On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:51:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2013 02:27 PM, Warp wrote:
>> > Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> >> I especially enjoy how "and" sometimes means "or", and "or"
>> >> sometimes means "and". No wonder students suck at Boolean algebra!
>> >> :-D
>> >
>> > I find it more interesting that the same word "or" is used in speech
>> > for "inclusive or" and "exclusive or", yet it very rarely, if ever,
>> > causes any confusion.
> 
>> Like I said, sometimes "or" clearly means "and", and vice versa, and
>> yet everybody understands this.
> 
> "And" is not the same as either "exclusive or" or "inclusive or".

Logically, it isn't.  Linguistically, though, it can be.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:33:06 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> >
> > > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > >> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > >> > three seventy-seconds of one inch
> > >>
> > >> I think that at least *some* Americans realize how ridiculous the
> > >> imperial measurement system is. It's a petty that resistance to change
> > >> is such a huge psychological phenomenon that it's not going to change
> > >> any time soon.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>                                                           - Warp
> > >
> > > I actually had a laugh at the "three seventy" vs the usual "seventy
> > > three".  or did he mean "3 x seventy-seconds"?
> > >
> > > then again, I'm used to it from Sherlock Holmes books :)
> >
> > 3/72 is what was meant (not sure if you were not getting that, or being
> > silly)
> >
> > Jim
>
> I think that if you are not used to the system it is easy to read it as three
> times seventy seconds. Then when you realise what is meant you laugh at your
> embarrassment at getting it wrong.
> It is great how English words change their meaning depending on their context.
>
> Stephen


don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that way in
Victorian literature

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:32:33 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that way
> in Victorian literature

*snortlaughs*

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/07/2013 12:32 AM, nemesis wrote:
> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that way in
> Victorian literature

I think that is just for literary effect, as in "Four and twenty 
blackbirds, baked in a pie". The language does move on, for instance we 
don't call a week a sevennight any more. But there are still parts of 
the country that use thee and thou.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that
>> way in
>> Victorian literature
>
> I think that is just for literary effect, as in "Four and twenty
> blackbirds, baked in a pie".

No! In Old English we did say numbers that way round, but along the way 
it evolved into the current way round. Note that German (which comes 
from the same roots) still has the numbers that way round.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/07/2013 06:10 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 24/07/2013 12:32 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty? at least, it is that way in
>> Victorian literature
>
> I think that is just for literary effect, as in "Four and twenty
> blackbirds, baked in a pie". The language does move on, for instance we
> don't call a week a sevennight any more. But there are still parts of
> the country that use thee and thou.

Mathematicians still refer to a polynomial "of order 2" rather than just 
saying "a second order polynomial". What can I say? Mathematics was 
invented a really, *really* long time ago...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that
> >> way in
> >> Victorian literature
> >
> > I think that is just for literary effect, as in "Four and twenty
> > blackbirds, baked in a pie".
>
> No! In Old English we did say numbers that way round, but along the way
> it evolved into the current way round. Note that German (which comes
> from the same roots) still has the numbers that way round.

No!?

It is true what you said about the way numbers were said. But and it is a big
butt. ;-)
I suspect that in Victorian times and especially in literature that style of
numbering was only used by the upper classes and country folk. Both being behind
the times. Trollope (the old snob that he was) used it s a signifier of the
aristocracy along with words like se'n night. Long gone out of fashion by that
time. Interestingly fourteen night lives on as fortnight.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> It is true what you said about the way numbers were said. But and it is a big
> butt. ;-)
> I suspect that in Victorian times and especially in literature that style of
> numbering was only used by the upper classes and country folk.

Yes sorry I misunderstood what you meant then - seems we agree :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:10:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/07/2013 12:32 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> don't you British spell 32 as two and thirty?  at least, it is that way
>> in Victorian literature
> 
> I think that is just for literary effect, as in "Four and twenty
> blackbirds, baked in a pie". The language does move on, for instance we
> don't call a week a sevennight any more. But there are still parts of
> the country that use thee and thou.

And "fortnight". :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/07/2013 12:53 PM, scott wrote:
> Yes sorry I misunderstood what you meant then

Now that is not an unusual event for me. ;-)

- seems we agree :-)

Good, I am all in favour of agreement. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message