6

barbara beeton's answer to What is the meaning of 'furled' in 'The smoke furled dreamily from its navy blue nostrils'? got an interesting comment by Hellion:

To elaborate on the imagery a bit, the smoke probably starts by coming out in a fairly straight, thin stream, but quickly starts to become wavy and then curly as it loses speed; after a very short distance it is moving quite slowly ('wafting') in a mass which still exhibits some remnants of the original stream-like appearance; you could call it a cloud at this point, but you can still pick out "ribbons" folded around and wadded up within the cloud.

Yes, the effect of Hellion's comment is to make me think more about the meaning of furled, especially in reference to its antonym unfurled.

My question is: Would the following question (roughly written) be a dupe or an NC?

Assuming that "The smoke probably starts by coming out in a fairly straight, thin stream, but quickly starts to become wavy and then curly as it loses speed; after a very short distance it is moving quite slowly ('wafting') in a mass which still exhibits some remnants of the original stream-like appearance; you could call it a cloud at this point, but you can still pick out "ribbons" folded around and wadded up within the cloud." describes the scenario "The smoke furled dreamily from its navy blue nostrils and wafted gently into the evening, almost indistinguishable from the exhaust fumes of the cars below it." what would change in the description if "furled" were replaced with "unfurled" in the scenario?

1
  • 1
    To answer the question your current question is about, switching "furled" with "unfurled" would imply that the smoke started in a compact mass (that still had some internal structure) and ended up in a relatively flat line.
    – Hellion
    Apr 9, 2013 at 19:01

1 Answer 1

6

I've seen questions on ELU that began with:

A comment left on [link to an earlier question] made me wonder about [a described idiosyncrasy]...

I'd think that asking about the differences between furled and unfurled would be a legitimate question. So long as you take care to make sure this question is unique, and describe the differences between the new question and the original question – so that people don't mistakenly believe you're asking the same thing twice – the question should do fine.

I'd probably try to find some other examples usages of the two words first, other than the original smoke example. That would help the question stand on its own (as opposed to being too localized).

You must log in to answer this question.