Unix C programming for finding file

[Mark McIntyre]

Like its spelled. The circumflex over the â flattens the a sound
some. We (English speaking) might be otherwise say ro.MAIN.ya rather
than the desired ro.MAHN.ya. That's just a quess of course.

And in England its commonly pronounced "roo-may-knee-ah".

Of course, its quite irrelevant. English pronounciations of most European
towns bear no relation to how the locals say it. Consider Munich and
Moscow.

Actually this is one of my pet hates. Just because the locals now call it
Beijing or Mumbai, is that a reason to stop calling it Peking or Bombay in
English? We don't expect the French to stop using Londres.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Exactly. There's no "legal" spelling of most words, but there is an
official one - for english English, the OED's spelling is as official as it
gets, and its the one you;ll get taught in school.

I think you draw the line in the wrong place here. There isn't a
legal spelling, and there isn't an official one. There's just a
generally accepted one. The editors of the OED - like those of most
English dictionaries - aim to be "descriptive rather than
prescriptive", and if the OED is authoritative it is because of its
scope and and scholarship, not because of any "official" status.

In any case, I decline to surrender my right to spell as I choose to
any bureaucrat, and certainly not the government of a foreign country.
Just as the French are welcome to refer to the city I live in as
Edimbourg, rather than Embra like the natives.

-- Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I think you draw the line in the wrong place here. There isn't a
legal spelling, and there isn't an official one. There's just a
generally accepted one.

Sure, but its generally accepted in a highly prescriptive sense. Anyone
over the age of 10 spelling horse without the terminal e is likely to be
laughed at, have their CV discarded out of hand, etc.

In any case, I decline to surrender my right to spell as I choose to
any bureaucrat, and certainly not the government of a foreign country.
Just as the French are welcome to refer to the city I live in as
Edimbourg, rather than Embra like the natives.

Hmm, I thought they pronounced it "aydinborow" on account of them all being
too posh for their nickers....

Mark (I'm from Inverness actually) McI

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Like its spelled. The circumflex over the â flattens the a sound
some. We (English speaking) might be otherwise say ro.MAIN.ya rather
than the desired ro.MAHN.ya. That's just a quess of course.

Dan?

I'll have to wait for Dan's answer. I'm interested in how Romanians
pronounce it, not in how anyone else pronounces it.

--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"'So called' means: 'There is a long explanation for this, but I have no
time to explain it here.'"
- JIPsoft

 

[Chris Croughton]

Actually this is one of my pet hates. Just because the locals now call it
Beijing or Mumbai, is that a reason to stop calling it Peking or Bombay in
English? We don't expect the French to stop using Londres.

I use whichever I remember. I will, for instance, use Muenchen instead
of Munich because I lived near there for a time, but I'll say Pa-riss
instead of Par-ee since I haven't been there and don't know anyone who
pronounces it in the French way.

I think it's a lot to do with g11n of reporting. Half a century ago we
didn't have much direct communication with other countries, so it didn't
matter that we were saying "Bombay" and the locals were saying "Mumbai"
because the vast majority of both populations had no idea that the other
called it anything different. These days we get TV and radio reports
from the area and the reporters tend to use the local names (especially
in interviews with locals).

(No one with any sense expects the French to change from their own
idiosyncratic uses of language anyway. Most other countries are content
to call our capital 'London'. Did anyone apart from the French ever
translate computer language keywords into the local version? I remember
"French Algol" -- 'commence' and 'quand' instead of 'begin' and 'if'...)

Chris C

 

[Richard Bos]

Exactly. There's no "legal" spelling of most words, but there is an
official one - for english English, the OED's spelling is as official as it
gets, and its the one you;ll get taught in school.

Except, of course, that the OED advocates (and quotes a largely bogus
argument for) the use of words ending in "-ize" where most other
Anglophones except those following that fool Webster's lead use "-ise".
Otherwise, yes.

Richard

 

[Chris Croughton]

Except, of course, that the OED advocates (and quotes a largely bogus
argument for) the use of words ending in "-ize" where most other
Anglophones except those following that fool Webster's lead use "-ise".

The OED also promotes the ridiculous 'connexion' over 'connection' (by
a very dubious analogy with 'crucifixion').

Interestingly, I use 'ize' in 'stringize' (possibly because it's an
invented word first encountered in the American C specification) but
'ise' almost everywhere else.

Chris C

 

[Michael Coyne]

The OED also promotes the ridiculous 'connexion' over 'connection' (by a
very dubious analogy with 'crucifixion').

The only reason crucifixion is still used is because crucifiction looks
really bad to believers.


Michael

 

[Charlie Gordon]

The OED also promotes the ridiculous 'connexion' over 'connection' (by
a very dubious analogy with 'crucifixion').

Unless he or she is confused with French, where the correct spelling is
connexion.
If you meet some Parisians, ask them about the difference between miction and
mixtion ;-)

 

[Chris Croughton]

The only reason crucifixion is still used is because crucifiction looks
really bad to believers.

<g> It does rather. Crucifix is a valid word, however, so crucifixion
("the act of nailing to a crucifix") makes some sense. "Connex" is not
a valid word (except to UK train companies), and I haven't heard anyone
actually say "connexion", even those who spell it that way seem to
pronounce it as "connec-shun".

(I'll remember 'crucifiction' for certain flamewars...)

Chris C

 

[Charlie Gordon]

<g> It does rather. Crucifix is a valid word, however, so crucifixion
("the act of nailing to a crucifix") makes some sense.

Crucifixion is the act of attaching to a cross, not necessarily with nails. From
XVI century French, itself derived from latin : crucifixio / cruci figere.
Crucifix is a religious artefact. comes from French as well (XII century), from
Latin crucifixus.

"Connex" is not a valid word (except to UK train companies),

In English maybe not, however it is a French word (connexe) used in higher
mathematics.

and I haven't heard anyone actually say "connexion", even those who spell it that way seem to
pronounce it as "connec-shun".

Again, ever heard of the French connection ? They spell it connexion.

(I'll remember 'crucifiction' for certain flamewars...)

Right: whether it is fiction or not is a matter of belief.

 

[Shanmuhanathan T]

And what are you just proving to be? Let's see...




No, he isn't right here. Would you do the absolute minimum of reading
a few posts in the group before jumping in you would know very well
that discussions about platform specific extensions to C is off-topic
here. So far about your claim about Dan's "ignorance". Looks a lot
more like it's the other way round. And Dan even went so far to
provide lots of useful information for the OP, which you didn't.




Well, that kind of thing obviously shows that rather you are the
'asshole' here. Or a dimwit. Pick what you prefer. Case closed.

It started out with Dan giving a 'proper Unix is not C answer'.
But the subsequent thread(s) is anything but C.
Just because its between c.l.c regulars, would it be on-topic here?
Just some food for thought.

 

[Shanmuhanathan T]

Unless he or she is confused with French, where the correct spelling is
connexion.
If you meet some Parisians, ask them about the difference between miction and
mixtion ;-)

It started out with Dan giving a 'proper Unix is not C answer'.
But the subsequent thread(s) is anything but C.
Just because its between c.l.c regulars, would it be on-topic here?
Just some food for thought.

 

[Dan Pop]

I wasn't aware that we had official spellings in English.

You have, when it comes to country names, despite your ignorance.

English country names and code elements

This list states the country names (official short names in English)
========^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in alphabetical order as given in ISO 3166-1 and the corresponding
ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 code elements.

Do you mean it's the one that the Romanian government wants us to use?

I mean it's the one standardised by ISO 3166
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1.html
and the one used in any official context. Is that official enough for
you?

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

Interesting, how is that pronounced?

As the dotless 'i' used by the Turkish, or as the 'bl' letter of the
Cyrillic alphabet. Sorry, it has no English phonetical equivalent and
it cannot be even easily described.

Dan

 

[Richard Tobin]

Is that official enough for you?

Not really. ISO standards may be "official" for some purposes, but
any other organization could have its own equally offical spellings.
For example, the BBC and the Foreign Office very likely have their own
official spellings (and pronunciations). So it might make sense to
refer to the "official ISO English spelling" but not "the official
English spelling".

There is no organization with the authority to determine the English
language.

-- Richard

 

[Dan Pop]

Not really. ISO standards may be "official" for some purposes, but
any other organization could have its own equally offical spellings.

Many things could happen in theory, but in practice few organisations
are foolish enough to ignore ISO standards addressing the same issue,
for *no* redeeming benefits.

For example, the BBC and the Foreign Office very likely have their own
official spellings (and pronunciations).

Please post some *concrete* examples where their official spellings differ
from the ISO standard.

So it might make sense to
refer to the "official ISO English spelling" but not "the official
English spelling".

I don't think so, unless you provide some concrete examples. The very
purpose of the ISO standard is to provide guidance to other organisations
dealing with country names, in order to avoid confusion and
inconsistencies. I have never seen any alternate spelling of "Romania"
(and there are a couple of common ones in English) used in *any* official
context for the last 25 years or so.

There is no organization with the authority to determine the English
language.

Then, on what basis are considered spellings like "recieve", "seperate"
or "tomarrow" incorrect? Who's maintaining the list of irregular verbs
and who's giving that organisation the authority to do so? Ditto for the
proper syntax of the English language.

But, anyway, the English language at large is not the issue here.
We're discussing a very specific issue.

In many other countries, the organisation with such an authority is
the National Academy of Science and Letters. Having a reference
dictionary helps a lot when dealing with such issues.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

It started out with Dan giving a 'proper Unix is not C answer'.
But the subsequent thread(s) is anything but C.
Just because its between c.l.c regulars, would it be on-topic here?
Just some food for thought.

No food for thought: because the subject line is so obviously off topic,
there was no point in adding an [OT] tag when the discussion deviated.

Whoever read a thread with this subject line hoping to find some topical
contents got exactly what he deserved.

Dan

 

[Richard Tobin]

Please post some *concrete* examples where their official spellings differ
from the ISO standard.

Nothing I have said depends on their standards being different from
ISO's. The point is that ISO is just one of many organizations that
standardize spellings for various purposes. Any organization can
proclaim something "official" within its own remit; the fact that ISO
and the BBC agree (if true) merely suggests that they have made the
right decision, not that it is "official" without qualification.

I don't think so, unless you provide some concrete examples. The very
purpose of the ISO standard is to provide guidance to other organisations
dealing with country names, in order to avoid confusion and
inconsistencies.

Exactly so. They provide standards for purposes where consistency is
essential, such as interoperability of computer software. The English
language on the other hand is full of ambiguities and inconsistencies,
and ISO cannot standardize it, nor does it need standardizing.

Then, on what basis are considered spellings like "recieve", "seperate"
or "tomarrow" incorrect?

Usage. Correct English is determined by the usage of English
speakers. As a native English speaker, I admit no other authority on
the matter.

Who's maintaining the list of irregular verbs
and who's giving that organisation the authority to do so?

No-one of course. But I don't understand what you are intending me to
conclude from that.

But, anyway, the English language at large is not the issue here.
We're discussing a very specific issue.

Well, perhaps you better define it. If you restricted it to "country
names in ISO conformant systems" then obviously you would be right.
But you referred to "the official English spellings" which is a rather
wider claim.

In many other countries, the organisation with such an authority is
the National Academy of Science and Letters.

And one of the reasons to be proud of being an English speaker is that
we have no such authorities. Of course, a government that wants to
introduce identity cards might well decide to try and standardize
English too.

-- Richard

 

[Dan Pop]

Nothing I have said depends on their standards being different from
ISO's. The point is that ISO is just one of many organizations that
standardize spellings for various purposes. Any organization can
proclaim something "official" within its own remit; the fact that ISO
and the BBC agree (if true) merely suggests that they have made the
right decision, not that it is "official" without qualification.

If BSI adopted the respective ISO standard, it is "official" without
qualification. What works for the ISO standard defining the C programming
language works for any other ISO standard.

Exactly so. They provide standards for purposes where consistency is
essential, such as interoperability of computer software. The English
language on the other hand is full of ambiguities and inconsistencies,
and ISO cannot standardize it, nor does it need standardizing.

You're invoking a read herring: I've made NO claims about the English
language at large, have I?

Usage. Correct English is determined by the usage of English
speakers. As a native English speaker, I admit no other authority on
the matter.

There are plenty of native English speakers using the incorrect spellings.
How about *their* usage? How can you convince them that they are wrong,
as long as they are as native English speakers as yourself?

No-one of course. But I don't understand what you are intending me to
conclude from that.

That, if one native English speaker uses the incorrect form of an
irregular verb, you have no basis to correct him: his usage is as good as
yours, in the absence of a higher regulatory authority.

Well, perhaps you better define it. If you restricted it to "country
names in ISO conformant systems" then obviously you would be right.
But you referred to "the official English spellings" which is a rather
wider claim.

On the contrary, I've made an extremely specific claim:

"Romania" is the current official English spelling.

If you still don't get it, my claim is that there is ONE English word
having an official spelling (out of the three spellings in use).
If you can refute it, please do. If not, what is the relevance of
your point to my claim?

And one of the reasons to be proud of being an English speaker is that
we have no such authorities.

Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language, which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

Of course, a government that wants to
introduce identity cards might well decide to try and standardize
English too.

Just because you're living on an island doesn't mean that it's a smart
idea to ignore the progress made by the rest of the world. If practically
all civilised countries adopted id documents, there must be a good
reason for that.

Dan