On 06/12/2017 15:31, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2017 08:03, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 
>>> LOL. Not being a native speaker, I have a hard time to formulate them in
>>> such a way that it may puzzle you... ;-)
> 
> No - your English (British, American, or otherwise) is excellent, and probably
> exceeds the level of mastery of most of the semi-erect hominids that occupy
> space on the North American continent.

Well Nederlanders are born speaking at least four languages, or so I 
suspect. ;)


> In my experience, most of the multi-lingual people I have met have a much
> greater understanding of the English language than I probably do.
> First, they've had to _study_ it, and that's a lot different from "learning" it
> by immersion.
> Second, they have one or two other languages that they know and have studied,
> which gives them much more context and scope.
> Their knowledge of the grammar and mechanics is typically superior, and they
> have a different vocabulary usage.
> 

I agree. When I was in primary/elementary school we were taught the 
basics and how to parse sentences. I don't think that is done here any more.

> I suppose it must be similar to people's comments on my German - it's "high"
> German rather than colloquial, or "blue" German.  (or at least it _was_ - I
> haven't had much opportunity to exercise it)
> 
> (Many others have commented on the English use of "the".  They add it where it
> seems odd, and don't use it where it's probably expected.  One fellow is beside
> himself every time someone says "THE Ukraine".  )
> 

I'm guilty of over using the definitive article.

>> English isn't a very good language to describe such things. You need to
>> use clauses and sub clause that exceeds common usage. Making the
>> statements hard to read without deliberately parsing it.
> 
> German has always seemed to be a much better language with which to express
> ideas clearly and accurately.  I can't speak for any others, although I strongly
> suspect Mandarin, Cantonese, and Japanese may be excellent as well.
> 
> 
>> If I understand the sentence below. The only change I would make is:
>>
>> of one addition *operation*, per point if the...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's something that would save the time of one addition per
>>>> point if the
>>>> number of points to be plotted exceeded the number of entries in the
>>>> array, and
>>>> it would prevent overlap of objects slightly differing in position for
>>>> the same
>>>> array entry.
> 
> Well, the only problem I have there, is that one might wonder if the author
> mis-typed "one additionAL operation" and thus try to re-read it...
> Perhaps "one vector addition" might be clearer (more clear?)  ugh.
> 

That would be a better way, I think.

>>> Still something I am not sure about, but I shall try.
> 
> I meant that that's what you're already doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with 1 and 3, then HOW do you not see how #2 is a direct result?
> 

I think 1 and 3 are true but wish they weren't.

If you reversed the subject and object I would agree.


> Sometimes you bewilder me, Stephen.

Join the rest of the world. ;)

> But I do strongly suspect that we'd have a great time arguing with each other

No we wouldn't. Where I'm from talking about religion or politics is 
taboo. Too easy to start a war.

> over copious (excessive?) quantities of excellent Scotch, etc.
> 

1/ What do you mean by excessive? ;)

2/ If you can put up with my low taste in whisky (The famous Grouse) I 
would certainly split a bottle with you. I would even drink your Sipping 
Whiskey and enjoy the education. :D


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message