On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:22:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7/9/2015 6:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >With/three/  spouts?;-)
>> Yep, very easy to do.
>>
>> Cover the spouts on the left and right with a finger each, drink from
>> the third.
>>
>> Easy.;)
> 
> Do you want a towel?
> The holes in the middle of the neck will leak. If they don't the ones
> further down will get you.

Didn't see those other holes, but the number of holes IIRC is easily 
covered with additional fingers. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 7/9/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:22:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 7/9/2015 6:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> With/three/  spouts?;-)
>>> Yep, very easy to do.
>>>
>>> Cover the spouts on the left and right with a finger each, drink from
>>> the third.
>>>
>>> Easy.;)
>>
>> Do you want a towel?
>> The holes in the middle of the neck will leak. If they don't the ones
>> further down will get you.
>
> Didn't see those other holes, but the number of holes IIRC is easily
> covered with additional fingers. :)
>

Do you want to look again, remembering it is a "puzzle jug"?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:42:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 7/9/2015 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:22:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/9/2015 6:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> With/three/  spouts?;-)
>>>> Yep, very easy to do.
>>>>
>>>> Cover the spouts on the left and right with a finger each, drink from
>>>> the third.
>>>>
>>>> Easy.;)
>>>
>>> Do you want a towel?
>>> The holes in the middle of the neck will leak. If they don't the ones
>>> further down will get you.
>>
>> Didn't see those other holes, but the number of holes IIRC is easily
>> covered with additional fingers. :)
>>
>>
> Do you want to look again, remembering it is a "puzzle jug"?

Oh, right, it's not just that there are holes to cover, but you have to 
suck the spout to get the liquid to come out.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Except not always. DLL's is acceptable, DLLs is also ok

It reminds me of the phenomenon that if, for example, the title of a
popular YouTube video uses 's with a proper name (such as "Fitts's Law"),
the comment section will be flooded with comments trying to "correct"
that spelling ("it's Fitts' law!")

(According to most English style guides, the possessive of proper names
should always use 's, even if the name ends in s. Thus it's for example
"workers' rights" but "Fitts's law".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2015 10:35 AM, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> Except not always. DLL's is acceptable, DLLs is also ok
>
> It reminds me of the phenomenon that if, for example, the title of a
> popular YouTube video uses 's with a proper name (such as "Fitts's Law"),
> the comment section will be flooded with comments trying to "correct"
> that spelling ("it's Fitts' law!")
>

Well, I have had someone here complain of my use of commas.

> (According to most English style guides, the possessive of proper names
> should always use 's, even if the name ends in s. Thus it's for example
> "workers' rights" but "Fitts's law".)
>

It is so long since I was at school and opinions change in time. I might 
be outdated in my knowledge.
But "workers' rights" and "Fitts's law" sounds correct to me. I would 
pronounce "Fitts's law" as "Fitts-is law"



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 30/07/15, at 11:35, Warp wrote:
>
> (According to most English style guides, the possessive of proper names
> should always use 's, even if the name ends in s. Thus it's for example
> "workers' rights" but "Fitts's law".)
>

Unless the law is named after several people named "Fitt", I guess.

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Le 15-07-30 10:35, Jellby (POV-Ray) a écrit :
> On 30/07/15, at 11:35, Warp wrote:
>>
>> (According to most English style guides, the possessive of proper names
>> should always use 's, even if the name ends in s. Thus it's for example
>> "workers' rights" but "Fitts's law".)
>>
>
> Unless the law is named after several people named "Fitt", I guess.
>

Last time I checked, proper names are always invariable. At least, they 
are in French, and as English borrowed many grammatical rules from 
French along with a few 1000s words, having that rule been identical 
would have a prety high probability.
You have the Fitt family and the Fitts family.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/07/15, at 21:27, Alain wrote:
> Le 15-07-30 10:35, Jellby (POV-Ray) a écrit :
>> On 30/07/15, at 11:35, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>> (According to most English style guides, the possessive of proper names
>>> should always use 's, even if the name ends in s. Thus it's for example
>>> "workers' rights" but "Fitts's law".)
>>>
>>
>> Unless the law is named after several people named "Fitt", I guess.
>>
>
> Last time I checked, proper names are always invariable. At least, they
> are in French, and as English borrowed many grammatical rules from
> French along with a few 1000s words, having that rule been identical
> would have a prety high probability.
> You have the Fitt family and the Fitts family.

Not in English, as far as I know:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons

Yes, you'd have "the Fitt family" and "the Fitt brothers", both of which 
could be referred to as "the Fitts" (the Fitts family would be "the 
Fittses")

http://grammarist.com/style/last-names/

As I see it, it would be:

Fitt's -> belonging to one Fitt
Fitts' -> belonging to several Fitt
Fitts's -> belonging to one Fitts
Fittses' -> belonging to several Fitts

-- 
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2015 um 12:19 schrieb Stephen:
>
> Well, I have had someone here complain of my _MIS_use of commas.

There - I corrected that for you :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/2015 5:24 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 30.07.2015 um 12:19 schrieb Stephen:
>>
>> Well, I have had someone here complain of my _MIS_use of commas.
>
> There - I corrected that for you :-P
>

So kind.
Let me give you some gold in Lave. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message