[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Alan Balmer]

[0] The language spoken by Americans and others bears only a
superficial resemblance to English, so they're excluded
from these comments.

On the contrary, some of the foulest travesties of the English
language have emanated from the British Isles.

That's only because they got a head start. We're catching up.

 

[Default User]

[snipperino of argumentation]

Joona was refering to people writing "I have a doubt about <whatever
C feature>", when they clearly mean "I have a question about...".

Damn it, I'm the one who started this raging sub-thread. Don't go giving
the credit to Joona.




Brian Rodenborn

 

[Alan Balmer]

whether u like it or not, the zero was invented by an *indian*.

Please use "you", not "u." "U" is a letter of the alphabet, but not an
English word.

The zero was invented by the Babylonians. And the Mayans. And the
Hindus. The Babylonians were probably first.

But it doesn't matter.

 

[Dan Pop]

...and terms like "nope" and "zillion" belong to yet another. Only, of
course, you *do* consider them appropriate here because *you* choose
to use them. You really must learn to distinguish "appropriatness"
from "personal preference".

Let's check the dictionary:

Main Entry: zillion
Function: noun
Etymology: z + -illion (as in million)
Date: 1934
: an indeterminately large number <zillions of mosquitoes>

Main Entry: nope
Function: adverb
Etymology: by alteration
Date: 1888
: NO

No mention of any slang or other strings attached to these words, so
why would they be inappropriate in an informal communication medium like
the Usenet? I can't see where my personal preferences enter into the
picture, so please enlighten me.

Dan

 

[Alan Balmer]

You're just making things up.

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

It was the one phrase which made the entire sentence exaggerated. In
fact, the phrase by itself could not be exaggerated, since it doesn't
mean anything by itself.

 

[CBFalconer]

They? There was _one_ country that developed and _used_ the nuke,
and a lot of people in the western world think they shouldn't

I greatly doubt that you were there when those decisions were
made, and thus that you are in the least able to appreciate the
thinking and atmosphere of the time. As usual, the hindsight is
20-20 or better. I would be quite happy if most of the
applications of fission had never been discovered, but Pandora has
been here.

have. If you resent that some people think all indian people are
the same you should not make the same mistake and think all
westerners are the same.


The people that preach the evil of nuclear weapons are usually
not the same people that invented them, nor the people that
decided that their country should have them.


Well I herby propose taking away Indias nukes. And Pakistan
and Russias, and the US and Frances. And take them from anyone
else that happens to have nukes too.

That won't happen, regardless of its desirability. I find it a
hopeful sign that there has been no further use of nuclear weapons
in the past 60 odd years.

AFAIK the only nations that have had the capability, and rejected
it, are Canada, and later South Africa.

 

[Alan Balmer]

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

In your "dialect" that means "Learn to speak Davidson." See? I'm
learning.

I don't think I'll bother learning much more, though. If u want every1
to agree with u, ud b better off just rapping with ur small local
group of Los Angeleans hu have moved to Alaska, and understand ur
"dialect." Did they move because the other LA d00d5 didn't understand
them any more?

 

[Alan Balmer]

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".

In spite of subsequent statements by the actual author of the
sentence?

It was "obvious" to me at the start that it was intended as hyperbole,
and that intention was later confirmed by the author. I do not think
that you are an authority on what the author "meant to mean."

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Default User <[email protected]> scribbled the following

[snipperino of argumentation]

Joona was refering to people writing "I have a doubt about <whatever
C feature>", when they clearly mean "I have a question about...".

Damn it, I'm the one who started this raging sub-thread. Don't go giving
the credit to Joona.

Damn right Default is the user who started that argument. Myself, I
didn't even know "doubt" should not be used to mean "question".

 

[Alan Balmer]

Last message in thread. Invoking Godwin's Law.

Well done! I hope and believe that Joona actually had no evil
intention, but yours was probably the most enjoyable post in the
thread (not to mention one of the most literate.) Thank you.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

In spite of subsequent statements by the actual author of the
sentence?

Cite please! As far as I can recall, he did confirm exactly
what I said above.

It was "obvious" to me at the start that it was intended as hyperbole,
and that intention was later confirmed by the author. I do not think
that you are an authority on what the author "meant to mean."

Which just confirms what I said, and that you simply don't
understand what "virtally every single" means.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

I don't think I'll bother learning much more, though.

No need to state the obvious.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Damn right Default is the user who started that argument. Myself, I
didn't even know "doubt" should not be used to mean "question".

Every single Fin I've seen post to this thread says the same thing!

Maybe it *is* okay to use "question" to mean "doubt"????

 

[Jeremy Yallop]

Yes, but not by individuals, and over significant lengths of time.

On the contrary, it is individuals who are responsible for the type of
changes to which I refer, which take place over relatively short
periods. The general sense of words is often stable over long
periods, but words gather subtler shades of meaning over time
according to the various contexts in which they are encountered and
used. Where there is shared experience these acquired shades will
also be shared.

One thing is clear: every language-act has a temporal determinant.
No semantic form is timeless. When using a word we wake into
resonance, as it were, its entire previous history. A text is
embedded in specific historical time; it has what linguists call a
diachronic structure. To read fully is to restore all that one can
of the immediacies of value and intent in which speech actually
occurs.
(from "After Babel", George Steiner, ISBN 0-19-288093-4)

That is not an argument for introducing slang such as d00dsp33k into
a technical newsgroup with an international following, most of whom
expect to see English used here.

No, of course it's not. I'm not sure why you seem to think that it
was an attempt at one.

You forget that we have a "standard written English" [...]

I don't forget; I simply don't believe it. I recommend

"Murray, Moore and the Myth"
(in "Linguistic Thought in England 1915-1945")
Roy Harris
ISBN 0-7156-2195-5

which discusses the history of the Oxford English Dictionary, and
begins with the words

"The myth alluded to in the title of this chapter is the myth of
standard English."

Jeremy.

 

[Mike Wahler]

I checked with another (my wife, and she's An Expert) and she agreed
that it meant "most of".

Not without context.

As in the phrase "every single time, you
forget to put the seat down afterwards"

The phrase 'every single' does mean exactly that -- i.e. "none
excluded". Its above usage is known as hyperbole. Usually
recognized via context, but not always [*].

"It always rains immediately after I wash my car."
is obvious hyperbole, but

"I brushed my teeth every morning of my life"
might be, might not.

[*] (one should consider this when listening to a politician. )

-Mike

 

[Mike Wahler]

Did you understand what he said?

If you are an Indian(note the capital I that denoted national pride
and good english) then you will never understand this.

Please accompany your pride with respect, and capitalize
the word "English" as well.

-Mike

 

[Morris Dovey]

In the given context, I would say "was", based on the expansion "If
(the English language) was less perverse." Should it really be "were"?
Why?

Yes. Because it's subjunctive mood indicating supposition,
hypothesis, possibility, or desire rather than fact.

HTH

 

[Morris Dovey]

Describe how it is an error.

"Good" (as a modifier) is an adjective; while "well" (as a
modifier) is an adverb.

If you want to modify "do", "well" is correct.

HTH

 

[Floyd Davidson]

"Good" (as a modifier) is an adjective; while "well" (as a
modifier) is an adverb.

If you want to modify "do", "well" is correct.

Why don't you people do a little research before posting things
like this?

good adv. well, completely, fully, etc..

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

In spite of subsequent statements by the actual author of the
sentence?

It was "obvious" to me at the start that it was intended as hyperbole,
and that intention was later confirmed by the author. I do not think
that you are an authority on what the author "meant to mean."

I see this has already been pointed out by Floyd, but it is really
the case that "virtually X" is equivalent to "almost X," as opposed
to "literally X," which is what you seem to have thought. "Virtual
reality" is not "actual reality." ;-)

-Arthur