[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Richard Heathfield]

I checked with another (my wife, and she's An Expert) and she agreed
that it meant "most of". As in the phrase "every single time, you
forget to put the seat down afterwards"

I am astonished. I have, in the past, told my children to "when you buy
something in a shop, remember to pay for it *before* you take it out of the
shop, every single time". I would not be impressed by a defence of "but
Daddy, when you said 'every single time', I thought you meant 'most of the
time'".

 

[Floyd Davidson]

The sentence, as a whole, was exaggerated (using hyperbole).
Not any other particular part.

You're just making things up.

In fact, "every single" was the one, and the only, thing
exaggerated in that sentence.

Why is it that *every single* Indian C programmer
I have seen on this newsgroup writes "u" for "you"?

That was made rather clear too, by the added emphasis.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

I am astonished. I have, in the past, told my children to "when you buy
something in a shop, remember to pay for it *before* you take it out of the
shop, every single time". I would not be impressed by a defence of "but
Daddy, when you said 'every single time', I thought you meant 'most of the
time'".

"But Daddy, I used your credit card. It's the same as paying
for it, isn't it?"

 

[Richard Heathfield]

"But Daddy, I used your credit card. It's the same as paying
for it, isn't it?"

In their dreams.

Seriously, I cannot accept that "every single time" means "much of the time"
every single time. I can certainly accept that it /might/ be intended to be
an exaggeration of "much of the time", much of the time.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

They have slightly different connotations of the same meaning.

Frankly you're wrong, at least in English, and all the dictionaries
agree, including the american ones. What they may think in West Coast
slang is another matter, but that doesn't make it correct english.

Regardless, you've now heard from more than a couple of people
who say it *is* used that way by English speakers.

People also say "I should of done that", and "him and me went to the
cinema". That also doesn't make it correct english.

For example I question that Leed United will win ...

expresses *precisely* the same sentiments.

Not precisely, no. For you it might have, but thats I'm afraid because
your english is flawed, not because you're right.

Anyway who cares? this thread has done it to death.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Look it up in a dictionary and learn something about the
language you use! You may not like the dialectical differences
between the way I speak English and they way you do, but that
doesn't make the above sentence a "misuse".

You can't say "you do very good" you idiot.

You've merely illustrated a narrow exposure on your part.

No, you've illustrated an ignorance of english on your part.

When people *use* the language, they define it. Not the other way
around.

Nope.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I see, your dialect is better than mine.

Well, I do speak English. You seem to speak a pidgin of some sort.

But Mark, I have a doubt... about that statement and your
objectivity,

You misbelieve/mistrust the statement and my objectivity, I presume. I
have no doubt at all that I'm totally subjective.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You're just making things up.

In fact, "every single" was the one, and the only, thing
exaggerated in that sentence.

Just FYI, "every single" isn't a thing. Its a couple of prepositions
which, by themselves, cannot be hyperbole. To be hyperbole they have
to be part of a phrase or sentence. In this case, as simon says, the
entire sentence is hyperbole

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Ha, you've not been shopping with a baby recently. A bit like going
shopping with a wheeled kleptomaniac with a drool fetish and arms the
length of an octopus.

"But Daddy, I used your credit card. It's the same as paying
for it, isn't it?"

Oh, then they /really/ pay for it !

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

I have a doubt with these two lines of C.
I have a question with these two lines of C.
I have a problem with these two lines of C.

Only the last one suggests the lines of C are okay and the
uncertainty is only in the mind of the speaker.

However the first two illustrate sloppy confusion of the words
"with" and "about". This same sloppiness often shows up in the
usage of "good" and "well", "fast" and "quickly", "slow" and
"slowly", "me" and "I", etc.

There are considerable redundancies built into English, which tend
to clarify and also point out non-parsable phrases. The same
applies to the C language, except that the immediate opprobrium
evinced by the compiler tends to reduce the spread of maluse.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

You can't say "you do very good" you idiot.

Stuff it Mark, you aren't doing very good at all.

No, you've illustrated an ignorance of english on your part.


Nope.

So you speak the same English that people did 1000 years ago?
Or 500, or 100, or whatever... and it what is "right" hasn't
moved.

Mark, stop being a total idiot.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Just FYI, "every single" isn't a thing.

Learn to speak English, and come back when you don't make
statements like that.

Its a couple of prepositions

I don't see what is being possessed by "It" in that sentence.

which, by themselves, cannot be hyperbole. To be hyperbole they have
to be part of a phrase or sentence. In this case, as simon says, the
entire sentence is hyperbole

So those two words are not part of the sentence they are in?

Mark, you are making things up and you don't have a clue as to
what you are talking about.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

In their dreams.

Well, *you* use a charge account! Can't they do it too.
"No payments until next year..."

Seriously, I cannot accept that "every single time" means "much of the time"
every single time. I can certainly accept that it /might/ be intended to be
an exaggeration of "much of the time", much of the time.

Unfortunately, body language and voice inflection are not
imparted well with ascii, and that is what usually tells someone
just exactly how much hyperbole is implied.

I think it was fairly obvious that the use of "every single" in
the sentence that started this discussion was indeed quite
clearly meant to mean "virtually every single".

But your point does express exactly why lawyers use legalese in
contracts... interpretation doesn't depend on dialects,
dictionaries, and what have you. It means whatever the courts
have said it means!

 

[Floyd Davidson]

However the first two illustrate sloppy confusion of the words
"with" and "about".

Not that there is no difference, or that the one doesn't result
in an awkward statement in the first sentence above, but the
point of using that particular construction was to prevent you
from claiming that the sentences were otherwise not identical
and thus the meaning of each word was not precisely identical.
Sounds extreme, but you've just pointed out that is exactly how
silly you are willing to be.

The awkwardness of the sentence construction is not the point,
the point is that the words are *clearly* communicating the same
meaning. Arguing sentence construction of the example is like
arguing about which font it is displayed in!

It is simply absurd to claim that a common usage in the language
is not "proper". The language evolves with time as common usage
changes, and any "authority" is only as authoritative as it is
up to date with what the actual usage is.

Whatever else you might want to say, clearly from the discussion
presented here by several people, the use of "doubt" and
"question" as synonyms is common enough to *define* them as
synonyms.

This same sloppiness often shows up in the
usage of "good" and "well", "fast" and "quickly", "slow" and
"slowly", "me" and "I", etc.

If, for example, you look up "good" and "well" in a dictionary,
you'll find you are absolutely wrong.

good adv. well, completely, fully, ... colloquial.

It clearly is acceptable in some dialects or as colloquial usage
and you are wrong to claim it is "sloppiness".

The idea that colloquial use on Usenet is sloppy is just
ludicrous.

There are considerable redundancies built into English, which tend
to clarify and also point out non-parsable phrases.

Redundancies point out "non-parsable phrases"??? Redundancies
in English tend to prevent non-parsable phrases.

The same
applies to the C language, except that the immediate opprobrium
evinced by the compiler tends to reduce the spread of maluse.

If you think a compiler evinces opprobrium, I can see why you
are having such difficulty distinguishing between formality and
correctness in the proper use of English.

I hadn't put my finger on exactly what it is that causes this
division between what people claim is proper or not, until you
came up with that impressive bit of a self describing
pronouncement. I have been talking about what is *proper*
English. You and Mark and maybe others are confusing *formal*
with what is proper. They are not the same. Just because it
isn't formal doesn't mean it isn't correct.

 

[Mike Wahler]

You obviously can use 'u' for 'you' if you want to, but I suggest
you think a little more about your first statement above. I'd be
very surprised if the recipient's understanding is all that matters
to you really.

For example: I can read and understand postings that use 'u' for
'you'. However, I find them a lot harder to read, and that
irritates me. That makes me much less likely to bother to respond
to them, and less likely to be as helpful as I could be if I do.
If you're posting a question here, I guess that you want an answer.
Deliberately choosing to post in a way that irritates readers and
makes them less likely to reply is not a good way to get answers.

Is clarity important?


Q: ima noob hear, how do u splay stuff on th srn?

A: rite lik ths:

lb.clude 'std.h'

in mane[]
{
prf(hola mundo).
ret O:
)

then pile it by clk F7, ur puter sez wot u rote.

- Mic

 

[Mike Wahler]

But "having a doubt about" isn't synonymous to "having a question
about", is it? It's more like "feeling uncertain about", like in
[literally quoted from a dictionary]:

When in doubt about the meaning of a word, consult a dictionary.

or "question the truth of", like in:

I have a doubt about the standard conformance of 'void main(...)'.

However, I doubt that this thread is on-topic. No doubt that
some/most people will agree with me on that. Doubtlessly that's
the reason for the "[OT]" attribute in the subject line.

And what was my C doubt? =:-0

Each spring, before planting my garden, I get
the C doubt.

-Mike

 

[Mike Wahler]

Interesting comment, given that I've demonstrated it in *three*
different contexts (including the one you've chosen to insist it
must be).

Engage that touted brain, Dan. If you have more doubts, I'll
be happy to

continuing trying

continue trying

or

continue to try

to answer them, but *you* have
to _think_.

I think I love irony.

-Mike

 

[Mike Wahler]

For example I question that Leed United will win ...

This is certainly incorrect grammar. Your verb (question)
has no object (noun).

"I question the assertion that Leed United will win."

"I question the notion that Leed United will win."

etc.

expresses *precisely* the same sentiments.

My sentiment is that I find it ironic when someone
uses incorrect English to correct someone else's English.

I neither doubt nor question the amusement value I have
derived from this thread.

-Mike

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark, stop being a total idiot.

Floyd; Mark;

Neither of you is an idiot. Please stop demeaning yourselves by pretending
otherwise. Both of you.

Thank you.

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Each spring, before planting my garden, I get
the C doubt.

Took me almost one minute to figure E doubt. Nice one.