheaters" a lesson.I don't see any reason to believe that "the cheaters" would necessarily include more than the person jumping in my mistake.
There might be more, but if the soldiers continued to not fight back, then the bugs would seem to back off again.
The gist of their description is that they mostly leave you alone if you're not challenging them.
I don't think that one guy in an army of 400k soldiers firing off a shot would get the bugs to see the entire group as a challenge, and even if it did, their challenges often consist of tests rather than slaughtering unresisting people to the last man.
if you want to argue that it's a possible interpretation, then sure. the wording does not rule out the possibility of it applying to other things.
but it doesn't automatically suggest that it does apply to other things either.
It sounds like your position overall is essentially that the books can be reasonably interpreted in such a way that Holmes' journey makes sense, but that you don't choose that interpretation of the books, and that you are unhappy with the result that Holmes' journey doesn't make sense to you.