 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> + What is the average flight time?
That's a question. :-)
>> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
>> retard like me can understand it!)
Or commas. Or, most recently, quotation marks to "mean" emphasis.
> - The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". The
> same goes for to lie -> lying.
And for all non-native speakers of English:
The past tense of bind is bound.
Having a limit is being bounded.
The TCP socket is not bounded after accept() returns.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> + What is the average flight time?
>
> That's a question. :-)
Yes. THAT is a question. The other one isn't.
Worryingly, I see this kind of thing a lot of official test papers...
> Or commas. Or, most recently, quotation marks to "mean" emphasis.
That's not as bad as people who do that thing with their fingers when
speaking out loud to mean quotation marks.
This in itself is less bad than my mum's pathology of repeating words to
differentiate them. "This is the total. Well, I mean, it's not the
*total* total, but it's the total." WTF?
>> - The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". The
>> same goes for to lie -> lying.
>
> And for all non-native speakers of English:
> The past tense of bind is bound.
> Having a limit is being bounded.
I haven't come across either of these mistakes myself...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> - The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". The
> same goes for to lie -> lying.
Not seen that one before...
> - People who constantly confuse the words "than" and "then".
In fairness, it wasn't until recently that I discovered that these are
actually different words with subtly different meanings.
> - I think some people write "they're" instead of "there" on purpose, just
> to annoy people.
...or, generalising, people who do *anything* specifically for the
purpose of annoying people.
> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing", they
> are actually saying "I know something".
Ah yes, gotta love double and triple negatives. :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> This in itself is less bad than my mum's pathology of repeating words to
> differentiate them. "This is the total. Well, I mean, it's not the
> *total* total, but it's the total." WTF?
My favorite was "The car wasn't just totaled. It was completely totaled!"
> I haven't come across either of these mistakes myself...
I think you get it more in places people tend to use english less. Most
of the non-native english on this group is pretty amazingly good. I
heard this all the time in school with exchange professors, tho. Quite
distracting when they're talking about things like initial TCP window
sizes, and they can't get straight whether it's a bound connection or a
bounded connection. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In fairness, it wasn't until recently that I discovered that these are
> actually different words with subtly different meanings.
There's also "which" and "that", which mean two different things and
need (at least in american) different punctuation nearby.
And "farther" vs "further".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
>
> Oh, now it's personal! I used to have a problem with i.e. and e.g.
>
> I know now to use i.e. when I mean "In other words ..." and e.g. when I
> mean "for example"
>
> of course, I still get them screwed up.
>
It's really easy to mix "i.e." as "in example". I think I've done that
pretty much.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Sentences that begin and end with "please". (Surely once is enough?)
<sings> Please please me, oh yeah, like I please you.
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> <sings> Please please me, oh yeah, like I please you.
Please stop singing. :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > - People who constantly confuse the words "than" and "then".
> In fairness, it wasn't until recently that I discovered that these are
> actually different words with subtly different meanings.
Subtly different meanings? They have *completely* different meanings.
"Than" is used when comparing things. "My house is bigger than yours."
"Then" is used when some event succeeds another, or to describe a moment
in time. "He arrived and only then he noticed that something was missing."
"Back then I was so naive."
The two words are not related in any way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Or commas. Or, most recently, quotation marks to "mean" emphasis.
Using quotation marks to express irony is perfectly valid in most languages,
including English.
For example: My brother claimed he was "too busy" to help me.
Other usages, as listed by wikipedia:
* indicate descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy words or phrases
* indicate descriptive but startling, humorous, or metaphoric words or phrases
* distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be
associated with it. For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not
official terminology, or that a quoted phrase pre-supposes things that
the author does not necessarily agree with.
* indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake
as someone else's terminology, for example if a term (particularly a
controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of
someone else, perhaps without judgement
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>
>> <sings> Please please me, oh yeah, like I please you.
>
> Please stop singing. :-S
>
Please stop your pleas!!!!!! Please?
:-D
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or commas. Or, most recently, quotation marks to "mean" emphasis.
>
> Using quotation marks to express irony is perfectly valid in most languages,
> including English.
Yes, exactly. They're quotation marks. They are quoting what you
surround them with, which is to say, they're marking what's inside as to
be interpreted as the words themselves rather than as the meaning of the
words.
> For example: My brother claimed he was "too busy" to help me.
Well, I'd call that more "skepticism" than "irony." But that's just my
point. By putting it in quotes, you're saying this is what your brother
said, and explicitly implying that his words didn't match the reality.
But if you write
I really "did" want him to win the election.
rather than
I really *did* want him to win the election.
then it comes out looking exactly opposite of what was intended.
> * indicate descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy words or phrases
> * indicate descriptive but startling, humorous, or metaphoric words or phrases
Yep and yep. In both cases, you're pointing out that the reader should
pay attention to the words itself and not just their meaning.
> * distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be
> associated with it. For example, to indicate that a quoted word is not
> official terminology, or that a quoted phrase pre-supposes things that
> the author does not necessarily agree with.
Right. And when you use quote marks for *emphasis*, this is exactly what
happens. By using quote marks to mean you extra-agree, and you trigger
most peoples' "I'm distancing myself from this statement" understanding,
you're defeating the purpose.
> * indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake
> as someone else's terminology, for example if a term (particularly a
> controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of
> someone else, perhaps without judgement
Yes. These are all valid forms of quotes.
For example,
By the way, Sally said hello.
is different from
By the way, Sally said "Hello."
In the latter, that's the exact words she used. In the former, she might
have said "Give Joe my regards when you see him."
I have nothing against quote marks used properly. It's when someone says
he "really" means it, it's just completely confusing. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> But if you write
> I really "did" want him to win the election.
> rather than
> I really *did* want him to win the election.
> then it comes out looking exactly opposite of what was intended.
Or maybe a better example, if you write
I really did want him to *win* the election.
it means he lost, but came close or otherwise did a good job, and you
wanted success.
If you write
I really did want him to "win" the election.
it means you'd rather he stuffed the ballot boxes and cheated in order
to be elected in spite of the fact he didn't actually get enough votes.
Completely different meanings.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> retard like me can understand it!)
I recall someone on IRC who thought "meant" was written "mean't", and when I
told him it didn't have an apostrophe he was seriously surprised (he had
always written it that way).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> - People who constantly confuse the words "than" and "then".
AUGH >.<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Or commas. Or, most recently, quotation marks to "mean" emphasis.
http://donotwantyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/quotationfail.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> http://donotwantyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/quotationfail.jpg
Ah... that puts the "ph" back into "phale". :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I recall someone on IRC who thought "meant" was written "mean't",
LOL!
I'll have to remember that, and use it in sentences when I correct
peoples' apostrophes. (which isn't often, mind, but usually only when
they ask.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-Nov-08 15:31, Invisible wrote:
>
> - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
Reminds me of a comment in a peer review process: "Latin, i.e. 'Mutatis
mutandis' may not be understood by all. A goal of all published works
should be clarity. This is obfuscation."
We didn't realize that "mutatis mutandis" is perfectly good Dutch but
possibly not used by everyone, so he had a point. Yet, using a sentence
containing i.e. to explain that had me rolling on the floor. And
"obfuscation" had the poor first author running towards his dictionary.
I keep this one in my collection of self contradicting expressions.
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
>
> - Email messages that overuse punctuation!!!!
>
> - Sentences that end with a question mark despite not being questions.
> You know the kind of thing I mean:
>
> + What is the average flight time?
> + Draw a histogram of the light times?
>
> - Sentences that begin and end with "please". (Surely once is enough?)
>
> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> retard like me can understand it!)
>
> - People who write "i.e." when they actually mean "e.g."
My pet peeve is people who use "per" to stand for "according to."
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> retard like me can understand it!)
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
>> retard like me can understand it!)
>
> http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
http://angryflower.com/plural.gif
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I recall someone on IRC who thought "meant" was written "mean't", and when
> I told him it didn't have an apostrophe he was seriously surprised (he had
> always written it that way).
##c++ in freenode
[19:02:48] <PovAddict> Cecen: it doesn't matter if it modifies the iterator;
what matters is if it modifies the data pointed to by the iterator
[19:02:55] <Cecen> Er, that's what I mean't.
[19:02:59] <Cecen> I was thinking that after I typed it
[...]
[19:07:28] <Eelis> i think that last trivia just said "don't try
initializing anything that doesn't belong to you in your ctor-initializer!"
[19:07:30] * Cecen waits for someone to confirm.
[19:07:41] <Cecen> That's what I thought it mean't, too!
[19:08:09] <PovAddict> Cecen: meant doesn't have an apostrophe
[19:08:19] <Cecen> It doesn't?
[19:08:24] <Cecen> So it doesn't.
[19:08:27] <Cecen> Or does it?
[19:08:28] <PovAddict> it doesn't stand for "mean not"
[19:08:35] <PovAddict> or "mea not"
[19:08:42] <Cecen> Ah true, doesn't stand for that
[19:08:49] <rioch> the verb is mean, meant, meant
[19:08:52] <rioch> ;)
[19:09:08] <Cecen> None of my English teachers have picked that up :(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49189241@news.povray.org...
> I have nothing against quote marks used properly. It's when someone says
> he "really" means it, it's just completely confusing. :-)
I don't think I've *ever* seen anyone using your e.g.
~Steve~ ;)
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". The
> same goes for to lie -> lying.
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.
> - I think some people write "they're" instead of "there" on purpose, just
> to annoy people.
I do it sometimes purely because I'm typing too fast and just write out the
sounds that are going around in my head! Quite often I put things like "my"
instead of "by" because I'm just not concentrating (it's not like I don't
know the difference between "my" and "by"!).
> - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing", they
> are actually saying "I know something".
I think a lot of people do actually realise that *technically* it means the
opposite of common understanding, but if you point it out to them you'll be
labelled as a geeky nitpicker :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - Sentences that end with a question mark despite not being questions.
Surely adding a question mark makes them into a question? :-)
> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> retard like me can understand it!)
When I was younger I was sure that "its" was actually spelt "it's". My
logic was:
The hand of the boy --> The boy's hand
The head of the fat guy --> The fat guy's head
The front of it --> It(')s front
But like you say, there are only a few rules so it's not hard to remember.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This in itself is less bad than my mum's pathology of repeating words
>> to differentiate them. "This is the total. Well, I mean, it's not the
>> *total* total, but it's the total." WTF?
>
> My favorite was "The car wasn't just totaled. It was completely totaled!"
I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, it
wasn't ugly ugly, but it was pretty ugly.
WTF?
>> I haven't come across either of these mistakes myself...
>
> I think you get it more in places people tend to use english less.
Probably.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My favorite was "The car wasn't just totaled. It was completely totaled!"
>
> I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, it
> wasn't ugly ugly, but it was pretty ugly.
>
> WTF?
But you understand the difference if someone had written instead:
> I saw this cat the other day, and it was really ugly! Well, I mean, this
> wasn't pretty ugly, this was ugly ugly.
Those sentences where the write repeats the word but with some
clarification, actually help the reader to understand the situation:
Compare:
1) I totaled the car!
2) I totaled the car, I mean it is completely totaled!
3) I totaled the car, I mean it is only *just* totaled.
With 1) the reader is left wondering how badly the car is damaged, ok we
know it's not driveable and probably beyond repair, but is that because you
crashed into a wall and the wheels and bodywork are all bent, or is it
because it was crushed by rolling over 10 times or between two trucks? With
2) you get some further information, that the situation is more towards the
totally crushed rather than bent wheels end of the scale. With 3) you get
the further information that the car is more towards the bent-wheels end of
the scale.
Words like "ugly" and "totaled" are not digital yes-no words, you can always
clarify them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > - People who don't realize that when they say "I don't know nothing", they
> > are actually saying "I know something".
> I think a lot of people do actually realise that *technically* it means the
> opposite of common understanding, but if you point it out to them you'll be
> labelled as a geeky nitpicker :-)
It becomes interesting with triple negatives. Quoting Eminem:
- "I don't owe nobody in my family nothing."
- "I don't believe nobody can not swear."
What do these mean *technically* speaking, if we interpret them fully
accurately?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> - Misuse of the apostrophe. (There's, like, 4 rules or something. Even a
> >> retard like me can understand it!)
> >
> > http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
> http://angryflower.com/plural.gif
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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----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".
>
> --
> - 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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?
Whoosh!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:39:25 +0100, scott wrote:
>> 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.
I wouldn't disagree with that - the common spelling would be the
appropriate way to spell it unless there was a reason why he wasn't.
Sometimes teachers are just weird. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:02:16 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Whoosh!
LOL, but you have to admit that Warp's example was quite good. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> LOL, but you have to admit that Warp's example was quite good. :-)
Yes, and I appreciate the effort that went into developing it. I just
thought it would spoil any modicum of humor in the request to point out
that it was actually supposed to be humorous. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:10:44 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> LOL, but you have to admit that Warp's example was quite good. :-)
>
> Yes, and I appreciate the effort that went into developing it. I just
> thought it would spoil any modicum of humor in the request to point out
> that it was actually supposed to be humorous. :-)
Well, if it helps, it made *me* laugh when I read it.:-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> - People who constantly confuse the words "than" and "then".
That is one thing I hate about this webcomic:
http://www.abstractgender.com/?comic=55
http://www.abstractgender.com/?comic=74
http://www.abstractgender.com/?comic=78
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
