Table of Densities of Common Substances

Table of Densities of Common Substances Heres a table of densities of common substances, including several gases, liquids, and solids. Density is a measure of the amount of mass contained in a unit of volume. The general trend is that most gases are less dense than liquids, which are in turn less dense than solids, but there are numerous exceptions. For this reason, the table lists density from lowest to highest and includes the state of matter. Note that the density of pure water is defined to be 1 gram per cubic centimeter (or, g/ml). Unlike most substances, water is denser as a liquid than as a solid. A consequence is that ice floats on water. Also, pure water is less dense than seawater, so fresh water can float on top of salt water, mixing at the interface. The Factors That Affect Density Density depends on temperature and pressure. For solids, its also affected by the way atoms and molecules stack together. A pure substance can take many forms, which dont have the same properties. For example, carbon can take the form of graphite or diamond. Both are chemically identical, but they do not share an identical density value. To convert these density values into kilograms per cubic meter, multiply any of the numbers by 1000. Densities of Common Substances Material Density (g/cm3) State of Matter hydrogen (at STP) 0.00009 gas helium (at STP) 0.000178 gas carbon monoxide (at STP) 0.00125 gas nitrogen (at STP) 0.001251 gas air (at STP) 0.001293 gas carbon dioxide (at STP) 0.001977 gas lithium 0.534 solid ethanol (grain alcohol) 0.810 liquid benzene 0.900 liquid ice 0.920 solid water at 20Â °C 0.998 liquid water at 4Â °C 1.000 liquid seawater 1.03 liquid milk 1.03 liquid coal 1.1-1.4 solid blood 1.600 liquid magnesium 1.7 solid granite 2.6-2.7 solid aluminum 2.7 solid steel 7.8 solid iron 7.8 solid copper 8.3-9.0 solid lead 11.3 solid mercury 13.6 liquid uranium 18.7 solid gold 19.3 solid platinum 21.4 solid osmium 22.6 solid iridium 22.6 solid white dwarf star 107 solid

Definition and Examples of Prescriptivism

Definition and Examples of Prescriptivism Prescriptivism is the attitude or belief that one variety of a language is superior to others and should be promoted as such. Also known as  linguistic prescriptivism and purism.  An ardent promoter of prescriptivism is called a prescriptivist or, informally, a  stickler. A key aspect of traditional grammar, prescriptivism is generally  characterized by a concern for good, proper, or correct usage. Contrast with descriptivism. In a paper published in Historical Linguistics 1995, Sharon Millar defined prescriptivism as the conscious attempt by language users to control or regulate the language use of others for the purpose of enforcing perceived norms or of promoting innovations (Language Prescription: Success in Failures Clothing).Common examples of prescriptive texts include many (though  not all)  style and usage guides, dictionaries, writing handbooks, and the like.   Observations [Prescriptivism is the] policy of describing languages as we would like them to be, rather than as we find them. Typical examples of prescriptivist attitudes are the condemnation of preposition stranding and of the split infinitive and a demand for Its I in place of the normal Its me.  (R.L. Trask, Dictionary of English Grammar. Penguin, 2000)A prescriptive grammar is essentially a manual that focuses on constructions where usage is divided and lays down rules governing the socially correct use of language. These grammars were a formative influence on language attitudes in Europe and America during the 18th and 19th centuries. Their influence lives on in the handbooks of usage widely found today, such as A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) by Henry Watson Fowler (1858-1933), though such books include recommendations about the use of pronunciation, spelling, and vocabulary as well as grammar.  (David Crystal, How Language Works. Overlook Press, 2005)I think sensible prescr iptivism  ought to be part of any education.(Noam Chomsky, Language, Politics, and Composition, 1991.  Chomsky on Democracy and Education, ed. by  Carlos Peregrà ­n Otero. RoutledgeFalmer, 2003) Verbal Hygiene [T]he overt anti-prescriptive stance of linguists is in some respects not unlike the prescriptivism they criticize. The point is that both prescriptivism and anti-prescriptivism invoke certain norms and circulate particular notions about how language ought to work. Of course, the norms are different (and in the case of linguistics they are often covert). But both sets feed into the  more general arguments that influence everyday ideas about language. On that level, description and prescription turn out to be aspects of a single (and normative) activity: a struggle to control language by defining its nature.  My use of the term verbal hygiene is intended to capture this idea, whereas to use the term prescriptivism would just recycle the opposition I am trying to deconstruct.  (Deborah Cameron, Verbal Hygiene. Routledge, 1995) Language Wars The history of prescriptions about Englishof grammar texts, manuals of style and O tempora o mores-type laments- is in part a history of bogus rules, superstitions, half-baked logic, groaningly unhelpful lists, baffling abstract statements, false classifications, contemptuous insiderism, and educational malfeasance. But it is also a history of attempts to make sense of the world and its bazaar of competing ideas and interests. Instinctively, we find the arbitrariness of existence hard to accept. Our desire to impose order on the world, which means inventing the forms of language rather than discovering them, is a creative act. Furthermore, the quarrel between descriptivists and prescriptivists ... is a sort of mad confederacy: each party thrives on lambasting the other.   Ã¢â‚¬â€¹(Henry Hitchings, The Language Wars. John Murray, 2011) The Problem WIth Prescriptivists [G]eneral ignorance of grammar allows prescriptivists to impose nonsensical mandates and allows test-makers and test-takers to focus primarily on superficial error in language use.​(Martha Kolln and Craig Hancock, The Story of English Grammar in United States Schools. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, December 2005) Pronunciation: pree-SKRIP-ti-viz-em