 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010The most preposterous proposal ...
http://dnghu.org/ Perhaps you have heard of it. A Spanish guy (who apparently gets some sort of government funding) advocates what he calls Modern Indo- European as an international language. Form seeing his conversations it doesn't seem he is tolerant for criticism of his proposal. It is a quite laughable idea, and hard to know where to start in criticism of it. It is _for practical purposes_ a constructed, artificial language if it is actually used, as it has no history. That it is a reconstruction may be linguistically relevant, but I don't see the practical use of it. The grammatical complexity of it, though, is relevant - the experience of Esperanto and such shows that it definitely is easier to start using a language with a simple grammar, while that of PIE is about the most complex and irregular possible. That's why the long-term trend in all branches of IE is toward simplification and regularisation of grammar, while it is not so in many other language families. Now his PIE is supposely that of 'European' PIE, that is, the last common ancestor of Germanic, Celtic, Italic, and Balto-Slavic, which he alleges to have been spoken as late as 2000 BC, in Europe. I'm not going to criticise his reconstruction, because it is not necessary. The point is that those languages, so far as they are used to talk about modern things, all have already an extensive vocabulary in common - which has nothing to do with PIE. I am rather speaking of Latin, of course. Indeed, on all counts, Latin is a superior international language to his PIE. It already has an extensive history of being used to talk about all subjects; its grammar, while complex, is less so than any reasonable PIE would be; it has an already-existing literature and needs no such promotion. The only criticism one could make against Latin is that it has a history of elitism; but even if that is a strike against it, it is but a minor one. Esperanto also is clearly superior to PIE as a constructed language; it is designed to be, and in fact is, substantially easier to learn than any natural language, and has a large number of speakers and history of use. Of course, this is all academic as we know that English will be the interlanguage of the foreseeable future, but that only makes it a more laughable idea. If this were created for personal fulfillment, it would be fine, but when it's being seriously promoted as the international language, someone has a screw loose. Andrew Usher Andrew Usher wrote (08-02-2010 13:25): > http://dnghu.org/ > > Perhaps you have heard of it. A Spanish guy (who apparently gets some > sort of government funding) advocates what he calls Modern Indo- > European as an international language. Form seeing his conversations > it doesn't seem he is tolerant for criticism of his proposal. YOU try to convince the wikipedia monkeys that this is simply a load of garbage. Others have tried and tired. > Andrew Usher wrote (08-02-2010 13:25): >> http://dnghu.org/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > YOU try to convince the wikipedia monkeys that this is simply a load of > garbage. Others have tried and tired. Why do you considerable "wikipedia monkeys" acceptable but not criticism of google groupers? You're even using a server that commemorates the September that never ended.  SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] >> Andrew Usher wrote (08-02-2010 13:25): >>> http://dnghu.org/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do you considerable "wikipedia monkeys" acceptable but not [oops, should be "consider"] > criticism of google groupers? You're even using a server that > commemorates the September that never ended. SignatureI spend almost as much time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 19:37): >> Andrew Usher wrote (08-02-2010 13:25): >>> http://dnghu.org/ [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why do you considerable "wikipedia monkeys" acceptable but not criticism > of google groupers? Because those are different things. 1. 'Wikipedia monkeys' does not refer to the whole of the wikipedia 'community'. I had in mind specifically the relentless guardians of Wikipedia Rules who profess their ignorance of the matters being contended but insist on keepingInformationAway/defendingWrongInformation because they think they're following 'process' and 'process' will ultimately be conducive to good results. Not infrequently I've seen how some troll is able to hold pages hostage for days because 'process' can't decide between the troll and the good-one, and instead of making an effort to understand what the issue is about monkeys choose to block everything and revert to the first trollish version. Until some senior editor who does understand something comes by and solves the problem. Now you may say that what matters is that the problem gets solved - but you ignore the distressing, life-sapping fight one has to go through so that the dispute may be noticed. 2. 'Google groupers' are not a group and the rants against GG have very little to do with GG* and/or are unreasonable. GG has a poor UI, but that's a problem for whoever uses it, not anybody else. (*) All the problems existed, no more nor less annoying, long before there was GG. > You're even using a server that commemorates the September that never > ended. That's tongue in cheek. 90% of everything is crud, remember? Why should newsgroups be any different? > Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 19:37): >> Why do you considerable "wikipedia monkeys" acceptable but not criticism >> of google groupers? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > (*) All the problems existed, no more nor less annoying, long before there > was GG. I'm not claiming that all GG users are idiots, but GG's web interface encourages such problems on a larger scale than before, and facilitates spamming. Google keeps monopoly on the Deja archive and keeps making it less useful. GG is definitely a net (in the sense of net vs gross) polluter of the USENET. SignatureLeila: "I don't think he knows." Agent Rogersz: "Increase the voltage." Leila: "What if he's innocent?" Agent Rogersz: "No one is innocent. Proceed" (Cox 1984) Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 20:59): > I'm not claiming that all GG users are idiots, but GG's web interface > encourages such problems on a larger scale than before, and > facilitates spamming. Google keeps monopoly on the Deja archive and > keeps making it less useful. GG is definitely a net (in the sense of > net vs gross) polluter of the USENET. Well, I don't see it that way. Nor the larger scale, nor the spamming facilitation. You're entitled to that opinion, and are not alone in it, but I think it is wrong. (Google keeps a monopoly on the Deja archive? Isn't Usenet public?) > (Google keeps a monopoly on the Deja archive? Isn't Usenet public?) There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out DejaNews. Theoretically this should have meant that the archive could continue to be consulted at the Google site. In practice, all of the older articles appear to have gone lost, and even the access to newer material is patchy and unreliable. As a result, we no longer have a good Usenet archive. To make matters worse, searches through the archives don't always work properly. Google needs to hire someone who knows how to design a search engine. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > (Google keeps a monopoly on the Deja archive? Isn't Usenet public?) > > There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out > DejaNews. Theoretically this should have meant that the archive could > continue to be consulted at the Google site. Usenet is public. There's nothing stopping people from coming up with an alternative to GG. That no one can be bothered is a different problem. That no one could be bothered to put their money into it is why Dejanews had to be sold to Google - if it hadn't been, it would simply have disappeared, with nothing left in its place. (The misuse of the word 'monopoly' is something I've come to find very annoying.) > In practice, all of the > older articles appear to have gone lost, and even the access to newer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > properly. Google needs to hire someone who knows how to design a search > engine. Yes, this much is true. But I don't think it will happen. Peter Moylan (in sci.lang): >> (Google keeps a monopoly on the Deja archive? Isn't Usenet public?) > > There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > far as I know - Usenet archive. Complete from the point when they began collecting. > Then Google came along and bought out > DejaNews. DejaNews was painfully slow. Google increased the archive a lot by pulling together other archives of usenet posts, adding over a decade of older posts > Theoretically this should have meant that the archive could > continue to be consulted at the Google site. In practice, all of the > older articles appear to have gone lost, and even the access to newer > material is patchy and unreliable. As a result, we no longer have a good > Usenet archive. AFAIK, they have problems with their article indexing, so the articles aren't lost, only many are just not found now. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 49: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OpiCUfZyco> My favourite # 64: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2R0Rq55-tc> > There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > properly. Google needs to hire someone who knows how to design a search > engine. Hear! Hear! Google's search engine doesn't even deal properly with a quoted search string (and Yahoo!'s is no better). E.g., I am looking for references to my old friend, Giles Wilkinson, so I put "Giles Wilkinson" (complete with the quote marks) in the search box. In addition to occurrences of "Giles Wilkinson", Google claims that "Smith, Giles; Wilkinson, Thomas" and "Robertson, Giles (Wilkinson Metals, Inc.)" are matches. If I enter the search as "Wilkinson, Giles", Google claims that "... by Stephen Wilkinson. Giles Pomeroy, on the other hand,..." and "Robert Wilkinson-Giles" and "Robert Wilkinson Giles" are matches. I can no longer recall the specific strings, but I have encountered situations where Google ignores multiple non-alphanumeric sequences. Perce > > There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > > far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I can no longer recall the specific strings, but I have encountered > situations where Google ignores multiple non-alphanumeric sequences. I *think* it always does. But otherwise it probably wouldn't be able to find anything. Sometimes the only way to get what you want is to misspell it!... > > > There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > > > far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > to find anything. Sometimes the only way to get what you want is to > misspell it!... Very true, but I wish they provided an option to search for exactly what you typed, including punctuation. Under Advanced Search, if they think hiding it is necessary. -- Jerry Friedman >>>> There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as >>>> far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > what you typed, including punctuation. Under Advanced Search, if they > think hiding it is necessary. That would be simply impossible. Google doesn't scan every page in its archive from scratch each time someone sends a search request. If it did, a search would take weeks if not months or years. Instead, pages are indexed on words and sequences of words when they are scanned. Indexes permit speedy lookups. But there isn't enough storage in the universe for an index of every possible substring. >>>>> There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as >>>>> far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Indexes permit speedy lookups. But there isn't enough storage in the > universe for an index of every possible substring. The usual way many systems have dealt with this problem in the last 50 years is not to ignore all non-alphanumeric characters on the initial scan but treat strings of non-alphanumeric characters as words in their own right. Only the whitespace characters, such as EndOfLine, TAB, etc. are converted to spaces. This increases the size of the index but only by some percentage not anywhere near two-fold. There is another desirable feature that results in greater increase in the sizes of indices and that is the ability to optionally distiquish between lowercase and uppercase letters. Each word containing one or more uppercase letters is indexed as two separate words, one as is, and one converted to lowercase. Then when one asks for (quoted) "John X. Foster's dog:", the only hits one gets are exactly that, including the fullstops, colons, etc. pjk > >>>>> There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as > >>>>> far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > This increases the size of the index but only by some > percentage not anywhere near two-fold. ... Do you know of any Web searcher does that? -- Jerry Friedman >>>>>>> There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as >>>>>>> far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Do you know of any Web searcher does that? No, sorry, I don't. The systems I was referring to were not web orientated search engines. The biggest and most sophisticated index database creation and search system with the earlier mentioned properties including optional upper/lowercase distinction I wrote myself in mid eighties for a US computer manufacturer. It was used as a company internal knowledge base system. The 'words' in all user manuals, internal development documents, and in fact all company documents that existed in various forms on the company discs with their document names, page and line numbers were used to create a searchable index sequential database. Intermediate raw collections of words with their document names, pages and line nos were huge files which after sorting into alpha order resulted in surprisingly small final database. Due to collapsed repeated index string leads, the final index sequential database was orders of magnitude (>=2) smaller than the temporary raw files. The web engine I usually use for non-advanced simple searches in the first instance is Google. It automatically goes to local NZ Google database first and the NZ pages come out first. When I search for something like "plumber electric mains pressure cylinder", Google gives me exactly what I want, a list of plumbers in my area first. When I need to use advanced features I often find Google unsatisfactory. When I need to specify date range I use http://www.alltheweb.com/ However, the engine I use most often after Google is http://www.exalead.com/search/ Amongst the collection of useful advanced features Exalead gives you the ability to ask for keywords in proximity to each other, approximate spelling, words beginning with aspecified string, phonetic key search, etc., etc. It seems the coverage of these engines in comparison with Google is improving with time. One has to try them and compare with Google to see if their coverage is satisfactory for the particular type of work. pjk PaulJK wrote (11-02-2010 03:34): > When I need to use advanced features I often find Google > unsatisfactory. When I need to specify date range I use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > other, approximate spelling, words beginning with aspecified > string, phonetic key search, etc., etc. Thank you for the pointers. > It seems the coverage of these engines in comparison with > Google is improving with time. One has to try them and compare > with Google to see if their coverage is satisfactory for the > particular type of work. The problem as I see it is that small coverage defeats the purpose of going there in the first place. Often I have to look for things which are supposed to be present in a small number of pages. Google doesn't help because of its limitations and self-defeating 'cleverness'. Others don't help because of their limited coverage. PaulJK wrote (10-02-2010 10:44): > Then when one asks for (quoted) "John X. Foster's dog:", > the only hits one gets are exactly that, including the fullstops, > colons, etc. I may have missed something, but when I look for "jOhn. Foster'" I get exactly the same results as I get from "john foster" (which is a little less than from John-Foster). > PaulJK wrote (10-02-2010 10:44): > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I may have missed something, Yes. > but when I look for "jOhn. Foster'" I get > exactly the same results as I get from "john foster" (which is a little less > than from John-Foster). The thing you are missing is the ability to read texts in their contexts. The above paragraph ripped out of context was describing a desirable feature not the behaviour of Google. I say it again, Google seems to treat all non-alphanumeric strings as whitespace and converts them with the true whitespace characters to a single word separator. It also constructs its indices with all upper and lower case letters converted to whatever their default case is. pjk PaulJK wrote (11-02-2010 04:02): >> PaulJK wrote (10-02-2010 10:44): >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The thing you are missing is the ability to read texts in > their contexts. Now aren't we funny yoday. > The above paragraph ripped out of context was describing > a desirable feature not the behaviour of Google. (You're missing a comma there, or something.) You may have intended your paragraphs, context or not, to describe something not in Google, but neither you nor context made that the certain interpretation. (It's quite clear, context or not, that that behaviour is not Google's; but it isn't clear at all that you weren't attributing it to Google. I looked for disambiguation, found little or none, and thought I should ask for it. My interest was not in determining whether you were 'right' or 'wrong' about Google, rather if there was some Google secret we should learn. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings.) > I say it again, Google seems to treat all non-alphanumeric > strings as whitespace and converts them with the true > whitespace characters to a single word separator. It also > constructs its indices with all upper and lower case letters > converted to whatever their default case is. You needn't say that again, everybody knew it before you said it the first time. Whatever Google does probably involves some kind of AI, anyway, not simply describable in algorithmic terms. Obviouslt they use case-insensitive indices to find pages, but once they do find the pages they can/could filter the results any way they want, and that could include respecting case and non-alphanumeric strings. Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:25:20 -0500: "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net>: in sci.lang: >> There used to be a web site called DejaNews, and it kept a complete - as >> far as I know - Usenet archive. Then Google came along and bought out [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >are matches. Try Giles@Wilkinson SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:19:16 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.eu>: in sci.lang: >>"Smith, Giles; Wilkinson, Thomas" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Try Giles@Wilkinson In fact, I get the same results when using "Giles Wilkinson", all with the two names directly adjacent. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > António Marques wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > older articles appear to have gone lost, and even the access to newer > material is patchy and unreliable. What's missing? I see postings of mine going back to early 1985 (on net.sf-lovers, when I was posting via the SF-LOVERS DIGEST list). The only thing I've noticed is that if you ask for things ordered by date, it only goes back to 2000. If you say "Search by relevance", even with a date restriction, it appears to get everything. Modulo rare occasions when they do seem to drop everything but the last month or so, but I presume that that's a response to temporarily high traffic levels. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are two types of people - 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not. | Leigh Blue Caldwell kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:48:59 +1100: Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: in sci.lang: >DejaNews. Theoretically this should have meant that the archive could >continue to be consulted at the Google site. In practice, all of the >older articles appear to have gone lost, No. It could find myself from the dark ages. But some is lost, e.g. the article I respond to in my first ever article. But remember, everything relied on 2400 baud dial-in modems in those days. The _only_ link between the US and EU started as 300 baud and remained that for quite a while. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 20:59): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > (Google keeps a monopoly on the Deja archive? Isn't Usenet public?) Ordinarily, Usenet (NNTP) servers keep articles available for their users for a predeterminate amount of time. Usenet archivers can only archive articles that are still on a given NNTP server at the time the archive indexes that server. If Deja was the only outfit indexing Usenet in its first however many years, and Google bought Deja and is the only outfit comprehensively archiving Usenet now, then Google has, not de jure but de facto, a monopoly on the archives. There are numerous other operations that index parts of Usenet. If you do a search on some concept related to information technology, for example, a number of discussion forum sites will come up that turn out to be Usenet mirrors. But I don't know that any other company has the expanse of coverage that Google has. Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): >> Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 20:59): >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > outfit comprehensively archiving Usenet now, then Google has, not de > jure but de facto, a monopoly on the archives. Given that anyone can just go get the archived messages from groups.google.com and store them elsewhere, I don't see where the 'monopoly' is, let alone being 'kept'. In fact, I find that misuse of the term 'monopoly' hateful. Next thing you know, the Vatican has a monopoly on the veneration of RC saints. > There are numerous other operations that index parts of Usenet. If you > do a search on some concept related to information technology, for > example, a number of discussion forum sites will come up that turn out > to be Usenet mirrors. But I don't know that any other company has the > expanse of coverage that Google has. > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): >>> Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 20:59): [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Next thing you know, the Vatican has a monopoly on the veneration of RC > saints. Either you missed the part where I said it's de facto instead of de jure, or you don't know what those mean (which I think is unlikely), or you think the word "monopoly" implies an enforced condition while I don't. Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): >>>> Adam Funk wrote (08-02-2010 20:59): [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > jure, or you don't know what those mean (which I think is unlikely), or > you think the word "monopoly" implies an enforced condition while I don't. Fourth, I think 'monopoly' means that the monopolist is able to dictate how others gain access to a thing. In lay usage. (In legal usage, the thing is a market, and just what constitutes a market has to be determined for each case.) The only de facto vs de iure distinction I can see here is between an informal near-monopolist and a court-declared monopolist. Monopoly does not mean simply 'be the sole/biggest provider of', and I hate that misuse. And Adam's original 'keeps monopoly on' is a complete abuse. > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): >>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > hate that misuse. And Adam's original 'keeps monopoly on' is a complete > abuse. The first definition in the OED: "The exclusive possession or control of the trade in a commodity, product, or service; the condition of having no competitor in one's trade or business." "Exclusive possession" applies at the moment, despite, the fact that nothing enforces this exclusive possession. Definition 2 fits your notion: "An exclusive privilege conferred by a monarch, state, etc., of selling a particular commodity or of trading with a particular region." But the first definition can't be called a "misuse". Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 17:36): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): >>>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > commodity or of trading with a particular region." But the first > definition can't be called a "misuse". But the first definition doesn't apply. Google doesn't have exclusive possession in this case. If 'exclusive' has its normal meaning of 'exclusion of others', it's false. If 'exclusive' has the weaker meaning of 'absence of others', it hasn't 'possession' anyway, since the resources are public domain and not Google's property. You may say it is the 'sole provider', but that is quite different from 'exclusive possessor'. Besides, 'my' notion is not more closely mirrored in the second definition than it is in the first - words must be taken in context, and it's clear that 'exclusive possession' is to be read in strong terms, not the least by the company of 'control of the trade'. You might point to 'having no competitor', but 'trade or business' gives yet another indication that the words in the definition aren't to be taken in any sense they may have, but in a certain context. Ask yourself: what idea does 'Google has a monopooly on the Usenet archives' convey, either to a lawyer or to the man in the street? > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 17:36): >>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > the 'sole provider', but that is quite different from 'exclusive > possessor'. As you are aware, words like "exclusive", "possess", "control", "etc.", can cover a great deal of semantic ground. I reject the extremely narrow and rigid definitions you seem to attribute to them. > Besides, 'my' notion is not more closely mirrored in the second > definition than it is in the first - words must be taken in context, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ask yourself: what idea does 'Google has a monopooly on the Usenet > archives' convey, either to a lawyer or to the man in the street? To the man on the street, it conveys the idea that Google has no competition in that arena. It does not imply that such competition can't come to exist, or that there is any restriction on the advent of such competition. I don't know about anywhere else, but this is the common understanding in the United States. We use the word "monopoly", for example, to describe the condition that federal commerce law strives to prevent. What's being prevented, if they came to exist, would be de facto monopolies. Otherwise, the law wouldn't have to prevent them from forming, it would only have to refrain from creating them. Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 18:53): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 17:36): >>>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > can cover a great deal of semantic ground. I reject the extremely narrow > and rigid definitions you seem to attribute to them. As I thought I explained clearly just below, those words when used there have specific meanings. (Nor does any latitude that you attribute to them impact much on the matter anyway.) I consider your rejection to be wrong (and wrongly grounded). But you shouldn't see this as a personal matter. Words cover a great deal of semantic ground, yes. But that doesn't mean that if A is defined in terms of X, Y and Z you're free to combine *any* of the meanings of X, Y and Z to get at A's. Quite the opposite - there's a limited set of combinations (when not just one) that yield the correct definition. Just which to use is normally clear, though not always. I think it is clear enough in this case. For me there is only one question: are you being obtuse in order to defend a usage you wouldn't use yourself, or do you reaaly use it and are genuinely convinced that you're right? (And if so, how many more are in your situation? NB widespread misuse of a word is not enough to make it legitimate - in this case because it's a word you only employ as jargon, popularised or not; it is quite similar to the 'beg the question' case.) >> Besides, 'my' notion is not more closely mirrored in the second >> definition than it is in the first - words must be taken in context, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > competition. I don't know about anywhere else, but this is the common > understanding in the United States. Again, that's orthogonal. In the US or not, if you use the word 'monopoly' you're implying some ownership of a domain. Simply being the sole provider doesn't match. If you tell the man on the street that Google has a monoply over the Usenet archives, the man on the street will not just get the idea that Google is the sole provider. He will get the idea that Usenet archives are somehow tied to Google and that it there is some kind of barrier, de iure or de facto, for anyone who would want to become a provider. You may say it isn't so, but it is. > We use the word "monopoly", for > example, to describe the condition that federal commerce law strives to > prevent. What's being prevented, if they came to exist, would be de > facto monopolies. Otherwise, the law wouldn't have to prevent them from > forming, it would only have to refrain from creating them. You seem to be under the impression that I think monopolies are upheld by legal instruments. That would seem to relate to that 2nd definition earlier on. As I said then, 'my' notion is no more reflected in the 2nd definition than in the first. When you say a child has a monopoly of its mother's attention, that's still 'my' notion - it suggests control, ownership. Not merely being the sole beneficiary. > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 18:53): >>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 17:36): [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > As I thought I explained clearly just below, those words when used there > have specific meanings. When used where? What meanings? The ones you assign to them? > (Nor does any latitude that you attribute to > them impact much on the matter anyway.) I consider your rejection to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that if A is defined in terms of X, Y and Z you're free to combine *any* > of the meanings of X, Y and Z to get at A's. Neither are you. > Quite the opposite - > there's a limited set of combinations (when not just one) that yield the > correct definition. Not necessarily. > Just which to use is normally clear, though not > always. I think it is clear enough in this case. Obviously not, since you and I disagree. > For me there is only > one question: are you being obtuse in order to defend a usage you > wouldn't use yourself, or do you reaaly use it and are genuinely > convinced that you're right? The latter. I am not just doing this to get your goat. I am arguing this because you have decreed that a usage that I understand to be common is a "misuse", and I disagree with you on that. > (And if so, how many more are in your > situation? NB widespread misuse of a word is not enough to make it [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Again, that's orthogonal. In the US or not, if you use the word > 'monopoly' you're implying some ownership of a domain. Excuse me, but you're the one who asked the question about the man on the street, and I was replying directly to it. And obviously I disagree with your last sentence above since I just got through contradicting it. > Simply being the > sole provider doesn't match. If you tell the man on the street that > Google has a monoply over the Usenet archives, the man on the street > will not just get the idea that Google is the sole provider. If we limit ourselves to the person who already (a) knows what Usenet is, (b) knows that it isn't owned by anybody, and (c) is familiar with Google's Usenet archive, I think he will. I *understand* that you think he won't. If we aren't limiting ourselves to such a person, then the question is pointless, because then we're asking someone for his judgment about something he knows nothing about. > He will get > the idea that Usenet archives are somehow tied to Google and that it > there is some kind of barrier, de iure or de facto, for anyone who would > want to become a provider. You may say it isn't so, but it is. As I noted, the whole exercise is pointless if presented to someone who doesn't already have the background necessary to understand the gist of the question. >> We use the word "monopoly", for >> example, to describe the condition that federal commerce law strives to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > still 'my' notion - it suggests control, ownership. Not merely being the > sole beneficiary. When you say control, you imply that the mother is incapable of realizing eventually that she's neglecting something else and turning her attention to it, and that the child therefore has eternal power over her. Perhaps the problem is that your idea of what "control" means is different from mine. Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 19:55): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 18:53): >>>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 17:36): [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > When used where? What meanings? The ones you assign to them? Roughly. >> (Nor does any latitude that you attribute to them impact much on the >> matter anyway.) I consider your rejection to be wrong (and wrongly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Neither are you. And I don't think I'm doing that. >> Quite the opposite - there's a limited set of combinations (when not >> just one) that yield the correct definition. > > Not necessarily. How so? Is it generally the case that there is an unlimited set of combinations that do yield the correct definition? >> Just which to use is normally clear, though not always. I think it is >> clear enough in this case. > > Obviously not, since you and I disagree. But I think you're not paying due attention. >> For me there is only one question: are you being obtuse in order to >> defend a usage you wouldn't use yourself, or do you reaaly use it and >> are genuinely convinced that you're right? > > The latter. I am not just doing this to get your goat. (I was rather more interested in knowing whether you would use it that way yourself or not.) > I am arguing this > because you have decreed that a usage that I understand to be common is > a "misuse", and I disagree with you on that. My point of view is that most of the times you think you've seen that usage you were in fact seeing the 'other' one. >> (And if so, how many more are in your situation? NB widespread misuse >> of a word is not enough to make it legitimate - in this case because [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the street, and I was replying directly to it. And obviously I disagree > with your last sentence above since I just got through contradicting it. What I'm saying is orthogonal is 'such competition can't come to exist, or that there is any restriction on the advent of such competition' (assuming you meant legal restriction) and it being the US or not. >> Simply being the sole provider doesn't match. If you tell the man on >> the street that Google has a monoply over the Usenet archives, the man [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > question is pointless, because then we're asking someone for his > judgment about something he knows nothing about. But we do know the target audience: people who have some, but not perfect, knowledge of a/b/c. For those people, the question is not pointless, yet they're likely to read from the statement something which isn't true. >> He will get the idea that Usenet archives are somehow tied to Google >> and that it there is some kind of barrier, de iure or de facto, for [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > her. Perhaps the problem is that your idea of what "control" means is > different from mine. Here I mean that the child dictates how the mother dispenses her attention. It doesn't mean it's eternal control, it doesn't mean that the mother gives attention to nothing else. It means that, when deciding what to give attention to, the mother thinks in terms of the child's interest. This idea of being able to determine how access to resources is to be gained or not is at the very heart of the notion of monopoly. Obviously, most of the times, monopoly will imply being the only or nearly the only provider, and most of the times being the only or nearly the only provider will imply being a monopoly, and that's why it is easy to mix up the two ideas, and that's why it is easy to think evidence for one is actually evidence for the other, but the fact is that sometimes being the only or nearly the only provider does not mean you have a monopoly, and sometimes you can have a monopoly even not being the only or nearly the only provider. What determines whether you have a monopoly or not is your ability to dictate the terms under which the resource is accessed. This is an abstract definition, but it works for the corporation the same way it works for the child. In sum, I think I'm telling you that your usage of monopoly is wrong. I understand how you can take exception to that, but again, what do you make of 'begs the question'? Though here, in fact, most of the times that which you may refer to as a monopoly is a monopoly, even if I'm right, so that's not a big problem. Meaning is determined by usage because it is something you infer from people's usages around you (I think it's the second time I say this today). But words like monopoly are not that common and those who use them consistently and more frequently (and those are the ones who get the most weight) do tend to use them judiciously. So, even if the general public is tempted to misuse the word, the meaning doesn't shift. Much in the same way that thou didn't lose its -(s)t, because the only people using it with any regularity - almost none, of course - do take the care to employ the correct marker. On Feb 9, 12:36 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): > >>> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > commodity or of trading with a particular region." But the first > definition can't be called a "misuse".- Since it's an historical dictionary, the first definition is simply the oldest. It may or may not remain current. (Likewise for M-W, though not for AmHer.) > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): >> Either you missed the part where I said it's de facto instead of de >> jure, or you don't know what those mean (which I think is unlikely), or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > others gain access to a thing. In lay usage. (In legal usage, the thing is a > market, and just what constitutes a market has to be determined for each case.) Read Google's terms of service to see how it dictates access. > The only de facto vs de iure distinction I can see here is between an > informal near-monopolist and a court-declared monopolist. > > Monopoly does not mean simply 'be the sole/biggest provider of', Yes, it does. > and I hate that misuse. And Adam's original 'keeps monopoly on' is a > complete abuse. No, it isn't. Deja had (AFAIK) the only fairly comprehensive archive of the USENET, and now Google has it. It would be totally impractical for you to re-create it. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) Adam Funk wrote (09-02-2010 21:40): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:29): > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Read Google's terms of service to see how it dictates access. It dictates access to *its servers*. Are you pulling an LSD? >> The only de facto vs de iure distinction I can see here is between an >> informal near-monopolist and a court-declared monopolist. >> >> Monopoly does not mean simply 'be the sole/biggest provider of', > > Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. >> and I hate that misuse. And Adam's original 'keeps monopoly on' is a >> complete abuse. > > No, it isn't. Deja had (AFAIK) the only fairly comprehensive archive > of the USENET, and now Google has it. It would be totally impractical > for you to re-create it. That's your fault/problem. > Adam Funk wrote (09-02-2010 21:40): >> Read Google's terms of service to see how it dictates access. > > It dictates access to *its servers*. I thought it was obvious that that's what I meant. > Are you pulling an LSD? What do you mean? >>> Monopoly does not mean simply 'be the sole/biggest provider of', >> >> Yes, it does. > > No, it doesn't. It's what "de facto monopoly" means. >> No, it isn't. Deja had (AFAIK) the only fairly comprehensive archive >> of the USENET, and now Google has it. It would be totally impractical >> for you to re-create it. > > That's your fault/problem. It's the USENET community's problem. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) > > Adam Funk wrote (09-02-2010 21:40): > >> Read Google's terms of service to see how it dictates access. > > > It dictates access to *its servers*. > > I thought it was obvious that that's what I meant. We're not discussing whether Google 'keeps a monopoly' on its servers. > > Are you pulling an LSD? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's what "de facto monopoly" means. 'De facto' monopoly means a monopoly which hasn't been determined in court, or something almost like a monopoly that it can be considered one (for instance, even if Apple doesn't really have a monopoly on online music sales, it has something very like it - not because it is the biggest provider, not because there is a barrier to entry, but because it can to a great degree set the rules for the market). Compare Google Web Search - Google does have a position in web search similar to Apple's in online music, but it isn't able to set the rules - it doesn't have a monopoly, de facto or otherwise. > >> No, it isn't. Deja had (AFAIK) the only fairly comprehensive archive > >> of the USENET, and now Google has it. It would be totally impractical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's the USENET community's problem. The USENET community should put their money where their mouth is and build an independent archive. GG didn't appear overnight, nor was it easy to assemble, nor actually practical, and it doesn't generate money. > 'De facto' monopoly means a monopoly which hasn't been determined in > court, or something almost like a monopoly that it can be considered [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > similar to Apple's in online music, but it isn't able to set the rules > - it doesn't have a monopoly, de facto or otherwise. We're not talking about web search --- we are talking about the USENET archive. > The USENET community should put their money where their mouth is and > build an independent archive. GG didn't appear overnight, nor was it > easy to assemble, nor actually practical, Sure it was. Google bought Deja's archive and kept adding messages to it. The second part is trivial; the first would be impossible for anyone else to reproduce now. Then they added a misleading UI to let any fool post. > and it doesn't generate money. Then Google would get out of it? SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:39:35 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote in <news:ne5h47x54g.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> in sci.lang,news.software.readers,alt.usage.english: [...] >> The USENET community should put their money where their >> mouth is and build an independent archive. GG didn't >> appear overnight, nor was it easy to assemble, nor >> actually practical, > Sure it was. Google bought Deja's archive and kept adding > messages to it. The second part is trivial; the first > would be impossible for anyone else to reproduce now. > Then they added a misleading UI to let any fool post. They do now at least make an effort clearly to identify Usenet groups as such. I don't like web interfaces in general, but the posting interface itself isn't as bad as some -- at least it puts the cursor at the bottom, if I remember correctly! Still, it certainly can't hold a candle to any decent newsreader. For instance, I consider rewrap a basic functionality. And the GG search engine is badly broken, which is as inexcusable as it is ironic. [...] Brian > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): >> Ordinarily, Usenet (NNTP) servers keep articles available for their >> users for a predeterminate amount of time. Usenet archivers can only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Given that anyone can just go get the archived messages from > groups.google.com and store them elsewhere, I guess you haven't been reading the "copyright" thread. Google would come down on them like a ton of bricks. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > Given that anyone can just go get the archived messages from > > groups.google.com and store them elsewhere, > > I guess you haven't been reading the "copyright" thread. Google would > come down on them like a ton of bricks. Google maintains that they have copyright to these messages? Brian SignatureDay 372 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >> António Marques wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Google maintains that they have copyright to these messages? I'm pretty sure that Google maintains that they have a right to limit access to their archive and, in particular, forbid large-scale programmatic access. It would take a *long* time to "go get the archived messages" at the request rate they will allow. (They also almost certainly maintain that they have copyright on the actual styling of the HTML pages they serve, but that part probably wouldn't be what somebody creating an archive would be interested in.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant |overlap in intelligence between the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest (650)857-7572 |humans. | Yosemite Park Ranger http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Google maintains that they have copyright to these messages? > > I'm pretty sure that Google maintains that they have a right to limit > access to their archive and, in particular, forbid large-scale > programmatic access. It would take a long time to "go get the > archived messages" at the request rate they will allow. Yes, I saw some other follow-up messages to that effect. The reference to "copyright" had thrown me a bit. Brian SignatureDay 373 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project Peter Moylan wrote (09-02-2010 21:17): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I guess you haven't been reading the "copyright" thread. Google would > come down on them like a ton of bricks. No, I haven't. What copyright? Google isn't the author of the Usenet messages it displays. > Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): >> Ordinarily, Usenet (NNTP) servers keep articles available for their >> users for a predeterminate amount of time. Usenet archivers can only [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is, let alone being 'kept'. In fact, I find that misuse of the term > 'monopoly' hateful. You could start archiving messages yourself, but you won't be able to re-create the historic archive, and Google won't let you crawl it: Google authorizes you to view and download a single copy of the Materials solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may not sell or modify the Materials or reproduce, display, publicly perform, distribute, or otherwise use the Materials in any way for any public or commercial purpose without the written permission of Google. ... you agree that when using the Service, you will not: ... * use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application, or other device to retrieve or index any portion of the Service or collect information about users for any unauthorized purpose; http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html It's well known that Google will (at least temporarily) block IP addresses if it detects crawling (ironic, eh?), thus protecting its *de facto* monopoly. Signature"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague." Adam Funk wrote (09-02-2010 21:19): >> Harlan Messinger wrote (09-02-2010 16:09): > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You could start archiving messages yourself, but you won't be able to > re-create the historic archive, and Google won't let you crawl it: Nothing below is law-enforceable. > Google authorizes you to view and download a single copy of the > Materials solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > addresses if it detects crawling (ironic, eh?), thus protecting its > *de facto* monopoly. Any script kid worth his salt can overcome such limitations. Besides, being the only one having copies of something doesn't mean you are under the obligation of offering mass-download of it. * António Marques: > Given that anyone can just go get the archived messages from > groups.google.com and store them elsewhere, I don't see where the 'monopoly' > is, let alone being 'kept'. This statement is just not true. Given that the index to the articles is rather incomplete, many of the articles are hard or impossible to get in practical terms. Also, automatically collecting them through http probably violates Google's terms of use. While they can't put terms of use on the Usenet articles themselves, they can put terms on the usage of their servers as a means of delivery. So it's not a practical possibility to collect a nearly complete mirror of Google's Usenet archive. Plus, no other source is known for many of those messages. Signatureer (Tristan) hiez im ein tôrenkleit an der stete machen: von wunderlîchen sachen einen roc seltsên getan und eine gugelen daran H. V. FREIBERG Tristan >* António Marques: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >of Google's Usenet archive. Plus, no other source is known for many of >those messages. In most of the countries of the European Union there is something called Database Right. From the UK Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-otherprotect-faq-database.htm Databases may receive copyright protection for the selection and arrangement of the contents. In addition, or instead, database right may exist in a database. This is an automatic right and protects databases against the unauthorised extraction and re-utilisation of the contents of the database. This applies regardless of the copyright status of the material that has been collected and stored in the database. More: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-otherprotect/c-databaseright.htm And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_legal_protection_of_databases SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote (09-02-2010 23:46): >> * António Marques: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > And: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_legal_protection_of_databases '[S]election and arrangement of the contents', not the contents. > > Given that anyone can just go get the archived messages from > > groups.google.com and store them elsewhere, I don't see where the 'monopoly' [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > use on the Usenet articles themselves, they can put terms on the usage > of their servers as a means of delivery. I'm wondering if they haven't intentionally crippled the search facility for this reason. Certainly it's pretty useless, and in almost all cases I have to resort to a web search. > So it's not a practical possibility to collect a nearly complete mirror > of Google's Usenet archive. Plus, no other source is known for many of > those messages. How did they get the ones before Deja started? Do those still exist outside of Google? Andrew Usher * Andrew Usher: >> So it's not a practical possibility to collect a nearly complete mirror >> of Google's Usenet archive. Plus, no other source is known for many of >> those messages. > > How did they get the ones before Deja started? Do those still exist > outside of Google? AFAIK, there was a call, some people sent in locally kept archives and Google merged those into their database. But it's nowhere near complete before deja, not even for the best-kept hierarchies. Some of those private archives may still exist, but mostly with no public access. Anyway, those will be for a limited number of groups over limited periods. Occasionally, I stumble upon downloadable archives for this or that specific group, with differing historic depth. Not enough for re-creating anything like Google Groups. SignaturePress any key to continue or any other key to quit. Oliver Cromm wrote (09-02-2010 22:43): > * António Marques: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of Google's Usenet archive. Plus, no other source is known for many of > those messages. It *is* practically possible, there just isn't no one interested. No one said it had to be easy. Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: > 2. 'Google groupers' are not a group and the rants against GG have very > little to do with GG* and/or are unreasonable. GG has a poor UI, but that's > a problem for whoever uses it, not anybody else. Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, which is a larger group than its users. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques > <antonio...@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, > which is a larger group than its users. If you read this, please let me know what problems this post of mine caused to you and others. So far I've seen no reason to change from GG - in fact it's the only option for me if I want to reach Usenet from work -, but I might consider changing my position if I turn out to be spreading annoyance amongst other newsgroupers by using GG. Ilpo wrote (09-02-2010 10:43): >> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques >> <antonio...@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > work -, but I might consider changing my position if I turn out to be > spreading annoyance amongst other newsgroupers by using GG. You are, by giving him nothing to complain about. > Ilpo wrote (09-02-2010 10:43): > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You are, by giving him nothing to complain about. Well put! There have been something like 80 postings in this thread in the last day bitching about gg. I'd rather see 80 postings from Franz and analyst41. (Maybe not "Bob.") Tue, 9 Feb 2010 02:43:51 -0800 (PST) from Ilpo <ilpo478@hotmail.com>: > > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques > > <antonio...@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > work -, but I might consider changing my position if I turn out to be > spreading annoyance amongst other newsgroupers by using GG. My apologies -- I was overbroad. I should have said, it's a problem for everyone who reads the great majority of what it produces, because the great majority of its users don't know the difference and Google encourages them by its defaults to misuse Usenet. There is the occasional exception, such as yourself. What is a complete mystery to me is why anyone would use such a flawed interface when there are plenty of superior free interfaces available. (That's an apostrophe, not a genuine request for information. As someone else has pointed out, we're already off topic, and I wouldn't have responded at all except that your reply deserved a response.) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > My apologies -- I was overbroad. I should have said, it's a problem > for everyone who reads the great majority of what it produces, > because the great majority of its users don't know the difference and > Google encourages them by its defaults to misuse Usenet. Thank you for your sincere reply. However, even at the risk of drifting from the topic more and truly annoying you or others this time, I must say that I think you're still being overboard. I've really no idea which of its defaults encourage users to misuse Usenet. I at least haven't found any systematic giveaways that betray GG users, except an occasional "- Show quoted text -", which GG sometimes leaves and which is an obvious bug but can easily be erased before posting. > What is a > complete mystery to me is why anyone would use such a flawed > interface when there are plenty of superior free interfaces > available. (That's an apostrophe, not a genuine request for > information. - - Your endnote well registered. Still, as an attempt to unravel the mystery, I want to say that for me as a very infrequent poster, ease of use is very high on my list of priorities. I can get done what I want to with it, and with relatively little pain. So far I haven't been motivated enough to try to find out which one of the many available alternatives would suit me best, how to set it up, how to overcome all its presumably numerous quirks etc. etc. You may call it laziness, and that's probably what it is, but no amount of deprecation by others is alone likely to make me change my habits. Several posters have expressed their attitude, but at least I haven't yet come across anyone showing any real harm I might be inflicting upon others. Furthermore, there's this another reason why I use GG which I already mentioned. As you said, this is off-topic (as is most of this thread anyway - in fact most of most threads are most of the time), so as far as I'm concerned, this is all that (or probably even more than) merits to be said on this matter. Ilpo On Feb 10, 6:40 pm, I wrote: > time, I must say that I think you're still being overboard. ...broad. > On Feb 10, 6:40 pm, I wrote: >> time, I must say that I think you're still being overboard. > ...broad. If you wish to indicate one has exceeded an accepted range, then "overly broad" will be correct. "Overboard" means you have gone over the edge. But what's a bit of hyperbole in AUE? > > On Feb 10, 6:40 pm, I wrote: > >> time, I must say that I think you're still being overboard. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "overly broad" will be correct. "Overboard" means you have gone over > the edge. "Overbroad" was what Stan wrote, and hence I'd expect it to be correct, too. What went overboard was the control of my fingers (and proofreading), if nothing else. (Damn, I caught myself writing "overboard" again, instead of "broad". How can it be so difficult?) Ilpo > > "Ilpo" <ilpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > (Damn, I caught myself writing "overboard" again, instead of "broad". > How can it be so difficult?) Touch typing is mostly not a consciously controlled activity, and "overboard" is far more accessible to your fingers than "overbroad." Stan Brown wrote (09-02-2010 06:12): > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques > <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, > which is a larger group than its users. <Sigh> In what way is a *poor UI* a problem for anyone except the users?? You don't read before commenting, and then have the nerve to deride the noobs. > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques ><antonioprm@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, > which is a larger group than its users. Rants about "reviving old threads" and failure to snip, for example, reflect GG's poor UI. GG also deliberately conflates proper USENET newsgroups with its own groups. Some other comments: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139583&cid=11687137 SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] Adam Funk wrote (10-02-2010 11:42): >> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:09:01 +0000 from António Marques >> <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rants about "reviving old threads" It's about the 3rd time you mention this, but I still haven't understood what it's got to do with GG. > and failure to snip, for example, reflect GG's poor UI. That one relfects GG's *good* UI. > GG also deliberately conflates proper USENET newsgroups with its own groups. And that causes which problems? > Some other comments: > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139583&cid=11687137 As reading the thread shows, most of the complaints are wrong and *not one* of them had to do with 'everyone who reads what it produces' anyway. > Adam Funk wrote (10-02-2010 11:42): >>> Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, >>> which is a larger group than its users. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's about the 3rd time you mention this, but I still haven't understood > what it's got to do with GG. GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So those of us using proper clients have to read whinging about posts attached to threads that have been dormant for more than some arbitrary length of time. >> and failure to snip, for example, reflect GG's poor UI. > > That one relfects GG's *good* UI. Google Groupers see "-view quoted text-" and are not encouraged to snip properly. So those of us using news clients that follow the established traditions of the USENET see 100 lines of quoted text followed by "Me too!" SignatureMathematiker sind wie Franzosen: Was man ihnen auch sagt, übersetzen sie in ihre eigene Sprache, so daß unverzüglich etwas völlig anderes daraus wird. [Goethe] > > Adam Funk wrote (10-02-2010 11:42): > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > attached to threads that have been dormant for more than some > arbitrary length of time. I will say that GG improved things somewhat. It's now not possible to reply directly to a post more than a certain period into the past (30 days I think). That's much better than when they first rolled out the "Beta" version. There were a number of posts that were replies to messages years old. Part of that was due to the problem they had (I believe fixed also) of conflating disparate threads because they happened to have the same Subject line. Google Groups is, believe it or not, better than it was. For a while the default reply mechanism didn't quote anything, and it wasn't terribly obvious how to do it even if you wanted to. They also fixed the problem where indentation with spaces didn't work right, because they converted the multiple spaces into one. People trying to post code one programming groups had a mess. Brian SignatureDay 374 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project > I will say that GG improved things somewhat. It's now not possible to > reply directly to a post more than a certain period into the past (30 > days I think). That misleads them into thinking that people using news clients should conform to the same limit. Signature...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_] Adam Funk (in sci.lang): >> I will say that GG improved things somewhat. It's now not possible to >> reply directly to a post more than a certain period into the past (30 >> days I think). > > That misleads them into thinking that people using news clients > should conform to the same limit. I consider it good behaviour to observe such a limit; and if you don't, at least minimize snipping, and possibly restore some older context to make your post understandable. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 35: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcsRl_LIJHA> My favourite # 62: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPdX85cv_D8> >> I will say that GG improved things somewhat. It's now not possible to >> reply directly to a post more than a certain period into the past (30 >> days I think). > >That misleads them into thinking that people using news clients >should conform to the same limit. A few days ago someone posted a message in an old thread in an online forum (not GG). That resulted in the well-deserved response "Necropost!". The gap between the "resurrection" post and the previous one was three years six months. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:47:08 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in <news:1phen59c0ano62l72rvfk47crorao8k0pi@4ax.com> in sci.lang,news.software.readers,alt.usage.english: [...] > A few days ago someone posted a message in an old thread > in an online forum (not GG). That resulted in the > well-deserved response "Necropost!". I shall have to remember that! > The gap between the "resurrection" post and the previous > one was three years six months. A mere nothing: a very recent post on Cybalist was in response to one ten years old. Brian Brian M. Scott <b.scott@csuohio.edu> writes and having writ moves on. > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:47:08 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" ><mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I shall have to remember that! Ed Rice is back? Mike "I've missed him, I think" Yetto SignatureIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not. > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:47:08 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" ><mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A mere nothing: a very recent post on Cybalist was in > response to one ten years old. The USENET is for answering technical problems as well as general and ephemeral discussion, so it could be useful (in the hope that Google will eventually either put a decent, read-only UI back on the archive or hand it over to some responsible party) to post solutions to old questions. SignatureLe beau est aussi utile que l'utile. [Victor Hugo] > > Adam Funk wrote (10-02-2010 11:42): > >>> Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So Of course it does. It shows me the tree of all the posts in a thread, and the ones that have been added since the last time I accessed the thread have their author's name in bold; and it opens the message window to the earliest one I haven't read yet. > those of us using proper clients have to read whinging about posts > attached to threads that have been dormant for more than some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > established traditions of the USENET see 100 lines of quoted text > followed by "Me too!" "Encouraged to snip properly"? You need a nanny to tell you how to do your messages? >> Google Groupers see "-view quoted text-" and are not encouraged to >> snip properly. So those of us using news clients that follow the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Encouraged to snip properly"? You need a nanny to tell you how to do > your messages? No, I already know how to do it correctly. GG's UI actually discourages groupers from following the correct practice. SignatureI put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me! > >> Google Groupers see "-view quoted text-" and are not encouraged to > >> snip properly. So those of us using news clients that follow the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, I already know how to do it correctly. GG's UI actually > discourages groupers from following the correct practice. sci.lang plague Funk added a crosspost to something called "news.software.readers." Always beware when replying to Funk. >>>> Google Groupers see "-view quoted text-" and are not encouraged to >>>> snip properly. So those of us using news clients that follow the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Always beware when replying to Funk. In a thread that has become off-topic here (I'm not complaining, many threads in sci.lang do that, I'm just making the point), adding a newsgroup in which the topic IS relevant makes sense, and doesn't justify a snide warning. On Feb 12, 10:22 am, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > >>>> Google Groupers see "-view quoted text-" and are not encouraged to > >>>> snip properly. So those of us using news clients that follow the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > newsgroup in which the topic IS relevant makes sense, and doesn't > justify a snide warning.- It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. > On Feb 12, 10:22 am, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble > group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. I don't know what you mean by that, but in any event the measure of whether something is acceptable Usenet practice isn't whether the results annoy you. On Feb 12, 3:17 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 10:22 am, Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > whether something is acceptable Usenet practice isn't whether the > results annoy you.- What does "acceptable practice" have to do with it, and what does "Usenet" generally have to do with it? See Default "Brian" User's comment. > On Feb 12, 3:17 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What does "acceptable practice" have to do with it, and what does > "Usenet" generally have to do with it? If you don't understand what relation acceptable practices and Usenet have to your complaint (and I'm at loss to understand how it would be that this puzzles you), then anything else I say will be well beyond you. On Feb 12, 3:56 pm, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 3:17 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > have to your complaint (and I'm at loss to understand how it would be > that this puzzles you), then anything else I say will be well beyond you.- I'm not talking about "Usenet generally," I'm talking about sci.lang. No one at rec.music.classical, for instance, crossposts to weirdo newsgroups (well, rec.music.opera is apparently pretty weird), ditto at nyc.transit and the others. The behavior, in my limited experience, is confined to one poster at sci.lang, and (fortunately) only intermittently. >> >>> It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble >> >>> group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. > I'm not talking about "Usenet generally," I'm talking about sci.lang. > No one at rec.music.classical, for instance, crossposts to weirdo > newsgroups (well, rec.music.opera is apparently pretty weird), ditto > at nyc.transit and the others. The behavior, in my limited experience, > is confined to one poster at sci.lang, and (fortunately) only > intermittently. It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the "dog food" remarks. SignatureTwo of the most famous products of Berkeley are LSD and Unix. I don't think that this is a coincidence. [anonymous] >>> >>> It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble >>> >>> group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the >"dog food" remarks. Well, we did say he should bid three spades, so he wasn't entirely incorrect. BW > >> >>> It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble > >> >>> group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > "dog food" remarks. Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, which is a spelling equivalent to kibble, which is dog food. On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:07:02 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:58260426-7852-4842-9b92-3726a8d9b903@w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> >>> It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble >>>> >>> group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. >>> I'm not talking about "Usenet generally," I'm talking about sci.lang. >>> No one at rec.music.classical, for instance, crossposts to weirdo >>> newsgroups (well, rec.music.opera is apparently pretty weird), ditto >>> at nyc.transit and the others. The behavior, in my limited experience, >>> is confined to one poster at sci.lang, and (fortunately) only >>> intermittently. >> It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the >> "dog food" remarks. > Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, Wrong. > which is a spelling equivalent to kibble, Wrong. > which is dog food. Among many other things. Brian >> Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wrong. He is the Louis XVIII of the USENET. SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > >> Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He is the Louis XVIII of the USENET. Then assassinate him already, and get him off our backs. Peter T. Daniels (in alt.usage.english): >> >> Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Then assassinate him already, and get him off our backs. The real one wasn't assassinated. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 21: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB68bzzGmHs> My favourite # 58: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ8UcnOldaE> >> >> Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> He is the Louis XVIII of the USENET. That refers to you (PTD). > Then assassinate him already, and get him off our backs. A UDP would certainly be in order. SignatureWhen Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342] Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:47:12 +0000 from Adam Funk <a24061 @ducksburg.com>: > >> Certainly not. They pretend to worship kibol, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He is the Louis XVIII of the USENET. I don't understand. Louis XVIII may not have been the best of kings, but he at least tried to observe the constitution, and he was much better than either of his brothers. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:47:12 +0000 from Adam Funk <a24061 > @ducksburg.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but he at least tried to observe the constitution, and he was much > better than either of his brothers. Peter has "learned nothing and forgotten nothing". SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] > >> >>> It certainly does. Several people inadvertently posted to the kibble > >> >>> group, well before the kibblers started kibitzing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > "dog food" remarks. In order to do that one must accept that one has made an error. Some are incapable of believing they CAN err. Dr. HotSalt > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > "dog food" remarks. Speaking of groupers, I just learned that they suck their prey in from a distance and swallow it rather than biting pieces off, and they are female when young, but turn into males and acquire harems as they get older. Also, Australians call them "gropers" for some reason. Some weigh as much as 400 lbs. > > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > > "dog food" remarks. > > Speaking of groupers, I just learned that they suck their prey in from FNARR! > a distance and swallow it rather than biting pieces off, and they are Remote-control FNARR! > female when young, but turn into males and acquire harems as they get > older. Oh, the FNARRanity! > Also, Australians call them "gropers" for some reason. Some > weigh as much as 400 lbs. Kontext-Away adjusts its truss and staggers away groaning slightly... Dr. HotSalt > > > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > > > "dog food" remarks. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Kontext-Away adjusts its truss and staggers away groaning > slightly... See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, linguistic hypocrisy, playgrounding, and barking orders at other people? SignatureSome say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults. [XKCD 312] >> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > > Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, > linguistic hypocrisy, playgrounding, and barking orders at other > people? He does anti-Semitism? SignatureMike. [a.u.e. only] On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He does anti-Semitism? Not as a regular thing. I thought his accusing Evan of "Talmudic nitpickery" (q.GG.) was close to the edge, and Adam said it was over the edge. -- Jerry Friedman > Not as a regular thing. I thought his accusing Evan of "Talmudic > nitpickery" (q.GG.) was close to the edge, and Adam said it was over > the edge. I wrote at the time: That's either anti-Semitic or an insensitive blunder. I guess whether you're willing to apologize will tell us which. and his only comments below the offensive remark were a random attack on the other person who (perhaps unfairly brusquely, I thought at the time, but in retrospect apparently rightly) commented on it. SignatureI worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my daughter] will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?' [Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/ ] > > Not as a regular thing. I thought his accusing Evan of "Talmudic > > nitpickery" (q.GG.) was close to the edge, and Adam said it was over [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on the other person who (perhaps unfairly brusquely, I thought at the > time, but in retrospect apparently rightly) commented on it. I dunno, maybe I'm just losing my sensitivity in my old age, but I'm not sure that we adherents to the religion that gave the world "pilpul"[1] should complain about what looks to me like a good idiomatic English translation of that word. I'm just back from another week away and haven't tracked the thread back, and maybe PTD's use of the phrase was insensitive (what I did track looked insensitive indeed), but I don't see that it's anti-semitic even if aimed at a Jew. But that's just me. [1] "pilpul -- a method of disputation among rabbinical scholars regarding the interpretation of Talmudic rules and principles or Scripture that involves the development of careful and often excessively subtle distinctions." <http://dictionary.infoplease.com/pilpul> SignatureWhoops -- But that's just I Bob Lieblich >[a.u.e. only] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >nitpickery" (q.GG.) was close to the edge, and Adam said it was over >the edge. No worse, it seems to me, than accusing someone of being a Bible thumper. Some Christians might not like them, but I think few would interpret them as fighting words. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>[a.u.e. only] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > thumper. Some Christians might not like them, but I think few would > interpret them as fighting words. As the target here, I'm going to have to (uncharacteristically) rise to Peter's defense. I took his words to refer to the *style* of the arguments in the Talmud (and those of people who study it and emulate its style), rather than a particular theological perspective. You can have a talmudic argument about anything, and I could see myself using the phrase to describe the arguments of a non-Jew just as easily. I don't think there was any anti-semitism there. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > As the target here, I'm going to have to (uncharacteristically) rise > to Peter's defense. I took his words to refer to the *style* of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the phrase to describe the arguments of a non-Jew just as easily. I > don't think there was any anti-semitism there. That's very generous of you. SignatureTaken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash. (Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972) >>>[a.u.e. only] >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >the phrase to describe the arguments of a non-Jew just as easily. I >don't think there was any anti-semitism there. "Talmudic nitpickery" aside, someone might be sensitive about being called a nit-picker, a very minor infraction of social customs in my book. But then I'm an AUE member. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He does anti-Semitism? I was surprised when it happened, but he didn't offer any apology or explanation, and made a random attack at the other person who pointed it out. <dffa67d2-71e0-41cf-bd77-0c2a7ec0a3e4@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> SignatureOh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn But it's hard to read through the rising smoke of the books that you want to burn [Phil Ochs] > >>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > <dffa67d2-71e0-41cf-bd77-0c2a7ec0a...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> What do you think I said was "antisemitic"? If the above is meant to be a link, put it in a form that the computer recognizes as a link. >>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? >>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If the above is meant to be a link, put it in a form that the computer > recognizes as a link. A long URL- or email-address-like string like that does not survive when sent from Google Groups into the real world. If it is longer than about 60-70 characters, part of it is replaced with "...", and even if it is shorter, it's obfuscated if it looks like an email address (to protect the owner of the address). So, even if Adam had included a full HTTP URL, it would be useless. > >>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > >>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So, even if Adam had included a full HTTP URL, it would be useless. Actually, it's possible to retrieve the thread referred to by first clicking on the ellipsis in Google Groups, then dealing with the captcha, and finally copying the message id and pasting it into the appropriate box in the "Advanced Search" screen. >> A long URL- or email-address-like string like that does not survive when >> sent from Google Groups into the real world. If it is longer than about [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > captcha, and finally copying the message id and pasting it into the > appropriate box in the "Advanced Search" screen. Note that I referred to "the real world", i e outside GG. I have done that in GG, when I had to use it last year, but it's still a PITA. > >>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > >>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So, even if Adam had included a full HTTP URL, it would be useless.- No, properly done links appear in GG as (blue underlined) links, and they work even if part of them is replaced by an ellipsis. > > >>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If the above is meant to be a link, put it in a form that the computer > recognizes as a link. The Funkmeister is full of it. The quote he's referring to is "Don't ascribe your talmudic nitpickery to me." That doesn't sound antisemitic in the least. See "pilpul". >>>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? >>>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That doesn't sound antisemitic in the least. You forgot the words "to me". SignatureJames > >>>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > >>>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You forgot the words "to me". It might suggest bigotry if he chose that phrase because he was replying to someone Jewish. But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently bigoted. >>>>>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? >>>>>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It might suggest bigotry if he chose that phrase because he was > replying to someone Jewish. Bingo! > But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently bigoted. SignatureJames > >>>>>>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > >>>>>>> Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bingo! Nonsense. Why would I expect someone unfamiliar with Jewish literature to understand what I was talking about? If Bob Menendez comes to talk to a Hudson County town meeting about the failure of the Obama Administration to promote the passage of meaningful health care reform legislation, and starts orating as on the Senate floor, would someone who urged him to stop using "legislative mumbo-jumbo" be antihispanic? or antisenatorial? > > But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently bigoted. [cossack, shmossack, as long as he loves his mother] >>>> The Funkmeister is full of it. >>>> The quote he's referring to is "Don't ascribe your talmudic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bingo! Sounds kind of Islamic. >> But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently bigoted. CDB wrote on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:00:35 -0500: > [cossack, shmossack, as long as he loves his mother] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> > Sounds kind of Islamic. >>> But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently >>> bigoted. The phrase is not particulary derogatory and describes quite a lot of argument. Leo Rosten, in his admirable book, "The Joys of Yinglish" (1989) has an entries for "Pilpul". 1. "A form of hyper-analysis or debate used in Talmudic discussions". 2."(Colloquially.) Any hair-spltting or logic-chopping that leaves the main boulevard of a problem to bog down in the sterile side streets." SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James wrote to CDB on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:16:39 -0500: >> [cossack, shmossack, as long as he loves his mother] >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >> Sounds kind of Islamic. >>>> But the phrase "talmudic nitpickery" isn't inherently >>>> bigoted. > The phrase is not particulary derogatory and describes quite a > lot of argument. > Leo Rosten, in his admirable book, "The Joys of Yinglish" > (1989) has an entries for "Pilpul". > 1. "A form of hyper-analysis or debate used in Talmudic > discussions". 2."(Colloquially.) Any hair-spltting or > logic-chopping that leaves the main boulevard of a problem to bog down > in the sterile side streets." Before anyone takes me up on it, I know there a lack of agreement in my using "an entries". I hit the send button too quickly. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > James wrote to CDB on Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:16:39 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Before anyone takes me up on it, I know there a lack of agreement in my > using "an entries". I hit the send button too quickly. Damn, I was looking forward to bogging down in the sterile side streets of hair-splitting and pill-pulling. SignatureJames >> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? > > Why do you pollute the USENET with chauvinism, anti-semitism, > linguistic hypocrisy, playgrounding, and barking orders at other > people? Because he can! --oTTo-- >> Peter Daniels, I think, wrote: >>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Because he can! Point of order: he should be emitting those orders using zebra and lion sounds, not barking them. There's too much barking in this neighborhood after 10pm. Dave Signature\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K. >>>> See? Why should crap like this pollute sci.lang threads? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > after > 10pm. Apparently you've never camped out near lions roaring at zebras. --oTTo-- > > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > > "dog food" remarks. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > older. Also, Australians call them "gropers" for some reason. Some > weigh as much as 400 lbs. How much do the fish weigh? > It's never too late for you to make a sincere apology to ARK for the > "dog food" remarks. < <Speaking of groupers, I just learned that they suck their prey in from >a distance and swallow it rather than biting pieces off, and they are <female when young, but turn into males and acquire harems as they get <older. Also, Australians call them "gropers" for some reason. Some <weigh as much as 400 lbs. Revenge of the grouper! http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=90810154673 --oTTo-- > > sci.lang plague Funk added a crosspost to something called > > "news.software.readers." > In a thread that has become off-topic here (I'm not complaining, many > threads in sci.lang do that, I'm just making the point), adding a > newsgroup in which the topic IS relevant makes sense, and doesn't > justify a snide warning. It is good practice to inform others that the new group is being added. Brian SignatureDay 375 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >>> sci.lang plague Funk added a crosspost to something called >>> "news.software.readers." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It is good practice to inform others that the new group is being added. True, it does seem to be a common courtesy. >> sci.lang plague Funk added a crosspost to something called >> "news.software.readers." >> >> Always beware when replying to Funk. Ooh, a google grouper is telling other people how to post --- how precious. I might have to print this out for my scrapbook. > In a thread that has become off-topic here (I'm not complaining, many > threads in sci.lang do that, I'm just making the point), adding a > newsgroup in which the topic IS relevant makes sense, and doesn't > justify a snide warning. Right. And sensible USENETters know how to read headers. Signature"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague." > >> sci.lang plague Funk added a crosspost to something called > >> "news.software.readers." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ooh, a google grouper is telling other people how to post --- how > precious. I might have to print this out for my scrapbook. I am not a fish. I am a free man. > > In a thread that has become off-topic here (I'm not complaining, many > > threads in sci.lang do that, I'm just making the point), adding a > > newsgroup in which the topic IS relevant makes sense, and doesn't > > justify a snide warning. > > Right. And sensible USENETters know how to read headers. And, as Default "Brian" User noted, it is common courtesy to point out when one is adding crossposts. > > GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So > > Of course it does. It shows me the tree of all the posts in a thread, > and the ones that have been added since the last time I accessed the > thread have their author's name in bold; and it opens the message > window to the earliest one I haven't read yet. Note that you have to "subscribe" to the group (and log in, so it knows who you are) for this to happen. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Google's massively parallel AI...it was a long time before we realized that Google's search engine was not only good, but oddly good." -- James A. Donald > > > GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Note that you have to "subscribe" to the group (and log in, so it > knows who you are) for this to happen. Well duh, how would it know which posts _I_ have looked at, if it didn't know who _I_ am? It's been a very long time since I looked at a group other than the six I'm subscribed to, so I don't know how they behave. >>>> GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well duh, how would it know which posts _I_ have looked at, if it > didn't know who _I_ am? Of course *it* (Google server) knows or care nothing about what you have or haven't looked at before. That info is held on your PC. There is no The Only One google server in the world. There are tens/hundreds of them. pjk > It's been a very long time since I looked at a group other than the > six I'm subscribed to, so I don't know how they behave. > >>>> GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There is no The Only One google server in the world. > There are tens/hundreds of them. Actually it may be held on the Verizon Yahoo server that holds my email account. >>>>>> GG doesn't help its users to see only the posts they haven't read. So >>>>> Of course it does. It shows me the tree of all the posts in a thread, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually it may be held on the Verizon Yahoo server that holds my > email account. Not very likely. How would Google get that information? Even if there are thousands of Google servers, their combined data can be seen as a single database. Google Groups have your posting history, for example. I thought maybe that my personal information could be kept by my browser in cookies, but I can access GG from any computer or browser and get the same information. As a Gmail user, I have over 7 GB of free personal data space available on their servers. Keeping tabs on your GG usage should be peanuts to Google. > Not very likely. How would Google get that information? Even if there > are thousands of Google servers, Don't think so small. The estimates were between 450,000 and a million back in 2007. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I value writers such as Fiske. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |They serve as valuable object Palo Alto, CA 94304 |lessons by showing that the most |punctilious compliance with the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rules of usage has so little to do (650)857-7572 |with either writing or thinking |well. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | --Richard Hershberger > > Adam Funk wrote (10-02-2010 11:42): > >>> Wrong -- it's a problem for everyone who reads what it produces, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > attached to threads that have been dormant for more than some > arbitrary length of time. I have never met this issue. > >> and failure to snip, for example, reflect GG's poor UI. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > established traditions of the USENET see 100 lines of quoted text > followed by "Me too!" Any client can 'hide quoted text'. But maybe GG could auto-snip the hidden text when the user clicks 'reply'. Send them the suggestion. *That* would be a step towards reducing this very important problem. Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:40:27 -0800 (PST) from António Marques <entonio@gmail.com>: > But maybe GG could auto-snip the > hidden text when the user clicks 'reply'. Send them the suggestion. > *That* would be a step towards reducing this very important problem. That very suggestion was sent, many times, to Google when they first intruded themselves into the creation of Usenet articles instead of just archiving them. The effect was nil, as has been the effect of every suggestion sent to Google on the subject of Usenet. Actually, "nil" may be giving them too much credit, since the interface for searching has been growing worse each time they tinker with it. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Stan Brown wrote (12-02-2010 09:53): > Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:40:27 -0800 (PST) from António Marques > <entonio@gmail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > intruded themselves into the creation of Usenet articles instead of > just archiving them. Somehow I doubt that. > The effect was nil, as has been the effect of every suggestion sent > to Google on the subject of Usenet. Or any other subject, that much is true. > Actually, "nil" may be giving them too much credit, since the > interface for searching has been growing worse each time they tinker > with it. > Stan Brown wrote (12-02-2010 09:53): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Somehow I doubt that. Yes, because Google doesn't offer any way of sending suggestions. Andrew Usher > The effect was nil, as has been the effect of every suggestion sent > to Google on the subject of Usenet. I wouldn't say that. They have changed other things in the past. I made note of few elsewhere. It was, however, generally a very poor implementation. I have said at various times that it seemed like the main qualifications for working on the GG project were to be an incompetent software engineer and be completely unfamiliar with usenet. Brian SignatureDay 375 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project > http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > it would be fine, but when it's being seriously promoted as the > international language, someone has a screw loose. I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where "Give us this day our daily bread" is: Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. SignatureJames > >http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. Lots of people will be willing to learn Na'vi, and if Dnghe was proposed as a conlang and not as an auxlang, people would be quite happy to adopt it. Its problem is that it is marketed as an auxlang. > I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where > "Give us this day our daily bread" is: > > Qaqodjutenom bharsiom nseróm edjew dasdhi-nos. Not voluntarily, of course. But if the European Commission prescribes it as a rule that has to be transformed into national law ... just like the ban on light bulbs ... SignatureHelmut Richter > >http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > -- > James I agree. Too complicated and not beautiful enough. But did you notice the nice bear logo? I say give some of that money to Franz. Magdalenian suits Europe better -- simple, long, soft, furry and warm! Ross Clark On Feb 9, 11:21 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > >http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Ross Clark Sorry, I forgot "thick". ;-) > I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where > "Give us this day our daily bread" is: > > Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. The PIEans were Christians? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where > > "Give us this day our daily bread" is: > > > Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. > > The PIEans were Christians? Of course. That's why analys and hir ilk loathe them. > > I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where > > "Give us this day our daily bread" is: > > > Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. And that's without laryngeals , whatever they are. > The PIEans were Christians? The reconstructed ones are. You do *not* want to meet an unreconstructed Proto-Indo-European. -- Jerry Friedman >> I don't think there's much risk that anyone will adopt a language where >> "Give us this day our daily bread" is: >> >> Qāqodjūtenom bharsiom ṇseróm edjḗw dasdhi-nos. >> > The PIEans were Christians? No, but they had to go to the baker's every morning, just like everybody else. SignatureJames > Esperanto also is clearly superior to PIE as a constructed language; > it is designed to be, and in fact is, substantially easier to learn > than any natural language, and has a large number of speakers and > history of use. Esperanto is not inherently superior to anything. The main reason to prefer Esperanto to other auxlang proposals is, that there are loads of literature and learning aids available, which dnghe doesn't have. This is a social and cultural fact that does not make Esperanto linguistically any better or worse than other auxlangs. I completely agree that if you want to promote an international auxlang these days, you must promote Esperanto. This is pure realpolitik: that particular slot has been filled by Esperanto, and new proposals won't succeed. Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): > I completely agree that if you want to promote an international > auxlang these days, you must promote Esperanto. This is pure > realpolitik: that particular slot has been filled by Esperanto, and > new proposals won't succeed. I disagree: - e*******o may be the most widely known 'auxlang', but it's still very little used and if the idea of an 'auxlang' ever does take off it may well have nothing to do with e*******o. It's as if you were saying in the 16th century that nothing would ever be able to replace latin as an international language, or english now. - if you want to promote an 'auxlang' and you're not already a fan of e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all than have e*******o be the 'auxlang'. > Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all than > have e*******o be the 'auxlang'. This is why Panu started his sentence with "if". Had he just said "you must promote Esperanto", your criticism were justified, but he didn't. SignatureHelmut Richter Helmut Richter wrote (08-02-2010 15:31): >> Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This is why Panu started his sentence with "if". Had he just said "you > must promote Esperanto", your criticism were justified, but he didn't. No... he said "if you want to promote an 'auxlang' you must promote Esperanto because...". I presented two reasons why, granting his 'if', one still wouldn't promote esperanto. António Marques (in sci.lang): > Helmut Richter wrote (08-02-2010 15:31): >>> - if you want to promote an 'auxlang' and you're not already a fan of >>> e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Esperanto because...". I presented two reasons why, granting his 'if', one > still wouldn't promote esperanto. So what auxlang would you promote instead if you had to? Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 36: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCSEwfqs-VM> My favourite # 29: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ddWOZ4EDI> > Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > century that nothing would ever be able to replace latin as an international > language, or english now. That is as may be. However, in the world we are living in, there is really no rival to English as a lingua franca, and in a similar way, if you have ideological reasons to oppose the use of a natural language as a lingua franca as a matter of principle, then you'd better adopt Esperanto. Flawed as it may be, it is at this very moment the only artificial auxiliary language of any consequence. Rival projects might be interesting as artistic languages, but Esperanto has already a pool of speakers and some original cultural output (books, websites etc.). Any rival project will be a grammar, a primer, and a chrestomathy of probably translated texts. Esperanto obviously isn't linguistically or aesthetically particularly impressive. Any old artistic language, such as those devised by Mark Rosenfelder of Verdurian fame, is on both counts much more interesting. However, Esperanto has by now lots of cultural clout and tradition and that's what counts. I am not an Esperantist, I don't particularly like the language. However, I don't get this neurotic, anti-Esperantist attitude some people have. My advice to you and other people reacting in the same way is, cut the crap. I don't understand why some people violently and convulsively disagree when somebody says something even moderately positive about Esperanto. On the other hand, my advice to Esperantists is, cut that God-awful crap about it being beautiful, linguistically sound etc., and focus on realpolitik and tradition. Say: OK; it might be flawed, it might be ugly, it might be Eurocentric, but it is a fact of life that it is the only artificial auxiliary language with any success, and if you don't like that, go learn Sindarin or Klingon, they are artistic, but we don't do arts here. > - if you want to promote an 'auxlang' and you're not already a fan of > e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all than > have e*******o be the 'auxlang'. That's right. If you want an auxlang, go learn Esperanto, and if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:55): >> Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > like that, go learn Sindarin or Klingon, they are artistic, but we > don't do arts here. There's just one problem with your assessment: you give e*******o more relevance than it does have. >> - if you want to promote an 'auxlang' and you're not already a fan of >> e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all than >> have e*******o be the 'auxlang'. > > That's right. If you want an auxlang, go learn Esperanto, and if you > don't like it, that's just too bad. The fact is: if you do like e*******o as an 'auxlang', too bad. > Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:55): > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > There's just one problem with your assessment: you give e*******o more > relevance than it does have. Nope. I still resent your obsessive, and convulsive anti-Esperantism. I think you are being irrational and unscientific. It is bad enough that some Esperantists, such as the original poster, are reduced to obviously chauvinistic fury by other auxlang proposals. It is worse if linguists are reduced to obviously unscientific fury by the very mention of Esperanto. Panu wrote (08-02-2010 16:29): >> Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:55): >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > linguists are reduced to obviously unscientific fury by the very > mention of Esperanto. I am not a linguist, as everybody can tell, and all I'm pointing out is that your 'e*******o or nothing' argument is flawed, which is completely independent of the merits or lack thereof of e*******o. Your argument (which came out of nothing, no one was discussing e*******o as such) is flawed both because its premise is false and because the conclusion doesn't follow. If you think that pointing that out is an exhibition of raving fury, then you have a problem with this subject matter. As for me, I *do* have a problem with the frothing attitude that 'everything must give way to X regardless of X's faults because X is the way to go because [whatever]'. That's exactly the same rationale behind 'no one can criticise the commander-in-chief' and I find it despicable. Notice the 'whatever' in '[whatever]'. (I'm not saying you're despicable. Quite honestly, I'm surprised to see you adopting this attitude. Next thing you'll be calling for the eradication of the 'alternatives' to 'Kernewek kemmyn'.) Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:21:14 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: in sci.lang: >> That's right. If you want an auxlang, go learn Esperanto, and if you >> don't like it, that's just too bad. > >The fact is: if you do like e*******o as an 'auxlang', too bad. I do like Esperanto (myself, I have no problems with mentioning the E-word) for its own sake, not especially as an auxlang. I knew about Esperanto and tried to learn and use it long before I even knew the expression "auxlang" (although I did know the concept, of course, "hulptaal"). SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Panu (in sci.lang): > On the other hand, my advice to Esperantists is, cut that God-awful > crap about it being beautiful, linguistically sound etc., and focus on > realpolitik and tradition. Say: OK; it might be flawed, it might be > ugly, it might be Eurocentric, Eurocentric is not a flaw in this case, as the proposal this thread is about is on having a lingua franca for Europe only. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 8: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCu83KvIb7M> My favourite # 66: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:14:53 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: in sci.lang: >Panu wrote (08-02-2010 14:03): > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >e*******o, odds are that you think it best to have no 'auxlang' at all than >have e*******o be the 'auxlang'. I rather like Esperanto and Interlingua, but for different reasons. Neither are very beautiful, BTW. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > I rather like Esperanto and Interlingua, but for different reasons. It is claimed that Interlingua can be passively understood by Romance speakers. If this has a corollary that Romance languages can be passively understood by Interlingua speakers, then Interlingua would be a useful starting point for learning Romance languages. > Neither are very beautiful, BTW. That should be "Neither IS very beautiful". Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:59:35 -0800 (PST): "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang: >> I rather like Esperanto and Interlingua, but for different reasons. > >It is claimed that Interlingua can be passively understood by Romance >speakers. No, by those who know one or more Romance languages OR English. >If this has a corollary that Romance languages can be >passively understood by Interlingua speakers, then Interlingua would >be a useful starting point for learning Romance languages. Mwah, the grammar is rather strange in comparison with the real thing, like using in imperfective (esseva = was) for all past tenses. >> Neither are very beautiful, BTW. > >That should be "Neither IS very beautiful". Yes, on second thought, I think you right. I am, of course you are right, but do I also "feel" this myself? A bit, not quite. Both are, neither is. Yes, seems to make sense. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:59:35 -0800 (PST): "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang: >> I rather like Esperanto and Interlingua, but for different reasons. > >It is claimed that Interlingua can be passively understood by Romance >speakers. The principle of word choice is nice. If a word exists in 3 of 4 languages of English, French, Italian and Spanish/Portuguese, it is Interlingua. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/interlingua.htm So then what do you do with English street, French rue, Spanish calle, Portuguese rua? Spanish and Portuguese are treated as a whole by Interlingua, but in this case they have a different word, so that doesn't count? Yet, "street" is "strata" in Interlingua. Sp/Pt do have estrada, but they mean road rather than street. This makes Interlingua less precise. A similar problem exists with the words "house", "maison", "casa". Italian also has casa (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa) but that means 2 languages, not 3. And German (Haus) and Russion (dom) don't help. According to http://tinyurl.com/ykqgc2s, both "casa" and "domo" nevertheless exist. In fact, it's difficult with all the common word, that English has from Germanic, and easier with the more learned words, which are usually Romance in English too, so they more often coincide with French, Italian and Ibero-Romance. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > I completely agree that if you want to promote an international > auxlang these days, you must promote Esperanto. This is pure > realpolitik: that particular slot has been filled by Esperanto, and > new proposals won't succeed. There are people who want to promote, and do promote, an international auxlang these days, and yet are promoting a language that isn't Esperanto. Hence, your first sentence above is false. Regarding the second sentence: What of it, given that proposals to establish Esperanto as an international auxlang also don't succeed? On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > I completely agree that if you want to promote an international > > auxlang these days, you must promote Esperanto. This is pure [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > auxlang these days, and yet are promoting a language that isn't > Esperanto. Hence, your first sentence above is false. Nobody has ever heard of other international auxlangs. Those I knew about until recently were Volapuk (the spectacular failure), Esperanto (the only one known to the general public), and Ido (a rip-off brand born from personal grudge). > Regarding the second sentence: What of it, given that proposals to > establish Esperanto as an international auxlang also don't succeed? Esperantists will probably go on as before. The language already has so much momentum and tradition. > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Esperantists will probably go on as before. The language already has > so much momentum and tradition. Anglic? What do you think of Basic English? > > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Anglic? What do you think of Basic English? I prefer Tok Pisin. >> Anglic? What do you think of Basic English? > > I prefer Tok Pisin. We have practical evidence that people with a whole variety of native languages were able to learn Tok Pisin. It's not at all clear to me that it's possible to become fluent in Basic English without first learning ordinary English. It relies too heavily on unstated cultural background. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:59): > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (the only one known to the general public), and Ido (a rip-off brand > born from personal grudge). Nobody (for only a slightly wider scope of the word) has heard of e*******o either. >> Regarding the second sentence: What of it, given that proposals to >> establish Esperanto as an international auxlang also don't succeed? > > Esperantists will probably go on as before. The language already has > so much momentum and tradition. 'So much momentum and tradition', which actually amount to precious little. Many things had an enormous momentum and tradition until the day someone came up with something that blew all that out of the water. > Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:59): > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Nobody (for only a slightly wider scope of the word) has heard of e*******o > either. Come on, you know perfectly well that you are talking nonsense. > >> Regarding the second sentence: What of it, given that proposals to > >> establish Esperanto as an international auxlang also don't succeed? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 'So much momentum and tradition', which actually amount to precious little. If a language has a printing press, a literature, and an Internet presence, it has an enormous edge over a language which has one non- fluent speaker, a grammar, a primer, and a chrestomathy. > Many things had an enormous momentum and tradition until the day someone > came up with something that blew all that out of the water. Yes. Modern media, such as ceramic tables, papyri, parchment, and printing press, have always tended to favor metropolitan languages over unwritten rural dialects. As we know, Irish was almost entirely ousted by English, because Irish relied on oral tradition, folklore, and manuscripts while English had a printing press. So? Panu wrote (08-02-2010 16:37): >> Many things had an enormous momentum and tradition until the day someone >> came up with something that blew all that out of the water. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ousted by English, because Irish relied on oral tradition, folklore, > and manuscripts while English had a printing press. So? French was also ousted from most of western Europe's 'first foreign language' curricula by english. Who'd have thunk? Commercial UNIX has all but given way to 'Linux'. And actually, I was thinking more along these lines: if *ever* an 'auxlang' develops (i.e. something not native to anyone), it will be out of a government effort, and it won't matter one iota what there was before such effort began. An 'auxlang' will not emerge by itself, so whatever unofficial success unofficial auxlang candidates acquire will be the least relevant thing. (Conversely, if e*o were to rise by itself, it would already have, it's not like the thing is new.) > And actually, I was thinking more along these lines: if *ever* an 'auxlang' > develops (i.e. something not native to anyone), it will be out of a > government effort, and it won't matter one iota what there was before such > effort began. I don't really think government effort will be decisive. I think sociolinguistic changes usually come to fruition in a way that cannot be predicted. An 'auxlang' will not emerge by itself, so whatever unofficial > success unofficial auxlang candidates acquire will be the least relevant > thing. (Conversely, if e*o were to rise by itself, it would already have, > it's not like the thing is new.) The fact is, though, that no other artificial language has been able to sustain an international subculture with cultural productivity for so long as Esperanto. And people don't learn languages from grammars, they learn them from books, magazines, websites and conversation. > > And actually, I was thinking more along these lines: if *ever* an 'auxlang' > > develops (i.e. something not native to anyone), it will be out of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sociolinguistic changes usually come to fruition in a way that cannot > be predicted. Maybe or maybe not. The spread of french, english or indonesian wasn't alien government action to them. (I think I'll start writing this way.) > > An 'auxlang' will not emerge by itself, so whatever unofficial > > success unofficial auxlang candidates acquire will be the least relevant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to sustain an international subculture with cultural productivity for > so long as Esperanto. But that's simply of matter of parallax. You took what you consider to be the most widespread conlang and held that as a standard. But from a different point of view, that standard isn't significant. You're claiming 1 is inferior to 10, but don't want to hear that, alongside 1000000, 1 isn't behind 10 by that much. > And people don't learn languages from grammars, > they learn them from books, magazines, websites and conversation. People learn what they are required to learn, from whatever source available. A very small number of people have learning as a hobby, but those aren't the issue here. Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonioprm@sapo.pt>: in sci.lang: >French was also ousted from most of western Europe's 'first foreign >language' curricula by english. Who'd have thunk? I like that word, thunk. It doesn't exist, but could have, and it sounds good. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I like that word, thunk. It doesn't exist, but could have, and it > sounds good. Of course it exists. You just don't see it because it isn't Standard English, but it's very common. And very natural -- drink drank drunk, sink sank sunk, sing sang sung. Also bring brang brung. Ain't analogy wonderful? > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0800 (PST) > From: Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course it exists. You just don't see it because it isn't Standard > English, but it's very common. Moreover, the word "thunk" (probably a derivation from "think") once meant a procedure fetching a parameter value for another procedure. The technique, called "name call", is no longer automatically provided in programming languages as it was in Algol 60, so the term is now obsolete. Literature: Gries, D.: Compiler Construction For Digital Computers. Wiley (New York etc.) 1971, ISBN 0-471-32776-X, p.191: The term "thunk" was coined by Ingerman(61a) for his routine and the term has stuck. Ingerman, P.Z.: Thunks. Comm. ACM 4 (1961), p.55-58 > And very natural -- drink drank drunk, sink sank sunk, sing sang sung. > > Also bring brang brung. Ja, das musste hier bemorken werden. SignatureHelmut Richter > > > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: > > > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ingerman, P.Z.: Thunks. Comm. ACM 4 (1961), p.55-58 Wouldn't "chunk" be involved? > > And very natural -- drink drank drunk, sink sank sunk, sing sang sung. > > > Also bring brang brung. > > Ja, das musste hier bemorken werden. No, no, say it isn't so -- analogy working to change the class of Modern German verbs?? > > Ja, das musste hier bemorken werden. > > No, no, say it isn't so -- analogy working to change the class of > Modern German verbs?? German verbs that are surprisingly strong can be - ancient forms, often conserved in dialects, especially southern: geforchten<-fürchten, gemalen<-malen, gelitten<-läuten, geschnie(b)en<-schnei(b)en, geschalten<-schalten, gestriffen<-streifen, gewunken<-winken, gewunschen<-wünschen. - mere jokes: bemorken<-bemerken, programmoren<-programmieren The difference is not always easy to find out. We had recently a discussion about jocular "geschwiffene Klammern" (curly brackets; correct is "geschweifte Klammern"), and am not sure whether this could have been an ancient form. Likewise, I am not sure that all forms listed above as ancient were indeed in use formerly. SignatureHelmut Richter >> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0800 (PST) >> From: Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Ja, das musste hier bemorken werden. "Thunk" should exist somewhere independently of the "think" origin. I hear it as exchangeable with "plunk" for an almost musical sound--either a drum sound or the sound of a plucked string (as on a guitar). I have heard "thunk" to describe the sound of an ax hitting a resonating log. > Moreover, the word "thunk" (probably a derivation from "think") once > meant a procedure fetching a parameter value for another > procedure. The technique, called "name call", "Call by name" in English. > is no longer automatically provided in programming languages as it > was in Algol 60, so the term is now obsolete. 'Tis not. I didn't start programming until '77, and so post-date Alogol 60, but I learned and still use and read and hear[1] "thunk" to describe a nullary function, especially a closure, passed in as a parameter or stored as a reference and used to retrieve a value on demand. [1] But not, now that you mention it, from the current crop of programmers. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands |to yourself. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Moreover, the word "thunk" (probably a derivation from "think") once >> meant a procedure fetching a parameter value for another [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >[1] But not, now that you mention it, from the current crop of > programmers. I know of "thunk" as meaning 4 in the Jargon File entry: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/thunk.html 4. Microsoft and IBM have both defined, in their Intel-based systems, a "16-bit environment" (with bletcherous[1] segment registers and 64K address limits) and a "32-bit environment" (with flat addressing and semi-real memory management). The two environments can both be running on the same computer and OS (thanks to what is called, in the Microsoft world, WOW which stands for Windows On Windows). MS and IBM have both decided that the process of getting from 16- to 32-bit and vice versa is called a "thunk"; for Windows 95, there is even a tool THUNK.EXE called a "thunk compiler". Or as Wikipedia expresses it (3rd meaning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunk a mapping of machine data from one system-specific form to another, usually for compatibility reasons Such adaptors(-ers) or convertors(-ers) were and are invisible to users and all(?) programmers except OS programmers. [1] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bletcherous.html bletcherous: adj. Disgusting in design or function; esthetically unappealing. This word is seldom used of people. "This keyboard is bletcherous!" (Perhaps the keys don't work very well, or are misplaced.) See losing, cretinous, bagbiting, bogus, and random. The term bletcherous applies to the esthetics of the thing so described; similarly for cretinous. By contrast, something that is losing or bagbiting may be failing to meet objective criteria. See also bogus and random, which have richer and wider shades of meaning than any of the above. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Feb 9, 1:28 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:05:32 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > objective criteria. See also bogus and random, which have richer and > wider shades of meaning than any of the above. Surely that comes from Charles M. Schulz's favorite term of disgust, BLECCH? > On Feb 9, 1:28 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Surely that comes from Charles M. Schulz's favorite term of disgust, > BLECCH? "Bletcherous" came from "bletch", about which Eric Raymond says (in _The New Hacker's Dictionary_] from Yiddish/German 'brechen', to vommit, poss. via comic-strip exclamation 'blech' So maybe. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody |else. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): >> Moreover, the word "thunk" (probably a derivation from "think") once >> meant a procedure fetching a parameter value for another [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 'Tis not. I didn't start programming until '77, and so post-date > Alogol 60, I started programming in 1978, and my first programming language was Algol 60. SignatureMy favourite # 25: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzNEgcqWDG4> My favourite # 81: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8EI5pzvGPY> > Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I started programming in 1978, and my first programming language was Algol > 60. It was pretty much gone in the US by then. Pascal was the main teaching language in college, and Basic was the main language in high schools (or earlier). Scientific applications used Fortran. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Everything is lewd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things | about Peter Pan, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz-- (650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man! | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >teaching language in college, and Basic was the main language in high >schools (or earlier). Scientific applications used Fortran. "Thunking" is still commonly used to describe the function of converting one address format to another, eg a 32-bit address to a 16-bit address. Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): >> Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > teaching language in college, and Basic was the main language in high > schools (or earlier). Scientific applications used Fortran. Has Algol 60 ever been popular in America? SignatureMy favourite # 32: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNwRakOoSA> My favourite # 76: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cWzxJvgWc8> > Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Has Algol 60 ever been popular in America? "Popular" I can't speak to, as it was before my time. It was important enough that the Burroughs came out with an Algol-based machine (the B5000) in the early '60s. According to Wikipedia, this was based on Hoare's implementation of Algol 60. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle |key distribution, is a useless kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |farce. (650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Evan Kirshenbaum (in alt.usage.english): >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > teaching language in college, and Basic was the main language in high > schools (or earlier). Scientific applications used Fortran. Exactly the situation when I entered university in Germany in 1982 (except that my high school didn't teach computers yet, but some did). I learned Pascal in "Information Science for beginners" and FORTRAN in the "Numerical Mathematics" course. I had learned some Algol 60 on paper before (from a book I bought dirt-cheap in Poland, I don't remember right now if it was in English or German), which may have influenced me, e.g. in that I found Pascal sooo much better than Basic, to the annoyance of the home-computer crowd. The real fun started when I taught myself Prolog from a book - the book, actually -, but it would be years until I could try it on an actual machine (it turned out that I had mostly gotten it right). SignaturePress any key to continue or any other key to quit. <snip> > > I started programming in 1978, and my first programming language > > was Algol 60. > > It was pretty much gone in the US by then. Pascal was the main > teaching language in college, and Basic was the main language in high > schools (or earlier). Scientific applications used Fortran. The first computer language to which I was exposed, around 1973, was APL; it was running on a mainframe (IBM 1500?) at the local university's faculty of education. I remember nothing about it but one salient feature: that it used a large repertoire of quasi-mathematical symbols, which fascinated me at the time. I have no idea how widespread its use may have been in the 'real world'. The other language to which my group was introduced, CourseWriter, could control audio-visual peripherals (tape players and filmstrip viewers) and display on the terminal multiple-choice questions to be answered by means of a "light pen". AFAIK there were no computers in my high school, which I attended between '75 and '78; it certainly offered no computing courses. The single one I took in university -- this would have been about '79 or '80 -- concerned Fortran; by then I'd learned some Basic on an Apple ][+. At the same time friends of mine in Commerce were being taught Cobol, for accounting and statistical applications. SignatureOdysseus > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and display on the terminal multiple-choice questions to be answered > by means of a "light pen". My first exposure to computers and programming was in late 1967 at Boeing. I learned to program in DEC PDP-8 assembly language, break that down into machine code, and get that into the machine via the switch register. Lots of fun. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Odysseus (in sci.lang): > The first computer language to which I was exposed, around 1973, was > APL; it was running on a mainframe (IBM 1500?) at the local university's > faculty of education. I remember nothing about it but one salient > feature: that it used a large repertoire of quasi-mathematical symbols, > which fascinated me at the time. I have no idea how widespread its use > may have been in the 'real world'. It is still in use in the insurance business, but I doubt it's used a lot anywhere else. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 1: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdkEnsizPg> My favourite # 41: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exo0LGf8-EI> > The first computer language to which I was exposed, around 1973, was > APL; it was running on a mainframe (IBM 1500?) at the local university's > faculty of education. I remember nothing about it but one salient > feature: that it used a large repertoire of quasi-mathematical symbols, > which fascinated me at the time. I have no idea how widespread its use > may have been in the 'real world'. I've heard it described as "a very powerful write-only language". Signaturehmmmm: sounds like the same DLL hell problem my cousin had. try deleting all DLLs in your Windows/system32 directory and see what happens. (Bryce Utting) >> The first computer language to which I was exposed, around 1973, was >> APL; it was running on a mainframe (IBM 1500?) at the local university's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I've heard it described as "a very powerful write-only language". That sounds just as useful as WOM, the write-only memory. pjk >>> The first computer language to which I was exposed, around 1973, was >>> APL; it was running on a mainframe (IBM 1500?) at the local university's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That sounds just as useful as WOM, the write-only memory. I am required to fill in a timesheet, but this is a Write Only Document, as the act of filling it in completes the function. Most of our staff work for customers, so the timesheet is important, but I am an HQ department worker and nobody ever actually looks at what I write. There may be some sort of automated alert if I consistently work less than my contracted hours or more than the legal weekly maximum, but I wouldn't bet on it. SignatureDavid > > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: > > in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Of course it exists. You just don't see it because it isn't Standard > English, but it's very common. ... Particularly in the jocular "Who'd a thunk it?" in place of "Who'd have thought it?" I think some might say that "Who'd have thought it?" is an overcorrection, like saying "How do you like *those* apples?" instead of the idiom "How do you like *them* apples?" -- Jerry Friedman >> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: >> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ain't analogy wonderful? In that case António and all other people who say "who'd have thunk" should say "who'd have thank". Your "very natural" analogy is not natural for them and their parrot speak. pjk > >> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:21 +0000: António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt>: > >> in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Your "very natural" analogy is not natural for them > and their parrot speak. First of all, it's "Who'da thunk?". Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, etc., and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and (b) when the pret. and p.p. are conflated, as in "Been there, done that" or "I seen her only yesterday." > Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, etc., > and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and (b) when the > pret. and p.p. are conflated, as in "Been there, done that" or "I seen > her only yesterday." When they're conflated (when not so in standard dialect), it can go either way. Milt Gross's book is _I Shoulda Ate the Eclair_. I'm pretty sure I've heard "shoulda swam", "shoulda came", and "shoulda brang", and "shoulda beat" sounds almost common. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The reason that we don't have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |"bear-proof" garbage cans in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |park is that there is a significant |overlap in intelligence between the kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |smartest bears and the dumbest (650)857-7572 |humans. | Yosemite Park Ranger http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, etc., > > and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and (b) when the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pretty sure I've heard "shoulda swam", "shoulda came", and "shoulda > brang", and "shoulda beat" sounds almost common. I don't know who Milt Gross is, but maybe that's a representation of Et (but two-letter content words are disfavored). >>> Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, etc., >>> and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and (b) when the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't know who Milt Gross is, but maybe that's a representation of > Et (but two-letter content words are disfavored). I vaguely remember the name Milt Gross. ISTR Willard R. Espy discussing his wordplay in one of his books. >> > Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, >> > etc., and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't know who Milt Gross is, An American comic strip artist from the '20s and '30s. > but maybe that's a representation of Et (but two-letter content > words are disfavored). It probably was, but it still stands as a conflation of past and past participle taking the past form, as there are, I'm pretty sure, people who have /Et/ as past but a full "eaten" as past participle, while I don't believe I've heard of anybody having /Et/ as past participle and something else as past. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in drunk, sunk, etc., > > and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< "would have") and (b) when the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pretty sure I've heard "shoulda swam", "shoulda came", and "shoulda > brang", and "shoulda beat" sounds almost common. And "my dog got ran over". -- Jerry Friedman [...] > Secondly, How ya figure? "Thunk" is the p.p., as in > drunk, sunk, etc., and the p.p. occurs (a) after "-da" (< > "would have") and (b) when the pret. and p.p. are > conflated, as in "Been there, done that" or "I seen her > only yesterday." The aren't conflated in BTDT; that's clearly elliptical for 'I've been there; I've done that'. Brian > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The aren't conflated in BTDT; that's clearly elliptical for > 'I've been there; I've done that'. It's only "clear" to those of you who claim to speak Standard Written English as your native tongue. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's only "clear" to those of you who claim to speak Standard Written > English as your native tongue. Clear to me, always been, and I don't claim to fall into that minuscule catagory. I don't know where the expression originated, but the vast majority of people who use it (in this country at least) are speakers of a variety in which "done" and "been" are PPs only, and I've no doubt that they interpret BTDT the same way Brian does. Many of them don't even _write_ Standard Written English, let alone speak it. J. >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that they interpret BTDT the same way Brian does. Many of them don't > even _write_ Standard Written English, let alone speak it. What's more, in my dialect at least, "Been there, done that" means essentially the same as the less dismissive "I've been there, I've done that". But can't be replaced by the preterite "(I) went there, (I) did that", which means something completely different. This may not be the same in Peter's dialect though. I've read that the preterite is more widely used in AmE, being preferred in some situations where the perfect is standardly used in Brit. J. >> Panu wrote (08-02-2010 15:59): >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > ousted by English, because Irish relied on oral tradition, folklore, > and manuscripts while English had a printing press. So? Do you realize that nothing you've just said supports your earlier contentions? Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:37:52 -0800 (PST): Panu <craoibhin66@gmail.com>: in sci.lang: >> Many things had an enormous momentum and tradition until the day someone >> came up with something that blew all that out of the water. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ousted by English, because Irish relied on oral tradition, folklore, >and manuscripts while English had a printing press. So? You mean that wasn't just suppression, violence and intentional famine? SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:37:52 -0800 (PST): Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com>: in > sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You mean that wasn't just suppression, violence and intentional > famine? Suppression, violence, and famine did their part, but printing presses and a widespread culture of reading and printing would have rescued Irish even after famine. Welsh is now much better off than Irish, because the Welsh have always been able to read, write, print and publish in their language. Panu (in sci.lang): > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nobody has ever heard of other international auxlangs. Those I knew > about until recently were Volapuk (the spectacular failure), There's even a Wikipedia in Volapük. > Esperanto > (the only one known to the general public), and Ido (a rip-off brand > born from personal grudge). Some time ago, I occasionally read in the europa.* newsgroups. They had (among others) also articles in Interlingua, and this language seems to be very easy to read (in particular if you had some contact with Latin, and/or a romance language). Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 64: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2R0Rq55-tc> My favourite # 66: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac> > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nobody has ever heard of other international auxlangs. They just came into existence with no one's awareness? What are you talking about? > Those I knew > about until recently were Volapuk (the spectacular failure), Esperanto > (the only one known to the general public), and Ido (a rip-off brand > born from personal grudge). Non sequitur. Each of these languages has a group of proponents behind it, regardless of whether they're known to the greater public. >> Regarding the second sentence: What of it, given that proposals to >> establish Esperanto as an international auxlang also don't succeed? > > Esperantists will probably go on as before. The language already has > so much momentum and tradition. Which has nothing to do with the proposition of yours that I contested. Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:57:00 -0500: Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremoverthis@gavelcade.com>: in sci.lang: >> Nobody has ever heard of other international auxlangs. > >They just came into existence with no one's awareness? What are you >talking about? "Nobody" in this context is an idiom for "a disappointingly small number of people, greater than zero". But you probably knew that already. SignatureRuud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:57:00 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > number of people, greater than zero". But you probably knew that > already. On some days, he posts like Brian. > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:57:00 -0500: Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremoverthis@gavelcade.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > number of people, greater than zero". But you probably knew that > already. That's fine and obvious, but I'm not letting him get away with using hyperbole to defend his false remarks and fallacious reasoning. On Feb 9, 6:11 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:57:00 -0500: Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com>: in sci.lang: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's fine and obvious, but I'm not letting him get away with using > hyperbole to defend his false remarks and fallacious reasoning. What is actually false about it? As we all know, Esperanto is not a particularly good, beautiful, or interesting constructed language. However, it is a language with a significant pool of speakers, literature and media use, and which is to some extent used as a medium for other activities than just Esperanto-speaking for its own sake. On Feb 8, 7:57 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 5:46 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They just came into existence with no one's awareness? What are you > talking about? Come on. Esperantism is a minority subculture all right, but if you ask the man of the street to name just one attempt at auxlang, chances are that he will name Esperanto, but not Ido,Volapuk, or Interlingua. I don't know about the planet you are living on, but on my planet, Esperanto is mentioned in every single book about commendable and good hobbies for young people. > > Those I knew > > about until recently were Volapuk (the spectacular failure), Esperanto [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Non sequitur. Each of these languages has a group of proponents behind > it, regardless of whether they're known to the greater public. That is as may be, but media visibility is everything. Klingon has now fluent speakers thanks to its media visibility, although it has been purposefully designed to be difficult and unpronounceable, and its existing vocabulary is mostly about commanding spaceships in interstellar warfare, which is at the present stage of technological development a minority interest in society. > On Feb 8, 7:57 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ask the man of the street to name just one attempt at auxlang, chances > are that he will name Esperanto, but not Ido,Volapuk, or Interlingua. This is still a non sequitur with respect to the remarks of yours with which I took issue. > I don't know about the planet you are living on, but on my planet, > Esperanto is mentioned in every single book about commendable and good > hobbies for young people. Would you please keep your hyperbole on a leash? I'm certain that there are books about hobbies that don't mention Esperanto. And it's *still* irrelevant to the exception I've taken with your remarks. >>> Those I knew >>> about until recently were Volapuk (the spectacular failure), Esperanto [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is as may be, but media visibility is everything. "Media visibility is everything" is not a permanent, unyielding law. Your implication is that if a set of governments decided to choose a common auxlang for official use, they would let media visibility supersede any factors that actually related to the goals they intended to accomplish through their decision. > Klingon has now > fluent speakers thanks to its media visibility, although it has been > purposefully designed to be difficult and unpronounceable, and its > existing vocabulary is mostly about commanding spaceships in > interstellar warfare, which is at the present stage of technological > development a minority interest in society. I don't know why you are suddenly talking about Klingon. This is turning into a Franz-style series of digressions. On Feb 9, 6:17 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 7:57 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This is still a non sequitur with respect to the remarks of yours with > which I took issue. OK, let me try to reexplain it. I might have been unclear. My point is basically, that Esperanto is not a particularly beautiful or above- average auxlang, but that it is widely perceived - outside the circle of its enthusiastic proponents - to be the only auxlang of any consequence. This is why I think, that it is a sound decision based on realpolitik to prefer Esperanto to new auxlang projects. > > I don't know about the planet you are living on, but on my planet, > > Esperanto is mentioned in every single book about commendable and good > > hobbies for young people. > > Would you please keep your hyperbole on a leash? I'm certain that there > are books about hobbies that don't mention Esperanto. There indeed are. But if they mention an international auxlang, the auxlang they probably do mention is Esperanto. And this is basically due to the fact that there exists an international network of Esperanto organizations, correspondence clubs, tourist clubs and so on. And it's *still* > irrelevant to the exception I've taken with your remarks. OK. Let me rephrase my initial remark. Of course people might want to promote other auxlangs, but when I say that the slot has been filled, I wanted above all to say that Esperanto, with its literary traditions, international networks, etc. has already developed a momentum, a sociolinguistic momentum, that will keep it going for the time being, while new projects would need to build that momentum from scratch. > On Feb 9, 6:17 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > consequence. This is why I think, that it is a sound decision based on > realpolitik to prefer Esperanto to new auxlang projects. This is extremely different from what you said before. >>> I don't know about the planet you are living on, but on my planet, >>> Esperanto is mentioned in every single book about commendable and good [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > time being, while new projects would need to build that momentum from > scratch. I understood that to be your premise, and I don't disagree with it. I was disagreeing with the declaratory conclusions you were drawing from it. On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 6:17 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > This is extremely different from what you said before. I might still have been trying to formulate my standpoint. > I understood that to be your premise, and I don't disagree with it. I > was disagreeing with the declaratory conclusions you were drawing from it. Well, of course there is the possibility that new auxlangs will acquire a following. Future is difficult to predict, as they say. However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over natural lingua francas implicitly entails the idea of promoting the most accessible and media-visible auxlang available, because everything else would be tantamount to splitting the auxlang movement. I mean, there seems to be some empirical evidence pointing to the direction that people interested in an artificial auxiliary language as an idea tend to gravitate towards Esperanto for the sort of realpolitik reasons I have mentioned, although they learnt another auxlang to start with. Basically, people go into auxlangery because they feel it is somehow intrinsically unfair that some people must learn English, or some other natural language used as a lingua franca, as a foreign language - an auxlang that everybody learns as a second language would be more fair, it is implied. (Of course, if Esperanto ever became widespread enough, communities of native speakers would probably come about, and a new auxlang would then probably be called for to redress this.) I guess that for every non-Esperantist auxlanger Esperanto is the big bogey, the hippopotamus in the living room - you might dislike it, find it clumsy, ridiculous, or distasteful, but sooner or later you must ask yourself the question, whether your ideological objective isn't better served by Esperanto than some obscure lingo known to nobody, although you'd find it more regular, less Eurocentric etc. etc. than Esperanto. > On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Well, of course there is the possibility that new auxlangs will > acquire a following. Future is difficult to predict, as they say. Yet you were using the word "must", giving us your assertion of a foregone, nay, undefiable conclusion. > However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over > natural lingua francas implicitly entails the idea of promoting the > most accessible and media-visible auxlang available, because > everything else would be tantamount to splitting the auxlang movement. And why would you assume that THAT would be a concern? "Let's all agree to switch 100% of our people to a common auxlang. Oh, wait, if we don't choose Esperanto because it isn't the best choice to meet all the objectives leading to this decision, then that will split the 0.03% of the population who currently and militantly care about Esperanto. What a terrible, terrible predicament that would be." > I mean, there seems to be some empirical evidence pointing to the > direction that people interested in an artificial auxiliary language > as an idea tend to gravitate towards Esperanto for the sort of > realpolitik reasons I have mentioned, although they learnt another > auxlang to start with. On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: > > On Feb 10, 5:15 pm, Harlan Messinger > > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Yet you were using the word "must", giving us your assertion of a > foregone, nay, undefiable conclusion. You are defying it all the time. :) But OK, leave out the "must", and substitute something less categorical. > > However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over > > natural lingua francas implicitly entails the idea of promoting the > > most accessible and media-visible auxlang available, because > > everything else would be tantamount to splitting the auxlang movement. > > And why would you assume that THAT would be a concern? I would assume that if a person takes an ideological or political interest in the international auxlang as an abstract idea, he or she will indeed also be concerned about the most effective way to promote the objective. > On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > will indeed also be concerned about the most effective way to promote > the objective. No group of people in power is going to set the imposition of an international auxlang as a freestanding objective in its own right just because it's cool. It would only happen if it were seen as a way to further *other* goals. It doesn't *matter* that Esperanto would be the easiest choice to get promotion going for if Esperanto isn't the best language to meet *the underlying objectives*. Promoting the language chosen will be a *means*, not one of the *underlying objectives*. >> On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, Harlan Messinger >> <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [...] >>>> However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over >>>> natural lingua francas implicitly entails the idea of promoting the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No group of people in power is going to set the imposition of an > international auxlang as a freestanding objective in its own right Nevertheless, groups of people in power have indeed in the past set the imposition of languages (though not auxlangs) which are the native language of hardly any of their people. In Kenya, Gikuyu is the language with the largest number of native speakers -- but they chose Swahili, with maybe a tenth as many native speakers. In Indonesia, Javanese has the largest number -- but they chose Malay. > just because it's cool. Do people in power ever do anything just because it's cool? > It would only happen if it were seen as a way to > further *other* goals. True. In the above examples, a professed goal was to promote national unity, by making it less obvious that one particular large ethnic group was more-or-less in charge. > It doesn't *matter* that Esperanto would be the > easiest choice to get promotion going for if Esperanto isn't the best > language to meet *the underlying objectives*. Promoting the language > chosen will be a *means*, not one of the *underlying objectives*. Of course, but I can't imagine a situation where a different auxlang would meet any conceivable underlying objectives so much better than Esperanto that it would be worth the extra promotion work necessary. John. >>> On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, Harlan Messinger >>> <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Swahili, with maybe a tenth as many native speakers. In Indonesia, > Javanese has the largest number -- but they chose Malay. Are you aware of any country where the Esperanto is the native language or lingua franca of the ruling class? > > >> just because it's cool. > > > Do people in power ever do anything just because it's cool? Exactly. > > >> It would only happen if it were seen as a way to further *other* goals. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would meet any conceivable underlying objectives so much better than > Esperanto that it would be worth the extra promotion work necessary. What any of us finds conceivable isn't a limiting factor to this what-if exercise given that the whole question is a wild-assed hypothetical that will never happen under "conceivable" circumstances. [...] >> > >>> It doesn't *matter* that Esperanto would be the easiest choice to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exercise given that the whole question is a wild-assed hypothetical that > will never happen under "conceivable" circumstances. What-if exercises are only fun to engage in if they contain only a single (well-specified) wild-arsed hypothetical. Just like a good science fiction story ideally contains only a single wild-arsed scientific impossibility, and everything else is consistent. J. >>>> On Feb 10, 8:49 pm, Harlan Messinger >>>> <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Are you aware of any country where the Esperanto is the native language > or lingua franca of the ruling class? Was Swahili the native language of the ruling class in Kenya? It certainly wasn't Kenyatta's native language. Was Malay the native language of the ruling class in Indonesia? It certainly wasn't Sukarno's native language. FWIW Standard Swahili, the "official" language in Kenya, is the Swahili of Zanzibar (in Tanzania), not that of Mombasa or anywhere else in Kenya. Which makes the analogy wth an auxlang like Esperanto even better. >> > >>> just because it's cool. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> unity, by making it less obvious that one particular large ethnic >> group was more-or-less in charge. Which, I surely don't have to remind you, is the professed goal of the more pragmatic Esperantists (with "national" replaced by "world", of course). >> > >>> It doesn't *matter* that Esperanto would be the easiest choice to get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > exercise given that the whole question is a wild-assed hypothetical that > will never happen under "conceivable" circumstances. Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:04:51 -0500 from Harlan Messinger <hm.usenetremoverthis@gavelcade.com>: > Are you aware of any country where the Esperanto is the native > language or lingua franca of the ruling class? That would be the country of Esperantujo, wouldn't it? :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Panu wrote (10-02-2010 19:11): > I would assume that if a person takes an ideological or political > interest in the international auxlang as an abstract idea, he or she > will indeed also be concerned about the most effective way to promote > the objective. What if the reasons for taking such a position (rejecting exisitng linguas francas) apply as much, or more, to e*o? > Panu wrote (10-02-2010 19:11): > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What if the reasons for taking such a position (rejecting exisitng linguas > francas) apply as much, or more, to e*o? I mentioned the hypothetical possibility that Esperanto acquires native speakers. In such circumstances, that ideology would indeed apply to Esperanto. Panu (in alt.usage.english): > I would assume that if a person takes an ideological or political > interest in the international auxlang as an abstract idea, he or she > will indeed also be concerned about the most effective way to promote > the objective. I am not so sure if Esperanto would be most effective auxlang, at least in Europe. It has more followers, but at least to me, written Interlingua is understandable to a higher degree than Esperanto; maybe comparable to Dutch - and my native language is German, not a Romance language. If this applies to other people as well (and it seems to do, looking at some posts in this thread), this might have a higher promotional value than the current number of followers. I don't know how much native speakers of a real Romance language (like Antonio) are put off by Interlingua; this again might be a showstopper. (Of course I am only speculating inside the completely hypothetical scenario that the desire to introduce an auxlang became reality). Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 74: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhCyua9-Ldw> My favourite # 10: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9eHp7JJgq8> Panu wrote (10-02-2010 17:12): > However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over > natural lingua francas (...) ...is an ideology-driven idea :g, and as such the best language possible is an important criterion, and as such intolerance for the shortcomings of something like e*o is a very importany issue, and as such your idea that people 'should' embrace e*o if they want an 'auxlang' (when often they want an 'auxlang' for precisely the same reasons that they don't like e*o) is weird. > Panu wrote (10-02-2010 17:12): > > > However, it seems to me that the idea of promoting an auxlang over > > natural lingua francas (...) > > ...is an ideology-driven idea :g, Yes. and as such the best language possible is > an important criterion, Indeed. And "the best language possible" is the one with the most stable tradition and the biggest following. At least in terms of realpolitik. Panu wrote (11-02-2010 12:15): >> Panu wrote (10-02-2010 17:12): >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stable tradition and the biggest following. At least in terms of > realpolitik. 'Possible' in my comment referred to intrinsic linguistic properties. I think you're missing the point that 'realpolitik'/pragmatism and 'ideology' are usually at odds. > Panu wrote (11-02-2010 12:15): > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > think you're missing the point that 'realpolitik'/pragmatism and 'ideology' > are usually at odds. You can be ideological about the goals you try to attain, and pragmatic about how you try to attain them. That's called politics. > > Panu wrote (11-02-2010 12:15): > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You can be ideological about the goals you try to attain, and > pragmatic about how you try to attain them. That's called politics. If your ideology precludes a given thing, there's no pragmatism that can make you work to establish it permanently. > http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > simplification and regularisation of grammar, while it is not so in > many other language families. The language spoken by the first Indo-European community was not "about the most complex and irregular possible" -- there's no reason to suppose it was any more complicated than any other human language. However, reconstructed PIE is a collection of formulas that needs to take care of every development identifiable in the daughter languages, no matter what their origins. > >http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "about the most complex and irregular possible" -- there's no reason > to suppose it was any more complicated than any other human language. It is an assumption that there was a point in time when there was only one language that, had we observed it back then, knowing what we know now, would call it IE. Trubetzkoy says that as far as back as we can look, there were several IE languages. > However, reconstructed PIE is a collection of formulas that needs to > take care of every development identifiable in the daughter languages, > no matter what their origins.- Hide quoted text - Two languages are posited here. A real language, that COULD have given rise to descendants. The reconstructed language (i.e.,one of its perhaps hundreds of variants) - could have given rise to descendants purely based on phonology and morphology (Sanskrit cannot be derived from it, but thats another story) - but if it was never spoken by anyone, it never existed and could not have descendants. > - Show quoted text - On Feb 8, 3:44 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - I believe I will keep on with my current obsession - how did Sanskrit come to be ( if not as a derivative of Indo-European )? Here is a possible scenario - Sanskrit is the original language of mankind. No one, not even analyst, can be required to explain how that original language came about. At the moment we have no plausible suggestions on the table - just a lot of hand-waving. That original language was preserved only in north central India. Perhaps it was created there, perhaps it is a secondary center. As people wandered away from India their language deteriorated into all the various languages we know and love. But in India Sanskrit was preserved perfectly ( divine assistance can be assumed ). It took a long time but finally the sacred scriptures were complete. Now the divine protection was removed and Sanskrit became no more than just another language and suffered decay and ultimate death. This is not strictly scientific - I introduced a little divine assistance. If you don't like divine assistance perhaps you will accept a many-worlds view and accept that we live in a world instance where all the possible events to change Sanskrit never happened. Andrew Usher (in sci.lang): > http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > simplification and regularisation of grammar, while it is not so in > many other language families. I have the impression that both Greek and Sanskrit are _more_ complex than PIE, due to innovations and obfuscations introduced by sound shifts. Joachim SignatureMy favourite # 32: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmNwRakOoSA> My favourite # 24: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO0f2Yb7DAY> > http://dnghu.org/ > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Andrew Usher Why re-invent the wheel? English is already the world's major internationally used language. Go with the flow. Your desire to see coffee-club Esparanto replace English is futile. >> http://dnghu.org/ >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Why re-invent the wheel? Agreed, no need to re-invent the PIE qeklom. SignatureJames |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.