DrKrettin

You scatter assertions around and it's difficult to keep up, but I doubt whether you actually understand most of them.

Just for information, I've checked the frequency of agápe, éros, philía and storgē, and found that they are attested approximately 1900, 2500, 1500 and 200 times respectively. This is without counting inflected forms. The storgē is clearly far less common, and generally the writers are much later than Classical Greek (apart from Aristotle of course). This does not negate its importance, but there could be grounds for considering just the other three in classical times. I have learned to be very cautious about meanings of Ancient Greek words because we are dealing with 1000 years of language, and the meanings do shift over time and there are regional variations also.

I am inclined to agree with this. It seems to be a christian habit of lumping all similar sensations into one concept, and love is an umbrella name for various different emotions. This is a parallel to the christian habit of lumping all gods together into one god. It makes it simple, and christians seem to like simple.

Yes, I do. But please ignore me.

No, not at all, I have experienced being married to a woman older than me, and one 14 years younger. Absolutely no contest, although physical age was not a major criterion.

Absolutely none whatsoever (anecdotal personal evidence)

Not immediately relevant here, perhaps, but here is a review of a new book on sleep. Grauniad

I agree, but I sense a certain sophistry here. The context demands that a distinction be made between what is written in America and what is written in Britain. We can happily refer to American English, but in this context we can't sensibly compare "American English" with "English". The tautology is justified as a necessary clarification. Edit: I've just notice the appallingly ungrammatical thread title. "Hyphen" is not a verb. "Hyphenate" is. I wish people would stop verbing nouns.

Yes, I got tired and didn't really go on to say that. In a thesis, issues like this are problematic, and ultimately the important thing is to be consistent, as you say. I am acutely aware of the tautology, by the way, but in the context of distinguishing it from American I think it is justified.

In British English, the hyphen is used to avoid ambiguity and produce clarity. American English seems to be unaware of a lot of ambiguities, or they are quite happy with them. The main uses are (Fowler): 1) To join two or more words to form a single expression: punch-drunk 2) To join a prefix to a proper name: anti-Darwinian 3) To prevent misconceptions: thirty-odd people (not the same as thirty odd people) 4) To avoid ambiguity by separating a prefix: re-cover, not recover, when talking about an old sofa 5) To separate two similar consonants or vowel sounds: sword-dance etc. These days, if you use a noun as an adverb to describe an adjective, you use a hyphen: image-conscious, but if you use it as an adjective to describe a noun, you do not: image control In the case you ask about, you always use an adjective when there is one, without a hyphen, so statistical value. If there were no adjective, you would say statistic value without a hyphen, but this is not English, because statistical exists Edit: I've re-read your post (note that hyphen!) and p-values is correct etc.

Obviously with two or more gods.

So why the connection with god? Please explain

I hadn't thought of that - and I've done it often enough for sinus problems in the past. I'll give it a try. I didn't know you could get antithistamine eyedrops! I'll investigate, thanks.

Oh yes, I've tried antihistamines, and suffered the sensation of terminal fatigue when it was really not safe to drive a car or even go for a walk.

Oh god - I hate that! But it's worth a try.

Yes, thanks - I do have a bottle of that eye spray, and I use it regularly. I have not been able to detect any positive effect, and the spray is quite expensive. As for hands, I used to own a farm, so am quite used to washing my hands very often. I also try to avoid all contact between hand and eye, although this is not easy during the night if they itch. What I would like to know is the mechanism by which a bacterial infection actually causes itching which is effectively pain because it's so severe.

Thanks - that's very helpful. I have noticed that it has not happened when I am elsewhere where it is more humid, although I don't spend enough time away from home to be sure that there is a connection. I'm off to the UK next week, so I can see whether I get a couple of weeks of humidity and make a difference.

Yes, I know we don't do diagnoses, but suggestions might help. The GP prescribed the antibiotics in the first instance, a 10 ml bottle, and I took the drops for one week as directed. That still left me with over half a bottle, so the second time I took drops for a shorter period. I still have some left, but not much, so the issue of the truth of received wisdom is of great interest to me. If the drops kill most bacteria, I can't see why a whole week is more beneficial than (say) a couple of days. My greater issue is understanding what is going on. The GP dismissed my own guess at conjuctivitis, but after some research I realised that the Spanish definition conjunctivitis is much more restricted than the English usage, but I don't really understand the difference. So both I and the GP might be right in our own languages.

I realise that this is a problem which an eye specialist should deal with, but communication with my Spanish GP and anyone he might refers me to is difficult and frustrating, and he dismisses my problem as unimportant. It is an on-going and increasingly annoying itching which re-occcurs at what seems like regular intervals of about once a month. It starts off with the sensation of having some dust in the eyes - (this is actually not a surprise because the climate here in Tenerife is extremely dry, rainfall is very low, humidity is very low, and there is a lot of dust around. In addition I keep myself busy with light building work, so sawdust is a problem, and we keep chickens and their bedding straw is dusty.) The itching becomes intense, with all the skin around the eyes very dry and tender. Application of moisturizer does help but clearly does not solve the underlying problem. Anyway, the itching becomes so severe over a few days that I can't function. Some time ago I complained to the GP that his recommended eyedrops for dry eyes were ineffective, and he very reluctantly prescribed antibiotic drops (Colirio). These solved the problem within an hour. Since then, the condition has ocurred twice, both times I endured it for a few days than applied the antibiotic drops which again solved the problem instantly. When this started, the GP explained that antibiotics were useless because their effectiveness decreases rapidly with use, and that eventually they would have no effect at all. Not being a biologist, I don't understand what is happening. Am I correct in deducing that if the antibiotic drops are instantly effective, there must have been a bacterial infection? Why would this happen at regular intervals, and why do my eyes not have a mechanism for dealing with it? What is the possible underlying cause? Any advice appreciated.

They are purely for eggs. In fact, there is no conflict because (generally) chickens are bred either for egg-laying or meat. If you keep those intended for meat, you don't give them names or get cosy with them, and in my experience, an egg-layer is virtually inedible with little meat anyway. As for not being able to kill, I think civilisation is only one meal distant from barbarity, and perhaps you would surprise yourself as to how quickly you would change your mind about killing an animal if you were really hungry. Having owned a farm I was often confronted with the really unpleasant need to kill an animal - the worst was having to put down a malformed lamb or calf. The trick is not to give an animal a name - it's difficult to kill something with a name. My neighbour once had a couple of pet lambs called "Chops" and "Curry", and I just could not eat any of the meat he offered me - I need it to be anonymous.

Yes, they have a negative impact on our garden because they do chase and kill lizards, which I strongly object to. Of course I can't quantify any damage to local birds, and they don't bother our chicken. When I lived in the UK on a small farm, cats used to use my seed bed in the garden as a toilet, and that made me furious enough to use the shotgun. What annoys me is the general disregard for the environment which cat owners often display, letting their pets wander without restraint. It is particularly irritating that their response is usually "it's in the nature of a cat - that's what they do" as if this justified the behaviour which would not be acceptable for, say, a dog.

Surely indifference is merely the absence of love, which is not the opposite.

That's true - cats from our village often trespass in our garden and chase lizards and birds. Needless to say, I treat them as vermin. I can't understand how cat owners think it is perfectly acceptable for their pets to wander without control.

You have a lamb in a cage? That sounds absolutely dreadful. It is surprising how different the individuals can be, and I'm afraid to admit that I see more differences in behaviour between our chickens than I see between our human neighbours.

No I don't think it will. But I remember that we as students used to say that relativity was rather like an erection - the more you thought about it, the harder it got.