Teacher Discussion Forums

Hello, folks !
Belated congratulations on the New Year!
My question is about the correct usage of the words "seal" or "stamp".
Could someone kindly tell me which is better while speaking about the "seal or stamp" of some establishment (let it be school). When, e.g., I translate the certificate of a secondary education from Russian into English which of the two above-mentioned words should I use?
Thanks beforehand.

A seal will be something raised, normally made of wax. A stamp may be also, but in this day and age is normally a rubber stamp or official heading.

Thanks a lot!
But I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear enough . I was more interested not in the name of the device to produce a seal or a stamp, but in the word which denotes exactly the imprint on paper made by this.
Still waiting for the answer .

Hmm intriguing question. If you look at the process by which the imprint or mark comes to be on the paper you might get a better idea of what the word you're looking for could be (I'm not entirely sure myself!).

So, somebody has a date or official STAMP (n) and STAMPS (v) the paper. You could then say the paper has been STAMPED (passive/p.p), but if you said there was a STAMP on the paper maybe people would think it was a postage stamp or similar. What I'm trying to say is perhaps the participle is more natural or frequent than the "resulting" noun (because STAMP is already "taken by" or used to mean 1) a postage stamp or 2) the rubber thingy you stamp documents with.

In fact, the only use I can find of something BEARING a STAMP seems to be metaphorical in meaning e.g. His speech bore the stamp of authority.

You're probably more on the right track with synonyms e.g. mark, imprint, trace of something etc.

Regarding a seal, you could probably simply say "There's a seal on the paper" (?It's sealed).

How about, "The document carries the stamp of the official seal of the university of blah blah."

Why does everyone love inventing sentences on this site?! Why not, "The fish of the seal of my uncle got stamped upon by the jackbooted heel of my aunt"?! By the way, that "His speech bore the stamp of authority" was from LDOCE4, but I don't think it sounds that good, do you? But I'd be wary of trying to make one up myself..."His story bore the stamp of authenticity"...why not just say it sounded authentic or convincing or whatever?!

Hmm yes, maybe lexicographers shouldn't include meanings of words and phrases simply because they are attested (in writing), or, if they do, at least try to indicate how it might be expressed more easily/appropriately (in speech).; that is, I'm not really sure (even as a native speaker) that "His speech bore the stamp of authority" is saying very much, it just kind of passes me by as semi-meaningless or striving for a nebulous stylistic effect, whereas if somebody told me "His speech WAS (adj)" or (better still?) "He's a (adj) speaker" or "He's (adj)" I think my brain would register and appreciate it much better! I guess it is up to us teachers in our preparation, and a matter between teachers and students in the heat of communication to find out what is actually useful...I can only wait for that Superdictionary (TM) to come along (even the more interesting/exciting ones of recent years fall down a bit when it comes to explaining their use to students - see for example the "nitpicking" user guide/instructions along the lines of "How to IMPROVE your English" in the Longman Language Activator!). Sorry, this has gone off at a bit of a tangent from the original query...but what the hell, any thoughts, anyone?

Obviously, a student who can understand metaphor (the extension of the basic meaning of "stamp") would almost certainly also know some the easier ways I suggested to describe e.g. that SPEECH bearing "the stamp of authority" (or the speaker himself), using adjectives etc; what I find a little worrying though is that students are not reminded enough of more basic ways to express things, and might begin to imagine that e.g. speeches are generally described using metaphor, not more basic words (if they had not, up until the point they met this metaphor, really spoken much about or described speeches they'd heard). If all this is giving you a headache, I should perhaps just sum it up thus: either dictionaries could do with radically expanding their treatment of meaning and coming full circle basic-advanced-back to basic (rather than "progressing" ever onwards into advanced literary realms), or they could do with cutting a lot out; as it is they include a lot that we either know or can already surmise (e.g. we all know what a dog is - to allude to a pet example amoung lexicographers - and can probably understand the metaphor if we know the meaning of all its constituent parts). That being said, I do appreciate what Longman has done, don't get me wrong!

Before I bang on any longer, though, I should take a look at the LDOCE4 entry for "speech", shouldn't I (they are bound to have selected some appropriate examples, collocations etc there)...I would still like to know, however, if anyone thinks examples like the above metaphor really need to be included in dictionaries, where they'll await the unwary student... ...or is it all just valuable input to them? I myself am a bit of a lazy b*****d when it comes to learning languages, and would generally prefer to make the basic words I've sweated over to learn stretch as far as they possibly can, and dream of a teacher who would "map" all the necessary advanced meanings back onto more basic forms for me! Still, this approach can be taken to extremes, though, as seems to have been the case with Basic English (see Carter and McCarthy's comments in their book Vocabulary and Language Teaching).

GOD I am so stupid! I just realized, lovely Lorikeet, that your example was not addressed as a joke to me, but meant to aid Miledgol! Guess I am totally self-centred and egomaniacal, then. Anyway, I was only pulling your leg, hope I didn't scare you off! Come back soon (once you've finished crying), okay?!

Heh I was just trying to figure out how it should be translated No tears here.