>Now we receive absurd and inaccurate lessons in English Literature!
>Can we restrict postings on this site to science and omit the
>semantic pedantry. Blather is an appropriate word in this context.
John Dewey
>Roger and all,
> The term ultramafic basalt is simply a tautology because a
>basalt is mafic but not ultramafic. Who uses that term, anyway? I
>commonly seen komatiitic basalt or basaltic komatiite, which is
>unfortunate because komatiite is an ultramafic rock with a certain
>texture. Sometimes such terms are invented because the rock is
>close to a boundary with another name as if that in any way is
>surprising. Basaltic andesite has since grown over time to have its
>own field. If the komatiitic basalt has a komatiitic texture, that
>is logical, a basalt with komatiitic texture as opposed to one that
>has none. It remains confusing chemically. Igneous basalt is
>ridiculous because it is redundant, the first term in no way further
>constraining the second. An olivine gabbro is not ultramafic unless
>it is a lherzolite. The proper use of preceding adjectives and
>nouns in compound nouns is that they must further constrain the
>final noun, which is also your opinion I see.
> Moreover, no more than a total of three adjectives, adverbs or
>nouns should be used in a chain; otherwise it leads to great
>uncertainty as to what is modifying what. I call the current fad of
>4-6 such modifiers Bushtalk for two of our most favorite recent
>presidents. One could say magnesian basalt or olivine basalt, but
>not ultramafic basalt or the redundancy mafic basalt, which in no
>way provides restricting information as you point out. Next will we
>have mafic igneous plagioclase pyroxene basalt? Scientists should
>use adjectives and adverbs sparsely and choose them well, like
>Hemingway, not blather on and on like George Elliot.
>cheers,
>eric
>
>
>On Nov 27, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Musson, Roger M W wrote:
>
>>One could argue that adjectives play two roles in English. One is
>>to distinguish nouns subject to the qualifying adjective from those
>>not so qualified. Thus, "ultramafic basalts" are distinguished from
>>other basalts that are not ultramafic. Under this interpretation,
>>it would be absurd to write "igneous basalts", since there are no
>>non-igneous basalts. However, it is quite common to find adjectives
>>used merely as a way of expressing additional information about the
>>noun. Thus, one could easily find someone writing "igneous basalts"
>>to mean "basalts, which are igneous".
>>
>>Personally, I don't like it, and I prefer to strike out any
>>adjectives that are not essential. Don't get me started on "organic
>>vegetables".
>>
>>Roger Musson
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>[<mailto:GEO->mailto:GEO-
>>>
>>><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]] On
>>>Behalf Of Eric Essene
>>>
>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 18:51
>>>
>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>Subject: last comment
>>>
>>>
>>>Tim and all,
>>>
>>> This is my last online response on this topic.
>>>
>>> Maybe 'igneous intrusion' is used much more in the UK than here.
>>>
>>>If the terms 'sedimentary intrusion' and 'metamorphic intrusion' are
>>>
>>>seldom used, why is the construct necessary? Next will we use
>>>
>>>"sedimentary granite" or "sedimentary limestone"?
>>>
>>> A problem can arise if we don't agree on the meaning of the words.
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed, I did not understand the meaning of this particular
>>>
>>>notice that was just sent out by Rob and Zoe. Maybe some other notice
>>>
>>>was sent previously that was clearer.
>>>
>>>cheers,
>>>
>>>eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Nov 26, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Tim Needham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not really sure why I'm replying to this but...
>>>>
>>>>Dare we consider that, unthinkably, Georef isn't quite up to speed
>>>>
>>>>on this?
>>>>
>>>>The 'keyword' approach is often frustrating and not very helpful. I
>>>>
>>>>suspect
>>>>
>>>>that most geoscientists worth their salt(!) know what an 'igneous
>>>>
>>>>intrusion'
>>>>
>>>>or 'clastic intrusion' is. The main benefit of this thread has been
>>>>
>>>>some of
>>>>
>>>>the highly informative references on clastic intrusions (thanks in
>>>>
>>>>particular to David Macdonald, Mads Huuse and Bob Holdsworth).
>>>>
>>>>Basically, we
>>>>
>>>>describe what we observe and go from there rather than try to
>>>>
>>>>pigeonhole
>>>>
>>>>into 'popular' terminology. Did anyone really misunderstand the
>>>>
>>>actual
>>>
>>>>conference announcement?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>>
>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>On Behalf Of Eric Essene
>>>>
>>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 15:48
>>>>
>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Anderson Stress Meeting: September 2010 reminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Carl,
>>>>
>>>> The term "sedimentary intrusion" has one citation in Georef.
>>>>
>>>>cheers,
>>>>
>>>>eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:24 AM, Carl Stevenson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sedimentary intrusions - does anyone know of any AMS (anisotropy of
>>>>>
>>>>>magnetic susceptibility) work on these?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Desperately resisting getting drawn in to a semantic debate, I think
>>>>>
>>>>>'igneous intrusion' is fine. I guess it is as opposed to igneous
>>>>>
>>>>>extrusion - lavas and ash etc. Sometimes in when subvolcanic roots
>>>>>
>>>>>are exposed it is actually equivocal. There are instances when ash
>>>>>
>>>>>can fall back into a vent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>An example I am aware of is:
>>>>>
>>>>>ALMOND, D. C. 1977. Sabaloka Igneous Complex, Sudan. Philosophical
>>>>>
>>>>>Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series a - Mathematical
>>>>>
>>>>>Physical and Engineering Sciences, 287, 595-633.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>>>
>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>>] On Behalf Of Stu Clarke
>>>>>
>>>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 10:23
>>>>>
>>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Anderson Stress Meeting: September 2010 reminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't you hate it when someone gets that email in just before
>>>>>
>>>>>you......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I too have no particular stand on terminology, but I too was
>>>>>
>>>>>surprised by
>>>>>
>>>>>the stated scale of sedimentary intrusions. I have examined large
>>>>>
>>>>>scale
>>>>>
>>>>>sedimentary intrusions in deltaic settings and currently work with
>>>>>
>>>>>colleagues using oil-industry datasets on the same thing. I don't
>>>>>
>>>>>think
>>>>>
>>>>>sedimentary intrusions have to be small scale......
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>>>
>>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>On Behalf Of Macdonald,
>>>>>
>>>>>Professor
>>>>>
>>>>>David I. M.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 10:11
>>>>>
>>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Anderson Stress Meeting: September 2010 reminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear Eric
>>>>>
>>>>>I have no particular stand on the terminology for igneous rocks, but
>>>>>
>>>>>you are
>>>>>
>>>>>incorrect in your assertions on the scale of sedimentary
>>>>>
>>>>>intrusions. Salt
>>>>>
>>>>>is a sedimentary rock which can be injected through kilometers of
>>>>>
>>>>>strata in
>>>>>
>>>>>bodies hundreds of metres to kilometers across. Anyone who has ever
>>>>>
>>>>>worked
>>>>>
>>>>>on deltas can point to mud diapirism on a similar scale. Even the
>>>>>
>>>>>humble
>>>>>
>>>>>sand injection feature is much larger than you make out; your
>>>>>
>>>>>description
>>>>>
>>>>>seems to be of sand filling pre-existing cracks, whereas most sand
>>>>>
>>>>>injections are of a fluid slurry under pressure. These intrusions
>>>>>
>>>>>can be
>>>>>
>>>>>huge. In the Mesozoic forearc basin of the Antarctic Peninsula,
>>>>>
>>>>>sandstone
>>>>>
>>>>>dykes have been mapped with MINIMUM dimensions: 6 km long, cutting
>>>>>
>>>>>350 m of
>>>>>
>>>>>strata, and 1 m wide. For more examples, see, among other papers:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hurst A. & Cartwright J. A. Eds. 2007. Sand Injectites:
>>>>>
>>>>>Implications for
>>>>>
>>>>>hydrocarbon exploration and production. Memoir 87 American
>>>>>
>>>>>Association of
>>>>>
>>>>>Petroleum Geologists
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hurst A., Cartwright J. & Duranti D. 2003. Fluidization
>>>>>
>>>>>structures in
>>>>>
>>>>>produced by upward injection of sand through a sealing lithology.
>>>>>
>>>>>In:
>>>>>
>>>>>Subsurface sediment mobilization (eds. Van Rensbergen P.,Hillis
>>>>>
>>>>>R.,Maltman
>>>>>
>>>>>A. J. & Morley,C.K.), Geological Society Of London, London, 123-127
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jonk R., Hurst A., Duranti D., Mazzini A., Fallick A. E. & Parnell
>>>>>
>>>>>J.
>>>>>
>>>>>2005.The origin and timing of sand injection, petroleum migration
>>>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>diagenesis: the Tertiary petroleum system of the South Viking
>>>>>
>>>>>Graben, North
>>>>>
>>>>>Sea. AAPG Bulletin, 89, 329-357
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hurst A. & Duranti D. 2004. Fluidisation and injection in the deep-
>>>>>
>>>>>water
>>>>>
>>>>>sandstones of the Eocene Alba Formation (UK North Sea).
>>>>>
>>>>>Sedimentology, 51,
>>>>>
>>>>>3, 503-529
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope this helps
>>>>>
>>>>>David Macdonald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>>>
>>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>On Behalf Of Eric Essene
>>>>>
>>>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 07:39
>>>>>
>>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Anderson Stress Meeting: September 2010 reminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> The term igneous intrusions is functionally a terrible term, a
>>>>>
>>>>>distinction without a difference. More than 99.9% (or more?) of the
>>>>>
>>>>>time it means igneous rocks where the term is redundant. If one
>>>>>
>>>>>talks
>>>>>
>>>>>about sedimentary intrusions it is on a meter scale feature,
>>>>>
>>>commonly
>>>
>>>>>even less--I have seen some down to cm scale. When they formed and
>>>>>
>>>>>well afterward they did not look like dikes, just fractures filled
>>>>>
>>>>>with loose sediment. I discount the poor term "sandstone dikes" as
>>>>>
>>>>>needing yet another confusing term.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand salt domes are metamorphic (recrystallized) but
>>>>>
>>>>>not molten rock, well a little brine. They were not in the
>>>>>
>>>>>sedimentary group during formation. Yes, we have diapirs of
>>>>>
>>>>>metamorphic rock, although a lot of those gneiss domes probably
>>>>>
>>>>>have a
>>>>>
>>>>>little melt. I would agree about metamorphic diapirs but simply
>>>>>
>>>>>would
>>>>>
>>>>>not call them metamorphic intrusions to avoid confusion on a
>>>>>
>>>>>transitional rock. Gneiss domes are a nice description for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must be exceedingly rare for igneous petrologists/geochemists
>>>>>
>>>>>to be presenting data on "sand dikes". Salt domes are much larger
>>>>>
>>>>>but are as they form. Do you know of any igneous petrologist/
>>>>>
>>>>>geochemist who would report on them in your symposium? So
>>>>>
>>>"sandstone
>>>
>>>>>dikes" are fractures filled with loose clastic material and water,
>>>>>
>>>>>salt diapirs are all metamorphic and may have brine, gneiss domes
>>>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>>>often partial melts then at least partly igneous, and the term
>>>>>
>>>>>"igneous intrusion" is clearly redundant to the average passerby.
>>>>>
>>>Is
>>>
>>>>>this really a useful terminology?
>>>>>
>>>>>cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 26, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Butler, Robert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually - there are lots of non-igenous intrusions in basins -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>sandstone dykes through 100s metres of strata. Not to mention mud
>>>>>>
>>>>>>diapirs, salt etc etc.... gas chimneys....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>go google!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>>>>>>
>>>>>[<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>>] On Behalf Of Eric Essene [<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sent: 26 November 2009 05:09
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Anderson Stress Meeting: September 2010 reminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rob, Zoe, and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Igneous intrusions as opposed to all those sedimentary plutons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The phrase is nearly always meaningless and should not be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like a great trip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>eric
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:28 PM, Butler, Robert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dear all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As we get our diaries together for 2010 we thought it timely to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>remind you of the conference next year:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stress controls on faulting, fracturing and igneous intrusion in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Earth's crust
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A meeting to commemorate the work of Ernest Masson Anderson on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>50th anniversary of his death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>6-8 September 2010 at the University of Glasgow, UK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Organisers: Zoe Shipton, Rick Sibson, Dave Healy, Rob Butler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We will send out details of the meeting ("First Circular") in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>January -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Abstract deadline will be end April with a preliminary programme
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>drawn up through May.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We are also planning a fieldtrip to the Hebrides and NW Scotland
>>>>>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>>>examine a variety of faults and the Tertiary igneous complexes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again - further information will be included in the first
>>>>>>>
>>>circular.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hope to see a bunch of you in Scotland next September!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Zoe, Rick, Dave and Rob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SC013683..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>>>>>>
>>>>>>SC013683..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>>>>>
>>>>>SC013683..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>--
>>This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
>>is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
>>of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
>>it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
>>NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
--
-----------------------------------
Please update your address book to use [log in to unmask] as my
e-mail address.
John F. Dewey FRS, UC Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Geology
Department of Geology
UC Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis CA 95616
Telephone Nos:
530 752 5829 (UC Davis)
011 44 (0)1865 735525 (home)
011 44 (0)1865 276792 (University College)
530 752 0951 (Fax: )
