 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tag povrayorg]
> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing",
> they
> are actually saying "I know something".
That one's at least understandable because, in many languages, a
double-negative like that is really just "extra" negative. They don't
use a logical "not".
>
> --
> - Warp
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:8090A3F87573436295D10AAFD6BA5CE9@HomePC...
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing",
>> they
>> are actually saying "I know something".
>
> That one's at least understandable because, in many languages, a
> double-negative like that is really just "extra" negative. They don't
> use a logical "not".
Afrikaans, for example, requires a double negative. Without both, the
sentence is gramatically incorrect
eg "Ek het nie die man gesien nie"
Lit: "I have not the man seen not"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Things that irritate me:
>
> - email messages that contain no punctuation of any kind just several
> sentences strung together presumably youre supposed to figure out
> sentence boundaries from context or something its really quite
> irritating though
>
I just received the following text in an email message and thought about
your post:
<snip>
K kool just wanted to find out thanks well i would be getting the one
you sent me
</snip>
Nice, huh? It took me a few rereads to figure out what they meant, even
knowing the context of the message. :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
Depending on how you read the sentence, the two can be interchangeable.
I typically read "i.e." as "that is", and "e.g." as "for example".
i.e. is "id est", meaning "that is" or "that is to say".
e.g. is "exempli gratia", meaning "for the sake of example".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:03:45 -0500, Warp wrote:
> - When you have a verb which ends in -uce and you want to make the
> equivalent noun/adjective, it usually ends in -ucible, not "-ucable".
> For example, it's reproduce -> reproducible (not "reproducable").
FYI, "reproduceable" is acceptable English usage.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:44:57 +0100, scott wrote:
> There's a native English guy who *teaches* English to a class here (a
> friend of mine goes to it) and he writes "tryed"! I can understand a
> non-native making that mistake when learning English, but there's no
> excuse for a native to do that, and especially not if he is teaching
> English.
That actually is a valid spelling, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary. As are treid, tryyd, tryede, and tryde. This is from the
verb form of the word, and from the definitions my copy of OED references
this spelling for, is related to (for example) the extraction of oil from
blubber or fat by heat - which derives usages deriving from "to sift
out" (to ascertain, find out, by search or examination), or in law.
Admittedly, "tryed" is a rare form, considered largely obsolete in most
cases, but it is nevertheless a valid spelling.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:13:58 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Sin'ce th'e ap'postro'phe is s'o popul'ar, may'be we sho'uld sta'rt
> add'ing
> it t'o ever'y sing'le w'ord?
Yo'u m'issed thr'ee wor'ds ther'e. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> > - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
> Depending on how you read the sentence, the two can be interchangeable.
I think a sentence would change its meaning (even if subtly) if you
changed "i.e." to "e.g." or vice-versa.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:33:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> > - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
>
>> Depending on how you read the sentence, the two can be interchangeable.
>
> I think a sentence would change its meaning (even if subtly) if you
> changed "i.e." to "e.g." or vice-versa.
It may, though I've seen situations where an explanation is called for,
and reading it as "that is" or "for example" work fine and don't alter
the meaning enough to worry about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think a sentence would change its meaning (even if subtly) if you
> changed "i.e." to "e.g." or vice-versa.
I'm not sure I understand. That is, can you give an example?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
