[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Dik T. Winter]

....
> 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?

Grammar. "Was" is past tense, but past tense is not intended here. But
most do not look much at grammar... In Dutch we have exactly the same
difference: "was" and "ware". But the latter has died out because of
non-use.

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

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

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

The problem with that collection of six words is that it's
not taken from a reputable source of information on the English
language (e.g., a dictionary, textbook, or style manual). A
quick trip to "www.google.com" reinforces Morris'[0] statements.
It would be worth noting, if it weren't terribly off-topic,
that the comparative of "good" is *also* the comparative of "well",
and likewise as to the superlative--

You did well on the test.
He did better.
She did best.

-Arthur


[0]- Let's not get into the proper "apostrophization" of possessives
of proper names ending in "s". I don't believe there is any
popular consensus on that issue at all, nor do I care.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> gokrix wrote:
>
>
> Well, here is something else, besides zero, which originated in India. I
> like it and am adding it to my vocabulary. Thanks, gokrix.

Overhere the word has a meaning. It is a slang term for "testicle",
derived from older meanings. The older meaning is still present in the
sport "kloot schieten" (shoot at kloten), where kloot simply means ball.
But in most cases the word has pejorative connotations. Like "deze
film is klote" (this films is baaaaaad). (No, we do not have regulations
similar to FCC about words that can not be uttered on television...)

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> The zero was invented by the Babylonians.

In part. Given a0b, it could be a0b, a00b, a000b, a0b0, a0b00, and so on.

> And the Mayans. And the
> Hindus. The Babylonians were probably first.

Tha Hindus and the Mayans used it purely positional (in *all* positions);
the Babylonians did not.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> 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.

I am close. At that point of time the "western world" consisted of the
USA, the UK, Canada and (strange enough) the SU, apart from some
undercurrent movements in other parts of Europe. It is well known
that Japan was on the point of surrender when the bombs fell. The
bombs merely increased the speed. As far as I know, it was the US
that decided to drop the bomb without consultancy.

> As usual, the hindsight is
> 20-20 or better.

As usual, this ideom is completely lost on somebody non-American. At
least, I do not understand it.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

The problem with that collection of six words is that it's
not taken from a reputable source of information on the English
language (e.g., a dictionary, textbook, or style manual). A

Why don't *you*, specifically, take the time to research this
type of thing before making /absurdly/ false statements?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

I believe the Merriam-Webster online dictionary qualifies as
a "reputable source of information on the English language".
If not, I'm sure we can find a few others that say the same
thing.

Seems they take an only slightly veiled shot at snobbery too!

I've only looked this up in two dictionaries. First I looked
in the printed dictionary I have next to me, and that was what
I relied on to make the previous several posts regarding this
particular bogus claim about the above sentence not being grammatical.

What is fun though, is that I found it even *better* described
in the first online dictionary that I looked at. I've politely
asked 2 or 3 times previous to this particular article that
those who don't think the sentence in question is not correct
English should look it up in a dictionary. Is there some reason
you are unable to accomplish that?

quick trip to "www.google.com" reinforces Morris'[0] statements.

Why not try a dictionary rather than a web search engine. What
did you do, click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button, and weren't?

It would be worth noting, if it weren't terribly off-topic,
that the comparative of "good" is *also* the comparative of "well",
and likewise as to the superlative--

You did well on the test.
He did better.
She did best.

Is this supposed to obfuscate the errors you made above?

-Arthur


[0]- Let's not get into the proper "apostrophization" of possessives
of proper names ending in "s". I don't believe there is any
popular consensus on that issue at all, nor do I care.

So why bring it up?

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

Why don't *you*, specifically, take the time to research this
type of thing before making /absurdly/ false statements?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

No arguments in request

(Trying again with http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?good,
I get a page claiming "32 entries found for _good_". Taking the
adverbial "good", item 3 in the list, I find

Main Entry: 3good
Function: adverb
Date: 13th century
1 : WELL <he showed me how good I was doing -- Herbert Gold>
2 -- used as an intensive <a good 200 pounds> <a good long time>
usage Adverbial good has been under attack from the schoolroom since the
19th century. Insistence on well rather than good has resulted in a split
in connotation: well is standard, neutral, and colorless, while good is
emotionally charged and emphatic. This makes good the adverb of choice in
sports <"I'm seeing the ball real good" is what you hear -- Roger Angell>.
In such contexts as <listen up. And listen good -- Alex Karras> <lets fly
with his tomatoes before they can flee. He gets Clarence good -- Charles
Dickinson> good cannot be adequately replaced by well. Adverbial good is
primarily a spoken form; in writing it occurs in reported and fictional
speech and in generally familiar or informal contexts.


[Note particularly the colloquial connotations of the adverbial
use of "good," and take note also of the last sentence in the M-W
definition.]

I believe the Merriam-Webster online dictionary qualifies as
a "reputable source of information on the English language".
If not, I'm sure we can find a few others that say the same
thing.

Seems they take an only slightly veiled shot at snobbery too!

I'm sure they do. Except it must be veiled pretty good.

I've only looked this up in two dictionaries. First I looked
in the printed dictionary I have next to me, and that was what
I relied on [sic] to make the previous several posts regarding this
particular bogus claim about the above sentence [sic] not being
grammatical.

What is fun though, is that I found it even *better* described
in the first online dictionary that I looked at. I've politely
asked 2 or 3 times previous to this particular article that
those who don't think the sentence in question is not correct
English [sic] should look it up in a dictionary. Is there some
reason you are unable to accomplish that?

Done and done. Twice.

quick trip to "www.google.com" reinforces Morris'[0] statements.

Why not try a dictionary rather than a web search engine. [sic]
What did you do, click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button, and weren't?

Of course not! Ever tried clicking on the link to the dictionary
entries? Google, through Dictionary.com, shows "14 entries found for
/good/."
Although it is also possible to falsify your claim by a quick
Google *search* for the words

on the Web. Obviously, Google Web Search finds no results for that
(quoted) phrase, even removing the commentary "etc.." from the end.
It's also worth noting that IE's text-search box can't find the
word "completely" anywhere on this page:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=good

and only once, in the context of "For good and all," on this
page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good&r=67


-Arthur
[Please observe followups]

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

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.

Please read <http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/~harsham/zero/ZERO.HTM>
IIRC, it seems to be updated after my rant at sci.math

But it doesn't matter.

Not much of course. But, for me, it is *wrong* to tell that
someone else other than DMR is the creator of C

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Ah, I didn't think about that.

How knowledgable are the people that run the web cafe? They could possibly
set up using a solution with a linux machine running leafnode and user
accounts for regulars. That way the shop will have less traffic which will
save them money (unless they have some kind of unmetered connection).
Since they save money they can reduce the cost to the customer so you get
more reading time for your money. In addition you can use a "real"
newsreader instead of google which can be a competition advantage (if
there are several web cafes in an area).

If you and other regular customers tell them this they might decide do
give it a try, but it does require a little knowhow from the people
running the web cafe.

Thanks for your kindness BTW, the guy is not convinced with the
idea about Linux leafnode. According to him, people who use Usenet is
very less as compared to the people who use emails; and also people
like Windows is more than whom like Linux.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your thoughts.

--
"US got a nuclear bomb that can destroy the world 13 times. Russia
got a nuclear bomb that can destroy the world 7 times. But...my
friend! Tell me! CAN YOU KILL A MAN TWICE??!!!!!" -- P.A.Sangma, Peace
loving Indian politician against India's step to go for a nuclear
test.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

No need to cast aspersions on our English colleagues <g>

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?

The correct phrasing, impervious to criticism, is:

"If the English were less perverse".

 

[Christian Bau]

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

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

I think this is meant to mean:

"good": The matching adverb is "well".

"good" is either an adjective or a noun.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Obviously the above statement is *false*. And, given what this
particular article states, it is exceedingly naive too!

....

1 : WELL <he showed me how good I was doing -- Herbert Gold>
2 -- used as an intensive <a good 200 pounds> <a good long time>
usage Adverbial good has been under attack from the schoolroom since the
19th century. Insistence on well rather than good has resulted in a split
in connotation: well is standard, neutral, and colorless, while good is
emotionally charged and emphatic. This makes good the adverb of choice in
sports <"I'm seeing the ball real good" is what you hear -- Roger Angell>.
In such contexts as <listen up. And listen good -- Alex Karras> <lets fly
with his tomatoes before they can flee. He gets Clarence good -- Charles
Dickinson> good cannot be adequately replaced by well. Adverbial good is
primarily a spoken form; in writing it occurs in reported and fictional
speech and in generally familiar or informal contexts.


[Note particularly the colloquial connotations of the adverbial
use of "good," and take note also of the last sentence in the M-W
definition.]

Indeed. Note the dialectal implications too. It certainly is
appropriate use in a Usenet article!

I'm sure they do. Except it must be veiled pretty good.

Well, since you couldn't find the entry in the first place
without help, what can I say...

I've only looked this up in two dictionaries. First I looked
in the printed dictionary I have next to me, and that was what
I relied on [sic] to make the previous several posts regarding this
particular bogus claim about the above sentence [sic] not being
grammatical.

What is fun though, is that I found it even *better* described
in the first online dictionary that I looked at. I've politely
asked 2 or 3 times previous to this particular article that
those who don't think the sentence in question is not correct
English [sic] should look it up in a dictionary. Is there some

Oh, here we go again with more of these inane claims that
something is poor English because it doesn't fit *your*
particular, odd, dialect.

Stuff it Arthur, it gets old when you put that crap into an
article like this one, where you eat crow from the previous
instance of posting precisely the same type of foolishness
without verifying the correctness of your (soon proven false)
statements.

reason you are unable to accomplish that?

Done and done. Twice.

quick trip to "www.google.com" reinforces Morris'[0] statements.

Why not try a dictionary rather than a web search engine. [sic]

Do you post spelling flames too, are you part of the typo
patrol? I sure hope when you do that your track record is
better than when you make these false grammar claims!

Of course not! Ever tried clicking on the link to the dictionary
entries? Google, through Dictionary.com, shows "14 entries found for
/good/."

Then you would have found that, indeed, "good" can be used as an
adverb. Which invalidates your claim 1) that it can't and 2)
that the sentence where it was used as an adverb was
ungrammatical; or it would if that were indeed what you did.
But rather obviously you didn't, and the next sentence indicates
what you actually did:

Although it is also possible to falsify your claim by a quick
Google *search* for the words


on the Web. Obviously, Google Web Search finds no results for that

And that means what? That it isn't in a dictionary???? (Put smilies
on your jokes, otherwise some folks will take you serious and think
you actually thought that was true.)

The logic you've been using in this exchange is just astounding.

Whatever, the above quoted text comes directly from "Webster's
New World Dictionary, College Edition", 1968, The World
Publishing Company. An excellent dictionary, BTW. I've owned
it for many years now.

(quoted) phrase, even removing the commentary "etc.." from the end.

Actually, it is a precise quote, right down to the two periods
at the end.

It's also worth noting that IE's text-search box can't find the
word "completely" anywhere on this page:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=good

Do you need a definition for "completely" too? Why are you
searching for that word?

and only once, in the context of "For good and all," on this
page:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good&r=67

Can you explain the significance of that, logically?

-Arthur
[Please observe followups]

Why? I don't mind a bit if you will be embarrassed by the
follow-up where others are reading the thread?

 

[CBFalconer]

(e-mail address removed) writes:

.... snip on nuclear bomb decisions ...

I am close. At that point of time the "western world" consisted of
the USA, the UK, Canada and (strange enough) the SU, apart from some
undercurrent movements in other parts of Europe. It is well known
that Japan was on the point of surrender when the bombs fell. The
bombs merely increased the speed. As far as I know, it was the US
that decided to drop the bomb without consultancy.

Error above. If anything experience had shown that Japan would
not surrender. Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa all reinforced this.
The population here was also aware of (and incensed by) such
things as the Corregidor death marches and general maltreatment of
prisoners. The enemy had been dehumanized by 4 years of
propaganda (6 in the rest of the world). The over-riding
consideration was allied lives.

As usual, this ideom is completely lost on somebody non-American. At
least, I do not understand it.

20-20 is a measure of eyesight, and indicates perfection (at least
normalcy). The ability to read at 20 units of distance letters
that one should be able to read at 20 units of distance. The
units are feet here (about 1/3 meter). Net meaning - having seen
the consequences I can now do better.

 

[CBFalconer]

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

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

You are citing the English language equivalent of Schildt. Burn,
baby, burn.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ... .... snip ...

quick trip to "www.google.com" reinforces Morris'[0] statements.

Why not try a dictionary rather than a web search engine. What
did you do, click on the "I'm feeling lucky" button, and weren't?

Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (American, 1994):

good: ......
--usage. 49. In the speech and writing of educated people, good
is rarely encountered as an adverb. _He did well_ (not _good_) _on
the test_. _She sees well_ (not _good_) _with her new glasses_.
Some confusion arises because well can be an adjective too,
meaning "healthy", and is the proper word to use after _feel_: _I
feel well_ (not _good_) _today_.

----- end quote -----

However, the phrase "I feel good" expresses not wellness, but
self-pleasure IMO. It is a truncation of "I feel good about
something".

 

[Richard Bos]

Good grief, you've missed the point that the one word *is* the
entire definition supplied by the dictionary. It is *not* taken
out of context,

Yes, it is. That definition in Webster's is preceded by vt, that is,
transitive verb. Nobody here doubted that "doubt" could be more or less
synonymous with "question" _as a verb_. The problem is with using
"doubt" as a synonym for the _noun_ "question", and that entry does not
condone that particular usage.

Richard

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

the guy is not convinced with the
idea about Linux leafnode. According to him, people who use Usenet is
very less as compared to the people who use emails; and also people like
Windows is more than whom like Linux.

It would require one machine only, for running leafnode. (there are
probaly similar programs for windows but I don't know what they are called
and if they are free like leafnode is) The clients can run on windows and
communicate with leafnode on a linux machine. (but I'd advice against
outlook express as the client)

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Yes, it is. That definition in Webster's is preceded by vt, that is,

Poppy ****, bullshit, and horse feather. Why do you post drivel?

http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson/dict/eat_crow.gif

There's a picture the entry in my dictionary. Are you still
going to claim it doesn't have *precisely* what I quoted?

You simply must get over these self-centric notions that if you
haven't heard of it, or don't find the same results in your
pocket dictionary, then somebody else is mistaken about what they
read in theirs. I have found at least /three/ "Webster's" that
do indeed have it, so the I'm left to ponder your inability to
match those results...

transitive verb. Nobody here doubted that "doubt" could be more or less
synonymous with "question" _as a verb_. The problem is with using
"doubt" as a synonym for the _noun_ "question", and that entry does not
condone that particular usage.

That is total bullshit and you should have been aware of it
before posting. For heavens sakes *look* *it* *up* *in* *a*
*dictionary* before you post. Do I have to take pictures of
every other word we discuss and post it to set you straight?

Regardless, here are a few online dictionaries that all have
some form or another of statement saying that "question" and
"doubt" can be synonyms as nouns. Count them, all 6 of them.

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=question

"The noun "question" has 6 senses in WordNet.
...
4. doubt, dubiousness, doubtfulness, question ..."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861697996

"ques·tion
noun  (plural ques·tions)
...

2. doubt: a doubt or uncertainty about somebody or something:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=64862&dict=CALD

"Definition
question (PROBLEM)   [Show phonetics]
noun
...
2 doubt or uncertainty:
There's no question about (= It is certain) whose fault it is."


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=question*3+0&dict=A

"Definition
question (DOUBT)
[Show phonetics]
noun  
doubt or uncertainty 

http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Question

"Question
(n.) Discussion; debate; hence, objection; dispute; doubt;
as, the story is true beyond question; he obeyed without question.:"

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe//lwu/d?t=&h=&s=f&b=&w=question&pos=n&Syn_ID=3736708&st=synrelX

"1. [n] uncertainty about the truth or factuality of existence
of something; "the dubiousness of his claim"; "there is no
question about the validity of the enterprise".  

Synonyms  
doubt dubiousness doubtfulness "

 

[Mark Gordon]

The correct phrasing, impervious to criticism, is:

"If the English were less perverse".

However, some of us English people enjoy being perverse.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

I think this is meant to mean:

"good": The matching adverb is "well".

I think you are really stretching the limit of credibility.
Just how ridiculous do you want to get? That approaches one of
the most absurd weasel efforts I've ever seen anyone try on
Usenet.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that if they had wanted to
say that, then that *is* what they would have said. They
didn't. Instead, they clearly said that the adverb "good" means
"well, completely, fully, etc.. ..."

"good" is either an adjective or a noun.

As I said, why don't you do the research before posting things
like that. You are simply wrong, and there have already been
quotes from *two* dictionaries showing it can be an adverb
(not to mention an interjection).

Here's a whole list of dictionaries for you to confirm a few
facts with:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?good
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=good&matchtype=exact
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Good
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=good
http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Good
http://www.bartleby.com/
http://www.yourdictionary.com/
http://www.infoplease.com/