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

> Admittedly, "tryed" is a rare form, considered largely obsolete in most
> cases, but it is nevertheless a valid spelling.

Oh I didn't know that, but then I don't think he should be teaching that to 
his English class!  I wouldn't want my German teacher to teach me some word 
is spelt a certain way, but actually 99.9% of people spell it a different 
way - it makes no sense.

Post a reply to this message

> Afrikaans, for example, requires a double negative. Without both, the 
> sentence is gramatically incorrect
>
> eg "Ek het nie die man gesien nie"

Oh wow, I would never have guessed learning German would have helped with so 
many other languages!

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message news:491a96ba@news.povray.org...
>> Afrikaans, for example, requires a double negative. Without both, the 
>> sentence is gramatically incorrect
>>
>> eg "Ek het nie die man gesien nie"
>
> Oh wow, I would never have guessed learning German would have helped with 
> so many other languages!
>

Well, Afrikaans is descended from Dutch, German and French, so in this case 
it's not surprising.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?

  "He gave a lot of feedback, ie. things which should be fixed."

  "He gave a lot of feedback, eg. things which should be fixed."

  The first sentence implies that in this context feedback is equalled to
drawing attention to things which should be fixed, and that "he" presented
many such things.

  In the second sentence the feedback is less specified, and "he" gave
feedback about many things. Among those things he drew attention to things
which should be fixed, but that's not the only feedback "he" gave.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message