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.
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 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".  )

> 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.

> > 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?

Sometimes you bewilder me, Stephen.
But I do strongly suspect that we'd have a great time arguing with each other
over copious (excessive?) quantities of excellent Scotch, etc.

Post a reply to this message