[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Anuradha]

We [Indians] opt English as second language. Not like westerners whose
mother tongue is English and still people are [ sizeable number ] who
does not have even communication skills. There is enough room for
North Europeans too.

The original poster was a North European who does not have English as his
mother tongue...

Thanks, for highlighting !!!! Kindly re-read the sentence ;-) i
mentioned even westerners whose mother tongue is English are unable to
communicate in English precisely.

Also there is room for improvement even for North Europeans.....

It would be better to teach others rather than be preachy enough and
blow ones own trumpet....

Sweet flames ahead....

Anu

 

[Anuradha]

We [Indians] opt English as second language. Not like westerners whose
mother tongue is English

Excuse me. My mother tongue is not English, yet I have never even
_considered_ using dw33bsp33k. Not being a native Anglophone is not an
excuse for using spelling which is otherwise being used only by
juveniles.
_Especially_ not when you're as generally clueful as Indian programmers
otherwise aim to be.

Richard

Excused....

So good of you to think rational enough at least while posting here
to say that you never thought of using "dw33bsp33k".

Never did I say "excuse us" rather hit the cord by saying, there is
room for improvement for everyone in this world. Please do not try to
be sarcastic on others unless you are good in almost all the areas in
this life.

Smileys ahead....

 

[Thomas Stegen]

The connotation of each is different, but that subtlety might
well be lost on anyone who speaks English as a second language.

It is not subtle. The two are not interchangeable.

People who have english as their second language often have
a better grasp of grammar and semantics of words than native
speakers (if they have been learning the language for some
time). The reason is that native speakers generally know
very little outside colloquial meanings of words unless these
words happens to have formal meanings in some area the person
has some expertise in.

 

[Debashish Chakravarty]

At the end of it all, I would like to say that I reacted strongly
only because it pertained to a racial aspect. Had you caught me up on
an aspect of C I would have gladly accepted my mistake and gone on.

Someone started an idiotic usenet thread. If you feel angry at what
someone says hit back, do not play the victim. No one is ganging up
against Indians here.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Is that so? Well how should a person react when he gets insulted on
his nationality? I would love to hear your invaluable suggestions.

If someone who I otherwise know to be a sensible chap insults my
nationality, I presume he's either joking or foolish. In this case, I think
Joona was guilty of a little of both.

Nationality and race have been brought to the
centre of attention if you did not notice.

Foolishly, by oversensitive souls who can't see the real issue at stake
here, which is one of communication.

Firstly I'd like to say that I know that you are a well-respected
member of the clc community so if you mean to say "don't" in the group
as a whole, then I'd willingly oblige.

I'm flattered.

I like C, but I know it's of no
use if I have to be a member of the group while facing your animosity.

What animosity? I'm trying to cool you down, not heat you up. You've
over-reacted, so try under-reacting instead.

On the other hand if you meant it as pertaining only to this thread
the para below caters to that.
You are taking this out of context.

The context is simple; some people rather discourteously use "u" instead of
"you", putting a trivial saving (just two characters) at a higher premium
than other people's ease of reading. Joona's observation was accurate in
that respect, at least.

If we all write for ease of reading rather than ease of writing, everyone
will get on a lot better.

<snip>

 

[pandapower]

We [Indians] opt English as second language. Not like westerners whose

mother tongue is English and still people are [ sizeable number ] who
does not have even communication skills. There is enough room for
North Europeans too.

The original poster was a North European who does not have English as his
mother tongue...

The term that "Every Single INDIAN Programmer" uses "u" in place of
"you" is a gross misappropriation of facts and thats the reason for
this flame.So what do you expect us indians to infer other than that
it was a sarcastic remark to derogate all indians(even those who use
correct english).And don't assume that this will in anyway deter the
confidence of indian programmers as the driving forces of today's
technologies.It wont be long enough when you will be seeing the logo
"India inside" (instead of the "Intel inside"),as there will be
indian programmers involved or parts manufactured in india in every
single device.

Its the westeners who have given us "u" , its not indians who have
invented it.Indians have always given things which the world should be
proud of.We have given you 0 which is the basis of all digital
communications today(0's and 1's).It would be wise to correct the root
cause of the problem than pinpointing indians.

And this remark of the gentleman,could elicit a flame from an indian
girl(anuradha in this case) who are admired for their patience, just
goes on to show the deep rooted misconception of the originator of the
post about the usage of the english language of "Every Indian
Programmer".He surely deserves to give a apology unless he is
undeducated and illiterate .

Its always good to admit your wrongs than blaming someone else when
the problem lies somewhere else.

And i request people to take it as a healthy,informal and
light-hearted discussion rather than feeling saddened and accused
which may reflect in normal posts of this group, because most of the
people here are regular posters.



To light it up a bit, the three reasons India is now at the forefront
of technlogical advances(mostly the software industry) :

1.Aryabhatta invented 0, the basis of all digital communications is
0's and 1's.

2.Columbus discovered America.A sizeable part of the foreign exchange
indian earns comes from America.

3.And the British while leaving india,left English behind.


regards

 

[Mark Haigh]

As a gentleman, Im not going to answer that one in the terms you
expect. You won't get the four letter words from me.

I did not and do not expect to recieve any four letter words from you.

All I can say is
that if enough of the seniors say so, fine... I will. It is more your
world... I acknowledge that I'm not old enough to this group and order
is very important.

Order is not all that important. Competence, precision, and
intelligence are valued more highly.

And yes I will not grow a thick enough skin to ever allow my country
to be insulted. That should not be a problem in the Usenet I feel.

Get over it. By responding in this manner you have given people
ammunition. Your oversensitivity reflects negatively on you.

I do not think Joona had too much of hatred in mind when the original
post was done.

Certainly not. It was more of a harmless troll than anything. It
should have set off your internal troll detector.


Mark F. Haigh
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Mark Haigh]

The term that "Every Single INDIAN Programmer" uses "u" in place of
"you" is a gross misappropriation of facts and thats the reason for
this flame.So what do you expect us indians to infer other than that
it was a sarcastic remark to derogate all indians(even those who use
correct english).

It's always September somewhere on the 'net... Does YHBT mean anything
to you?

And don't assume that this will in anyway deter the
confidence of indian programmers as the driving forces of today's
technologies.It wont be long enough when you will be seeing the logo
"India inside" (instead of the "Intel inside"),as there will be
indian programmers involved or parts manufactured in india in every
single device.

Its the westeners who have given us "u" , its not indians who have
invented it.Indians have always given things which the world should be
proud of.We have given you 0 which is the basis of all digital
communications today(0's and 1's).It would be wise to correct the root
cause of the problem than pinpointing indians.

Please refrain from posting your idiotic nationalistic banter to this
newsgroup.

As Forrest Gump put it, "stupid is as stupid does". Your post is a case
study on the subject.


Mark F. Haigh
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:21:05 -0900, in comp.lang.c , Floyd Davidson

(snippage)
Dan was of course talking about the use of doubt as a synonum for
question the noun. This is not one of its meanings:
Doubt (n)
1 a : uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with
decision-making b : a deliberate suspension of judgment
2 : a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or
suspense
3 a : a lack of confidence : DISTRUST b : an inclination not to
believe or accept

None of these means question.

I doubt the extent of your English vocabulary.

in this context, "doubt" does not mean question, it means, "don't
trust". You migth also question it, but thats not what you said. In
English anyway.

A quick check in any dictionary should show that "doubt", used
as a transitive verb, means "question", and indeed "question"
will be listed as a synonym and/or as either part of the
definition or in the usage of the word.

Not in any dictionary I care to rely on. Not even the saintly Merriam
Webster.

Doubt (verb)
1 archaic a : FEAR b : SUSPECT
2 : to be in doubt about <he doubts everyone's word>
3 a : to lack confidence in : DISTRUST <find myself doubting him even
when I know that he is honest -- H. L. Mencken> b : to consider
unlikely <I doubt if I can go>

None of these means "I question", except parenthetically (or do I mean
euphemistically).

This last from a 1968 edition.

And in 1968, they thought that drum memory was a neat idea.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Where I grew up the phrase "I have my doubts about ..." was
pretty common.

This is fine. It means "I am uncertain about..."

I have no doubt there are people who doubt that it is proper
English... but have my doubts about their vocabulary.

<g>

 

[Keith Thompson]

Its the westeners who have given us "u" , its not indians who have
invented it.Indians have always given things which the world should be
proud of.We have given you 0 which is the basis of all digital
communications today(0's and 1's).

Well thanks for nothing! }

 

[Jeremy Yallop]

People who have english as their second language often have a better
grasp of grammar and semantics of words than native speakers (if
they have been learning the language for some time). The reason is
that native speakers generally know very little outside colloquial
meanings of words unless these words happens to have formal meanings
in some area the person has some expertise in.

I partly agree, in that (in my experience) non-native speakers often
know more about supposed rules of English grammar. This is, I think,
largely due to the inadequacy of the British[0] education system.

With regard to semantics, it's not so clear that non-native speakers
have the upper hand. English is not a static, fixed thing that can be
mastered once and for all (like C90, say). It is rather living,
changing; its structure and semantics are determined by the community
in which it is used. This is true in the obvious sense that new words
and phrases are continually being added to the language while others
fall out of use. It's true in a much deeper sense, though, because
the meaning of individual words is determined not by a dictionary, but
by use. A word is used for the first time in a particular context:
the meaning shifts, the word acquires new associations[1]. If you are
not a part of the community in which this takes place then you will
fail to acquire these subtler, undocumented senses. At best, a
dictionary describes a partial snapshot of the language at a given
time, but the description of words is inevitably far cruder, although
(indeed, because) more precisely expressed than their "actual"
meaning.

It's not even necessary to look further than this august forum for
examples. What associations do the words "Rule", "confused",
"engage", "nasal", "chapter", etc. carry? Use of these, and other,
words in this newsgroup will evoke certain associations in regular
readers ("native speakers", if you like) that are not apparent to
those outside the community. Similarly, members of the
English-speaking community share a subtle understanding, perhaps
largely unconscious, of words and phrases in current use that is not
available to outsiders.

Non-native speakers are able to acquire knowledge of English as it is
actually used only to the extent to which they participate in the
English-speaking community - that is, only to the degree to which they
become "native".

A non-native speaker may bring to the language an understanding of why
things are structured as they are. He may be able to express himself
with greater ease, elegance and even precision. However, if he claims
a different knowledge of the meaning of certain words than that of
(the mass of) native speakers in general then his understanding is
simply wrong. His semantics may coincide with those of a dictionary,
they may be etymologically justifiable, but (if they differ from those
generally understood by native speakers) then they are not the
semantics of English.

Jeremy.

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

[1] Marketing is essentially an attempt to abuse and control these
changing meanings, to forcibly associate certain words and phrases
with particular products in the minds of the public.

 

[Thomas Stegen]

One could call it a meta-irregular verb, then. <g,d&r>

We have these new things called quantum verbs. They are irregular
and regular at the same time. It has to do with parallel universes.

 

[Thomas Stegen]

With regard to semantics, it's not so clear that non-native speakers
have the upper hand. [snip] It's true in a much deeper sense, though,
because
the meaning of individual words is determined not by a dictionary, but
by use. If you are
not a part of the community in which this takes place then you will
fail to acquire these subtler, undocumented senses.

I was implicitly (even implicit to me talking about
non-native speakers living in an english speaking country. Probably
because I myself do that. I often notice that I have an easier time
understanding what a question really asks about when we are given
an assignment here at my university. One thing I have particularly
taken note of (both here and in "real life") is that native speakers
very often only consider one of the meanings a word can have.
Particularly when words have colloquial and more formal meanings.
Examples of such words are general and weight.

But then again I cannot see how native speakers are advantaged on
newsgroups because of this "dynamicity". Fair enough, the language
changes, but it changes differently in Scotland and England for
example. Not to mention the difference from Britain to the USA.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

In the one and only context that is relevant, it's a noun only.
Do you insist that "I have a doubt about malloc" and "I have a question
about malloc" are *perfectly* equivalent and interchangeable statements
in current English? Because this is the actual point of the discussion.

*ENGAGE* your brain Dan. There is no requirement that the two
be "*perfectly*" equivalent, merely interchangeable sufficiently
that the intent of the writer be understood by by the reader.

And that they are.

Take your own advice. If you can...

Clearly you should stick to C. (And since it is obvious there
are things you cannot comprehend, it might be a good idea to stop
insulting while you are at it.)

 

[Floyd Davidson]

This is fine. It means "I am uncertain about..."

Which is to say, "I have a question about..."

<g>

I have no question that there are people who question that it
is proper English... but I my questions about their vocabulary.

 

[pandapower]

Please refrain from posting your idiotic nationalistic banter to this

newsgroup.

You first brother.Stop posting any nationalistic comments.

As Forrest Gump put it, "stupid is as stupid does". Your post is a case
study on the subject.

A stupid will always call the other person stupid.

regards

 

[Mac]

I've been wondering about this for too long. Why is it that *every
single* Indian C programmer I have seen on this newsgroup writes "u"
for "you"? Many manage otherwise perfectly grammatical English but
that one mistake sticks out. Do they have a law in India forcing
schools to teach mangled English or something?

I live in California, in the USA.

I was at an Indian restaraunt the other day, and there was a hand-written
sign on the wall which used the same substitution (i.e., 'u' for 'you.').

The point being that I don't think it has anything to do with being a
programmer. I think that for some reason, some Indian people have got in
the habit of using that particular substitution in written communication.

Like many people in this group, cute substitutions such as this annoy me
to no end.

None of the (large number of) Indian people I met in college did this, as
far as I know. But based on the sign at the restaraunt, there might be
some kind of Indian connection.

Just my observations. I hope I don't offend anyone!

Mac
--

 

[Jeremy Yallop]

One thing I have particularly taken note of (both here and in "real
life") is that native speakers very often only consider one of the
meanings a word can have. Particularly when words have colloquial
and more formal meanings. Examples of such words are general and
weight.

This is an excellent example of what I am talking about when I wrote:

However, if he claims a different knowledge of the meaning of
certain words than that of (the mass of) native speakers in general
then his understanding is simply wrong. His semantics may coincide
with those of a dictionary, they may be etymologically justifiable,
but (if they differ from those generally understood by native
speakers) then they are not the semantics of English.

In a comp.lang.c thread a while back, you corrected a native English
speaker with the words:

Something is wrong "In general" when it is always wrong for all
cases. It does not mean for all cases, or even most cases. If
something is true for 10000 cases and false for 1 case it is not
true in general. (<
This is simply untrue. Any native English speaker will understand "in
general" to mean "in most cases", although it also has other meanings,
particularly in a more formal context. That you are apparently
ignorant of such meanings illustrates my point. Here are the first
few uses of "in general" that I found in the British National Corpus:

"The population in general is very well educated about AIDS says
Anthony Kasozi"

"Tennis is one of my favourite sports now because tennis people, in
general, are perfect gentlemen and ladies"

"This was clearly a response to the devastation of war but in
general the public commissions that have provided work for our
artist craftsmen and women since then have tended to be bland and
factual."

In none of these examples does "in general" have the meaning you
claim. It is used as a qualifier, and means approximately "most".

But then again I cannot see how native speakers are advantaged on
newsgroups because of this "dynamicity".

The advantage is in the avoidance of errors like the above quoted
post.

Jeremy.

 

[Artie Gold]

If English was less perverse, a verb would be either regular or irregular
but not both at the same time ;-)

That should be:

If English *were* less perverse...

[Of course, that's a usage that's disappearing. Where's an ISO
standard when you need it.]

Cheers,
--ag