Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !

[Gene Heskett]

still no chance of bumming a fag then?

Chuckle... Haven't heard that expression since the late '50's. Haven't
even carried a pack since '89.

Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

The duration of passion is proportionate with the original resistance
of the woman.
-- Honor'e DeBalzac
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
law-abiding citizens.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 26-11-13 15:37, Roy Smith schreef:

We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that
annoying unicode stuff). When you say, "effort to be understandable",
what you're really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".

Are you sure? I certainly hope not. That would be horrible!

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Or maybe fortunately, since
variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes life
interesting.

So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?

Keep in mind, there's a lot of native Mandarin speakers who are
wondering why they need to bother learning English at all.

So what is your point? Do you think they can just come and ask
there questions here in Mandarin or do you expect them to do
an effort to be understandable in english?

 

[Tim Delaney]

So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?

1. No, because this is stated to be an English-speaking list/newsgroup. It
just doesn't specify what dialect of English.

2. If you suspect that the literal translation could be misunderstood or
insulting, then I would expect you to make an effort to find a better
translation. If someone I didn't know posted it, I'd be willing to give
them leeway if the rest of their message indicated that they are used to
another dialect or language. If *you* posted it, I'd probably assume you
meant it, because I know your command of the english language is pretty
extensive ...

Participants are expected to attempt to be understandable in English, but I
personally expect responders to make an effort to work with multiple
dialects. If you're too unfamiliar with a dialect that you cannot respond,
either don't respond, or respond saying something like "I think I can help
here, but I'm confused about <unfamiliar phrase> - could you or someone
else clarify please?"

And if an unfamiliar dialect annoys you, killfile the person. No skin off
my nose.

Tim Delaney

 

[Rick Johnson]

Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
beneficial to ones understanding of the world.

However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
chastising the people who are complaining about the
offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.

Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
variation of English, you fail to realize that this
"regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
mean what the *majority* of English speaking world
understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
his region.

It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:

My curflabals are:
1. blah
2. blah
...

My boygenjoygens are:
1. blah
2. blah
...

In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
author is trying to tell us.

So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
*specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
(inquisitiveness).

HOWEVER,

When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
but his request is the result of an internal emotional
distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.

HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.

Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.

But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...

========================================================================================================================

That sword can cut both ways friend.

But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
objective point of view.

Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
"doubt" should mean.

Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
impartial?

"We shall consult the oracle!"

In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
peck into a keyboard.

Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.

Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
problem for us, eh?

============================================================
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
============================================================
Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!

============================================================
The reality, if you choose to believe it:
============================================================
But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?

============================================================
The result, if you choose to fight it.
============================================================
"Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
"Rick has done it again!"
"A new home-run record!"

That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all
learn to avoid. I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a
rough prototype, but when I started communicating
internationally more, I consciously started saying
"knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain
groups of people

What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
sophistry!

 

[Ned Batchelder]

Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
beneficial to ones understanding of the world.

However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
chastising the people who are complaining about the
offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.

Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
variation of English, you fail to realize that this
"regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
mean what the *majority* of English speaking world
understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
his region.

It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:

My curflabals are:
1. blah
2. blah
...

My boygenjoygens are:
1. blah
2. blah
...

In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
author is trying to tell us.

So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
*specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
(inquisitiveness).

HOWEVER,

When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
but his request is the result of an internal emotional
distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.

HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.

Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.

But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...

============================================================
============================================================

That sword can cut both ways friend.

But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
objective point of view.

Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
"doubt" should mean.

Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
impartial?

"We shall consult the oracle!"

In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
peck into a keyboard.

Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.

Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
problem for us, eh?

============================================================
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
============================================================
Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!

============================================================
The reality, if you choose to believe it:
============================================================
But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?

============================================================
The result, if you choose to fight it.
============================================================
"Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
"Rick has done it again!"
"A new home-run record!"


What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
sophistry!

Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are
advocating. The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way
that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is
from. What is it you want us to do?

Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that? You
learned something about another part of the world, and the OP gets an
answer to his question. If you like, you can also point out to him that
the more usual word "question" might be more widely understood.
Win/win/win.

And will you be here to explain to time-travelling Shakespeare why we
are all of us speaking English completely wrong (to his ears)?

--Ned.

 

[Rick Johnson]

Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are
advocating. The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way
that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is
from. What is it you want us to do?
Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that?

Hello again Ned. I now understand why you're confused.
Please allow me to explain.

First of all, none of my responses have been directed at
the OP.

Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose
ubiquitous definitions *over* regional definitions when
posting to internet forums, i would have happily ignored
this thread had it not been for Stevens emotional plea of:

"As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic]
us all to make allowances for slight difference in
dialect."

I take *strong* exception with such "emotional reasoning".

"Why Rick, because you don't care about people's feelings?"

No, because, believe it or not, i don't enjoy hurting anyone's
feelings, however, i will *NEVER* hesitate to sacrifice
"warm fuzzy" feelings at the alters of logic, reason, or
consistency.

Emotion is a gift from the gods, but it can also be a curse!
We cannot allow ourselves to be driven by pure emotion.
Emotion must *always* take a backseat to reason.

============================================================
Pop Quiz
============================================================
Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a
cute little squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your
lane, stands on his hind legs, and looks at you nervously...
You know you don't have much time to act, but you realize
you have only two choices:

1. You could attempt to avoid the squirrel by making
hasty maneuvers and in the process risk your life or
even the lives of innocent motorist/by-standards, or

2. quickly realizing that the forward momentum of
your large vehicle will not be noticeably affected
by the deflection of a small forest dwelling
creature (thanks Newton!), you could simply maintain
a steady course and accept that the squirrel's life,
or death, is in *his* hand -- or at minimum, a matter
of fate.

Now, anyone who would choose "choice 1" is operating
*purely* on emotion and is in fact a danger to themselves
and society. Sure, caring about fellow living organisms is a
noble cause, but the killing of innocents and destruction
of property is NO justification for saving one single
squirrel.

Even though "choice 2" seems to be a heartless choice, it is
not. The logical man realizes that one way or another the
result of either choice was doomed to a *strong* possibility
of destruction, and as such, he correctly choose to follow
the path of *least* destruction.

============================================================
THE POINT IS:
============================================================
There are many events in reality that are beyond our
control, but there is one thing that we can *ALWAYS*
control, and that thing is our rationality; our logic; our
*REASON*. And as such, we must *never* invent rules that
*forsake* any of these basic mental survival *necessities*.

I know, i know. You can't *feel* reason in the physical
manner that you can *feel* emotion. Yes, yes. Emotion is a
*visceral* experience -- i get it! But "emotion" is the
hasty tool of those who *lack* strong reasoning skills!

But don't be sad if your reasoning skills are not fine
tuned, NO. If you find yourself too often grasping for that
"infantile faculty" of reasoning that we call "emotion",
that's just a clue that you need to spend more time
practicing.

"Carnegie hall and, well, all that jazz"

And will you be here to explain to time-travelling
Shakespeare why we are all of us speaking English
completely wrong (to his ears)?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Shakespeare was probably a
very intelligent man, and even IF he was strongly bonded to
his emotional being, i would wager that he could be taught
to "google", and in a very short time, be a 21st century man
watching free porn all day. If not, well, then he could
always move to LA and become a screenwriter -- lord knows
they could use some help!

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional variation of
English, you fail to realize that this "regional redefinition" of the
English word: "doubts" to mean what the *majority* of English speaking
world understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of his
region.

"Fail to realize"? What regional redefinition of "realise" is that? How
do you justify using that regional variation outside of your region?

It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never been defined,
NO, his region has redefined a widely understood word. [...]
In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word is fine,
because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we will *instantly* know
that we need to find a definition for the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully*
comprehend what the author is trying to tell us.

I completely sniglim with what you are saying. I'd go further and state
that, without exception, your argument is the most vumtigious I've ever
seen, and if there were any justice in the world, people would follow you
down the street shouting "Gedus! Gedus!" and giving you a keddener. If
anyone deserves it, it is you.


[...]

When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated listing, we
falsely believe the lad

"The lad"? Well, I suppose that's a step up from calling men twice your
age "boy", but not much.

is confused or has some level of concern.

Whereas when somebody says they have a question, we immediately assume
that they are not confused, and have no concern at all.


[...]

Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question" and
"doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.

Now Rick, I know that you're a speaker of a regional variation of
English, so you might not be familiar with the standard meanings of the
word "doubt" in English, including:

3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured
me by answering my doubts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doubt


It is without doubt that "question" and "doubt" are synonyms, or perhaps
I should say that it is without question that "doubt" and "question" are
synonyms.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/doubt

Of course, if you have any doubts about this, feel free to ask, we're
happy to answer all reasonable questions.


[...]

"A new home-run record!"

What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run.
Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose ubiquitous
definitions *over* regional definitions when posting to internet forums,
i would have happily ignored this thread had it not been for Stevens
emotional plea of:

"As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic] us all to make
allowances for slight difference in dialect."

Please don't mislabel my correctly spelt words with "sic" just because
your regional variation of the Queens English uses a different spelling.

============================================================
Pop Quiz
============================================================
Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a cute little

"Your" driving?

squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your lane, stands on his hind
legs, and looks at you nervously... You know you don't have much time to
act, but you realize you have only two choices:

1. You could attempt to avoid the squirrel by making hasty maneuvers
and in the process risk your life or even the lives of innocent
motorist/by-standards, or

Of course, because being introduced to regional idiomatic phrases KILLS!!!

 

[Chris Angelico]

I completely sniglim with what you are saying. I'd go further and state
that, without exception, your argument is the most vumtigious I've ever
seen, and if there were any justice in the world, people would follow you
down the street shouting "Gedus! Gedus!" and giving you a keddener. If
anyone deserves it, it is you.

I would go look some of those up, but I'm on kitchen duty today and
it's nearly brillig. In lieu of comprehension, I will just have to
glark your meaning from context.

ChrisA
firmly believing that Steven has good precedent for what he did there

 

[Chris Angelico]

Pop Quiz
============================================================
Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a cute little
squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your lane, stands on his hind
legs, and looks at you nervously... You know you don't have much time to
act, but you realize you have only two choices:

Of course, because being introduced to regional idiomatic phrases KILLS!!!

Actually, there's a third choice. You ram the squirrel dead[1] centre,
because you are a dog and you find the death of squirrels to be
funny.[2]

ChrisA

[1] Yes, I went there.
[2] cf "Up"

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 26-11-13 22:42, Tim Delaney schreef:

On 27 November 2013 03:57, Antoon Pardon <[email protected]


So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?


1. No, because this is stated to be an English-speaking list/newsgroup.
It just doesn't specify what dialect of English.

Well so much for this group being an international group with only one
language allowed.

However that second sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Modern
languages contain a subset that is called the standard language. This
is the subset that is generally taught. Especially to those for whom
the language is foreign. So when you define a specific language to
use on an international forum, it is strongly suggested that people
limit themselves to the standard subset and don't use dialects since
"dialect" AFAIU means it is outside this standard.

Yes I accept that everyone deviates from this standard language and that
it isn't always easy to know what is and what is not within the standard
language and that we should allow each other some leeway. However there
is a difference between saying standard usage is something to aspire to
and then be tolerant for deviations on the one hand and saying any
dialect is allowed on the other hand.

So this being an international forum in which for a significant number
of members english is not their first language, I think it would be
prudent for those who have englisch as a mother tongue, to try and
stick to standard english, so as not to burden the first group even
more.

Doing otherwise IMO doesn't show much respect for that first group, from
whom is expected they adapt to a (for them) foreign language and then to
learn that those for which english is their mother tongue don't feel an
obligation to be helpful by limiting themselves to that part of the
language that is most likely to be understood by the first group.

Participants are expected to attempt to be understandable in English,
but I personally expect responders to make an effort to work with
multiple dialects.

Why do you expect from people who already had to learn a foreign
language to familiarize themselves with dialects. The variations
within the standard are already plentyful enough, that you shouldn't
burden these peoples with dialects too.

You seem to suggest that we can hardly expect from people for whom
english is their mother tongue to do a serious effort in making
themselves understandable to others by trying to express themselves
in standard english.

And that in what is accepted to be an international forum so in which
we can expect a significant number of people for whom english is not
their mother tongue.

 

[Chris Angelico]

However that second sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Modern
languages contain a subset that is called the standard language. This
is the subset that is generally taught. Especially to those for whom
the language is foreign. So when you define a specific language to
use on an international forum, it is strongly suggested that people
limit themselves to the standard subset and don't use dialects since
"dialect" AFAIU means it is outside this standard.

Do you mean standard British English, standard American English,
standard Australian English, or some other?

ChrisA

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 27-11-13 09:19, Chris Angelico schreef:

Do you mean standard British English, standard American English,
standard Australian English, or some other?

Does that significantly matter or are you just looking for details
you can use to disagree? As far as I understand the overlap between
standard British English and standard American English is so large
that it doesn't really matter for those who had to learn the language.
Likewise for the overlap with standard Australian English.

 

[Chris Angelico]

Op 27-11-13 09:19, Chris Angelico schreef:

Does that significantly matter or are you just looking for details
you can use to disagree? As far as I understand the overlap between
standard British English and standard American English is so large
that it doesn't really matter for those who had to learn the language.
Likewise for the overlap with standard Australian English.

It matters hugely when your point depends on their being a single
"standard English". The overlap may be large, but all you've done is
either change the terms without solving the problem (because there are
still multiple language variants being used) or create a new language
(the common subset of English across all usages, which is an
impossible target to aim for).

ChrisA

 

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 27-11-13 09:36, Chris Angelico schreef:

It matters hugely when your point depends on their being a single
"standard English". The overlap may be large, but all you've done is
either change the terms without solving the problem (because there are
still multiple language variants being used) or create a new language
(the common subset of English across all usages, which is an
impossible target to aim for).

You are nitpicking. I didn't say nor implied their is a perfect
solution. However that there is no perfect solution doesn't imply
we can't expect some effort from those with english as a mother
tongue to search for ways in which to express themselves that are
more likely to be understood by those who had to learn english
as a foreign language than just to use their local idiom/dialect.

I think that is basic respect for those who had to learn the language.

 

[rusi]

On 11/26/13 8:26 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:

And will you be here to explain to time-travelling Shakespeare why we
are all of us speaking English completely wrong (to his ears)?

And to my (Indian!!) ears when Tim says 'plank in the eye' where King James
says 'beam' it does not cut it.

Propositionally: Its a distinction without a difference
Poetically: Well its subjective... to me its a real difference

Likewise in programming:
Propositionally: All languages are equal -- Turing complete -- and people
discussing/inventing new ones are just wasting their and others' time

Poetically: Like all artistic questions this is not settle-able once
and for all and I must preface the following with an "I find that..."
C is artistic in a very different way from Python and assembly
and Haskell. And C++ is frighteningly unartistic

It is my impression that the arguments that happen in/around programming languages are more-heat-less-light than in typical art/science because artistic

 

[rusi]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:02:54 PM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:

[Last line cut-off by mistake!]

 

[rusi]

[...]
"A new home-run record!"

What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run.
Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?

Six!

[If you are Brit/Aussie/Indian, you'd get that
If not you probably dont
If not and you do then you are a true cosmopolite
]

 

[Jussi Piitulainen]

Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose ubiquitous
definitions *over* regional definitions when posting to internet
forums, i would have happily ignored this thread had it not been
for Stevens emotional plea of:

"As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic] us all to
make allowances for slight difference in dialect."

Please don't mislabel my correctly spelt words with "sic" just
because your regional variation of the Queens English uses a
different spelling.

Don't you know POTUS's Kenyan? [/joke]

(Well done about "behove". I knew the word is FORMAL[*] but I had no
idea that the variant spelling I knew was a regionalism. "Queen's",
though.

[*] Not shouting. Imitating the small caps that COBUILD uses for such
labels.

 

[Chris Angelico]

[...]
"A new home-run record!"

What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run.
Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?

Six!

[If you are Brit/Aussie/Indian, you'd get that
If not you probably dont
If not and you do then you are a true cosmopolite
]

That's better than "Six and out, and go find it", which is what
happens if you put it over a fence or in any inaccessible place.

ChrisA