Hank vs Clutter - What's the difference?
hank | clutter |
.
(archaic) A diminutive of the given name Hankin (a medieval form of John).
A confused disordered jumble of things.
* L'Estrange
*{{quote-magazine, year=2013, month=May-June, author=
, title= (obsolete) Clatter; confused noise.
Background echos, from clouds etc., on a radar or sonar screen.
(countable) A group of cats;
* 2008 , John Robert Colombo, The Big Book of Canadian Ghost Stories , Introduction
To fill something with .
*{{quote-magazine, title=No hiding place
, date=2013-05-25, volume=407, issue=8837, page=74, magazine=(The Economist)
(obsolete) To clot or coagulate, like blood.
To make a confused noise; to bustle.
* Tennyson
In obsolete|lang=en terms the difference between hank and clutter
is that hank is (obsolete) hold; influence while clutter is (obsolete) clatter; confused noise.As nouns the difference between hank and clutter
is that hank is a coil or loop of something, especially twine, yarn, or rope while clutter is a confused disordered jumble of things.As verbs the difference between hank and clutter
is that hank is to form into hanks while clutter is to fill something with.hank
English
Proper noun
(s)Anagrams
* * English diminutives of male given namesclutter
English
Noun
(-)- He saw what a clutter there was with huge, overgrown pots, pans, and spits.
William E. Conner
An Acoustic Arms Race, volume=101, issue=3, page=206-7, magazine=(American Scientist) , passage=Nonetheless, some insect prey take advantage of clutter' by hiding in it. Earless ghost swift moths become “invisible” to echolocating bats by forming mating clusters close (less than half a meter) above vegetation and effectively blending into the ' clutter of echoes that the bat receives from the leaves and stems around them.}}
- (Jonathan Swift)
- Organizing ghost stories is like herding a clutter of cats: the phenomenon resists organization and classification.
Derived terms
* surface clutter * volume clutterVerb
(en verb)citation, passage=In America alone, people spent $170 billion on “direct marketing”—junk mail of both the physical and electronic varieties—last year. Yet of those who received unsolicited adverts through the post, only 3% bought anything as a result. If the bumf arrived electronically, the take-up rate was 0.1%. And for online adverts the “conversion” into sales was a minuscule 0.01%. That means about $165 billion was spent not on drumming up business, but on annoying people, creating landfill and cluttering spam filters.}}
- (Holland)
- It [the goose] cluttered here, it chuckled there.