Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #60219 > unrolled thread

Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Bharath Kummar <bathubharath94@gmail.com> - 2013-11-22 18:22 +0530
    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-11-22 08:56 -0500
    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-22 14:12 +0000
      Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-22 15:08 +0000
    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-22 06:13 -0800
      Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-11-22 08:10 -0700
      Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-22 07:18 -0800
    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 01:55 +0000
      Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-23 02:18 +0000
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-11-22 22:47 -0500
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-11-22 23:42 -0700
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-11-24 12:31 +1300
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-11-24 12:35 +1300
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2013-11-23 09:00 -0500
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-23 14:18 +0000
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-11-23 10:44 -0500
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-11-23 10:35 -0600
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 17:34 +0100
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 03:35 +1100
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 17:43 +0100
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 19:40 +0000
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 14:00 -0800
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 15:06 -0800
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-11-23 17:22 -0600
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 10:30 +1100
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-24 01:38 +0000
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2013-11-23 23:32 -0800
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 18:49 +1100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! xDog Walker <thudfoo@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 08:11 -0800
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-25 11:32 -0800
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-25 12:10 -0800
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-11-26 12:12 +1300
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2013-11-25 18:27 -0500
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-25 19:33 -0800
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-26 03:40 -0800
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-25 16:23 +0000
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-25 20:53 +0100
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Joel Goldstick <joel.goldstick@gmail.com> - 2013-11-25 15:05 -0500
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-11-25 12:00 -0800
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-26 08:32 +0100
        Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-26 08:47 +0100
          Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-11-26 09:37 -0500
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 01:52 +1100
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2013-11-26 15:31 +0000
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2013-11-26 10:51 -0500
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-26 17:26 -0800
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-26 21:11 -0500
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-11-26 20:24 -0800
                    Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-27 06:56 +0000
                      Re: Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 18:06 +1100
                      Re: Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-11-27 11:47 +0200
                    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-27 05:32 -0500
                Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-27 06:48 +0000
                  Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 18:02 +1100
                  Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 01:47 -0800
                    Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 20:57 +1100
                  Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-27 10:00 +0000
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-26 17:57 +0100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Tim Delaney <timothy.c.delaney@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 08:42 +1100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-27 09:16 +0100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 19:19 +1100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-27 09:31 +0100
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Rotwang <sg552@hotmail.co.uk> - 2013-11-27 13:36 +0000
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 19:36 +1100
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-27 10:12 +0100
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 01:32 -0800
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 01:36 -0800
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Paul Rudin <paul.nospam@rudin.co.uk> - 2013-11-27 10:31 +0000
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 09:09 -0500
                    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 06:37 -0800
                    Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-27 14:45 +0000
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2013-11-27 08:18 -0500
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-11-27 10:25 -0500
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-11-27 10:25 -0600
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 09:15 -0800
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-11-28 10:58 +1000
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-11-27 20:08 -0500
                  Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-11-27 19:24 -0600
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-27 10:06 +0000
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 12:51 +0000
            Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 12:57 +0000
              Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 05:29 -0800
                Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP ! Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2013-11-27 14:00 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#60489

Op 25-11-13 21:05, Joel Goldstick schreef:
>>> I'm not an expert on Indian English, but I understand that in that
>>> dialect it is grammatically correct to say "the codes", just as in UK and
>>> US English it is grammatically correct to say "the programs".
>>>
>>> In other words, in UK/US English, "code" in the sense of programming code
>>> is an uncountable noun, like "rice" or "air", while in Indian English it
>>> is a countable noun like cats or programs. We have to say "give me two
>>> samples of code", or perhaps "two code samples", while an Indian speaker
>>> might say "give me two codes".
>>>
>>> As this is an international forum, it behoves us all to make allowances
>>> for slight difference in dialect.
>>
>> I don't see how that follows. I would say on the contrary. This being
>> an international forum people should try to reframe from burdening
>> lots of other people with expressions most people will not understand
>> or even misunderstand.
>>
>> --
>> Antoon Pardon
>> --
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> 
> 
> I see the different idioms as kind of interesting, and funny
> sometimes, but I don't think they pose a big barrier.

IMO that is because the differences in idoms you have seen here
are very minor and yet Roy already found it necessary to explain
the specific use of "doubt" by the OP.

Not that I mind that much but as has been said multiple times, a
contribution is only written once and read many times. So I think
we may expect more effort from the writer in trying to be
understandable than from the readers in trying to understand. And
that includes idiom use.

> Mostly, people
> don't provide OS or python version, or explain what they done and what
> happens.  That makes it harder to respond than figuring out how
> different people around the world say stuff.  I'm from US and I have
> done lots of phone calls with Indian developers.  To me it sounds
> strange to talk about codes, but I totally understand what they mean.

That is fine for you. But can you expect a random reader from
comp.lang.python to understand that without any explanation?

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60516

In article <mailman.3219.1385452076.18130.python-list@python.org>,
 Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:

> So I think we may expect more effort from the writer in trying to be 
> understandable than from the readers in trying to understand. And 
> that includes idiom use.

We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that 
annoying unicode stuff).  When you say, "effort to be understandable", 
what you're really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".  

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since 
variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes life 
interesting.

Keep in mind, there's a lot of native Mandarin speakers who are 
wondering why they need to bother learning English at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60518

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that
> annoying unicode stuff).  When you say, "effort to be understandable",
> what you're really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
>
> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since
> variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes life
> interesting.

That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all learn to avoid.
I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a rough prototype, but when I
started communicating internationally more, I consciously started
saying "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain groups
of people...

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60522

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 01:52:11 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that
>> annoying unicode stuff).  When you say, "effort to be understandable",
>> what you're really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since
>> variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes life
>> interesting.
> 
> That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all learn to avoid.
> I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a rough prototype, but when I
> started communicating internationally more, I consciously started saying
> "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain groups of
> people...
> 
> ChrisA

still no chance of bumming a fag then?



-- 
Appendix:
	A portion of a book, for which nobody yet has discovered any use.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60540

On Tuesday 26 November 2013 10:49:07 Alister did opine:

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 01:52:11 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> >> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that
> >> annoying unicode stuff).  When you say, "effort to be
> >> understandable", what you're really saying is, "everybody should be
> >> just like me".
> >> 
> >> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately,
> >> since variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes
> >> life interesting.
> > 
> > That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all learn to avoid.
> > I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a rough prototype, but when I
> > started communicating internationally more, I consciously started
> > saying "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain groups
> > of people...
> > 
> > ChrisA
> 
> still no chance of bumming a fag then?

Chuckle...  Haven't heard that expression since the late '50's.  Haven't 
even carried a pack since '89.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

The duration of passion is proportionate with the original resistance
of the woman.
		-- Honor'e DeBalzac
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
         law-abiding citizens.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60562

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:52:11 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith [...] wrote:
> > We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't
> > need that annoying unicode stuff).  When you say,
> > "effort to be understandable", what you're really saying
> > is, "everybody should be just like me". Unfortunately,
> > that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since
> > variety and exploring different cultures is part of what
> > makes life interesting.

Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
beneficial to ones understanding of the world.

However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
chastising the people who are complaining about the
offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.

Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
variation of English, you fail to realize that this
"regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
mean what the *majority* of  English speaking world
understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
his region.

It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:

    My curflabals are:
      1. blah
      2. blah
      ...

    My boygenjoygens are:
      1. blah
      2. blah
      ...

In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
author is trying to tell us.

So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
*specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
(inquisitiveness).

HOWEVER,

When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
but his request is the result of an internal emotional
distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.

    HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
    EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
    SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
    DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
    BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.

Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.

But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...

============================================================
> > When you say, "effort to be understandable", what you're
> > really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
============================================================

That sword can cut both ways friend.

But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
objective point of view.

Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
"doubt" should mean.

Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
impartial?

 "We shall consult the oracle!"

In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
peck into a keyboard.

  Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.

Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
problem for us, eh?

============================================================
 Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
============================================================
Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!

============================================================
 The reality, if you choose to believe it:
============================================================
But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?

============================================================
 The result, if you choose to fight it.
============================================================
 "Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
 "Rick has done it again!"
 "A new home-run record!"

> That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all
> learn to avoid. I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a
> rough prototype, but when I started communicating
> internationally more, I consciously started saying
> "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain
> groups of people

What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
sophistry!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60564

On 11/26/13 8:26 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:52:11 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith [...] wrote:
>>> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't
>>> need that annoying unicode stuff).  When you say,
>>> "effort to be understandable", what you're really saying
>>> is, "everybody should be just like me". Unfortunately,
>>> that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since
>>> variety and exploring different cultures is part of what
>>> makes life interesting.
>
> Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
> beneficial to ones understanding of the world.
>
> However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
> 500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
> chastising the people who are complaining about the
> offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.
>
> Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
> variation of English, you fail to realize that this
> "regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
> mean what the *majority* of  English speaking world
> understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
> his region.
>
> It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
> been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
> understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:
>
>      My curflabals are:
>        1. blah
>        2. blah
>        ...
>
>      My boygenjoygens are:
>        1. blah
>        2. blah
>        ...
>
> In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
> is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
> will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
> the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
> author is trying to tell us.
>
> So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
> enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
> *specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
> those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
> (inquisitiveness).
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
> listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
> level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
> but his request is the result of an internal emotional
> distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
> answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
> of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
> equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.
>
>      HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
>      EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
>      SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
>      DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
>      BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.
>
> Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
> and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.
>
> But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...
>
> ============================================================
>>> When you say, "effort to be understandable", what you're
>>> really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
> ============================================================
>
> That sword can cut both ways friend.
>
> But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
> correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
> objective point of view.
>
> Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
> are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
> English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
> for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
> "doubt" should mean.
>
> Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
> to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
> impartial?
>
>   "We shall consult the oracle!"
>
> In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
> Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
> word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
> peck into a keyboard.
>
>    Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.
>
> Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
> allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
> problem for us, eh?
>
> ============================================================
>   Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
> ============================================================
> Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
> online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
> the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!
>
> ============================================================
>   The reality, if you choose to believe it:
> ============================================================
> But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
> examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
> examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
> favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
> the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?
>
> ============================================================
>   The result, if you choose to fight it.
> ============================================================
>   "Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
>   "Rick has done it again!"
>   "A new home-run record!"
>
>> That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all
>> learn to avoid. I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a
>> rough prototype, but when I started communicating
>> internationally more, I consciously started saying
>> "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain
>> groups of people
>
> What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
> word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
> are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
> years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
> sophistry!

Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are 
advocating.  The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way 
that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is 
from.  What is it you want us to do?

Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that?  You 
learned something about another part of the world, and the OP gets an 
answer to his question.  If you like, you can also point out to him that 
the more usual word "question" might be more widely understood. 
Win/win/win.

And will you be here to explain to time-travelling Shakespeare why we 
are all of us speaking English completely wrong (to his ears)?

--Ned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60570

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:11:54 PM UTC-6, Ned Batchelder wrote:

> Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are
> advocating.  The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way
> that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is
> from.  What is it you want us to do?
> Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that?

Hello again Ned. I now understand why you're confused.
Please allow me to explain.

First of all, none of my responses have been directed at 
the OP.

Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose
ubiquitous definitions *over* regional definitions when
posting to internet forums, i would have happily ignored
this thread had it not been for Stevens emotional plea of:

    "As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic]
    us all to make allowances for slight difference in
    dialect."

I take *strong* exception with such "emotional reasoning".

 "Why Rick, because you don't care about people's feelings?"

No, because, believe it or not, i don't enjoy hurting anyone's
feelings, however, i will *NEVER* hesitate to sacrifice
"warm fuzzy" feelings at the alters of logic, reason, or
consistency.

Emotion is a gift from the gods, but it can also be a curse!
We cannot allow ourselves to be driven by pure emotion.
Emotion must *always* take a backseat to reason.

============================================================
 Pop Quiz
============================================================
Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a
cute little squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your
lane, stands on his hind legs, and looks at you nervously...
You know you don't have much time to act, but you realize
you have only two choices:

    1. You could attempt to avoid the squirrel by making
    hasty maneuvers and in the process risk your life or
    even the lives of innocent motorist/by-standards, or

    2. quickly realizing that the forward momentum of
    your large vehicle will not be noticeably affected
    by the deflection of a small forest dwelling
    creature (thanks Newton!), you could simply maintain
    a steady course and accept that the squirrel's life,
    or death, is in *his* hand -- or at minimum, a matter
    of fate.

Now, anyone who would choose "choice 1" is operating
*purely* on emotion and is in fact a danger to themselves
and society. Sure, caring about fellow living organisms is a
noble cause, but the killing of innocents and destruction
of property is NO justification for saving one single
squirrel.

Even though "choice 2" seems to be a heartless choice, it is
not. The logical man realizes that one way or another the
result of either choice was doomed to a *strong* possibility
of destruction, and as such, he correctly choose to follow
the path of *least* destruction.

============================================================
THE POINT IS:
============================================================
There are many events in reality that are beyond our
control, but there is one thing that we can *ALWAYS*
control, and that thing is our rationality; our logic; our
*REASON*. And as such, we must *never* invent rules that
*forsake* any of these basic mental survival *necessities*.

I know, i know. You can't *feel* reason in the physical
manner that you can *feel* emotion. Yes, yes. Emotion is a
*visceral* experience -- i get it! But "emotion" is the
hasty tool of those who *lack* strong reasoning skills!

But don't be sad if your reasoning skills are not fine
tuned, NO. If you find yourself too often grasping for that
"infantile faculty" of reasoning that we call "emotion",
that's just a clue that you need to spend more time
practicing.

  "Carnegie hall and, well, all that jazz"

> And will you be here to explain to time-travelling
> Shakespeare why we are all of us speaking English
> completely wrong (to his ears)?

I have a sneaking suspicion that Shakespeare was probably a
very intelligent man, and even IF he was strongly bonded to
his emotional being, i would wager that he could be taught
to "google", and in a very short time, be a 21st century man
watching free porn all day. If not, well, then he could
always move to LA and become a screenwriter -- lord knows
they could use some help!

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60572 — Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:24:16 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose ubiquitous
> definitions *over* regional definitions when posting to internet forums,
> i would have happily ignored this thread had it not been for Stevens
> emotional plea of:
> 
>     "As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic] us all to make
>     allowances for slight difference in dialect."

Please don't mislabel my correctly spelt words with "sic" just because 
your regional variation of the Queens English uses a different spelling.


> ============================================================
>  Pop Quiz
> ============================================================ 
> Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a cute little

"Your" driving?

> squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your lane, stands on his hind
> legs, and looks at you nervously... You know you don't have much time to
> act, but you realize you have only two choices:
> 
>     1. You could attempt to avoid the squirrel by making hasty maneuvers
>     and in the process risk your life or even the lives of innocent
>     motorist/by-standards, or

Of course, because being introduced to regional idiomatic phrases KILLS!!!



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60574 — Re: Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:24:16 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
============================================================
>>  Pop Quiz
>> ============================================================
>> Your driving your car down the road when out of nowhere a cute little
>> squirrel[1] runs into the road, stops in your lane, stands on his hind
>> legs, and looks at you nervously... You know you don't have much time to
>> act, but you realize you have only two choices:
>
> Of course, because being introduced to regional idiomatic phrases KILLS!!!

Actually, there's a third choice. You ram the squirrel dead[1] centre,
because you are a dog and you find the death of squirrels to be
funny.[2]

ChrisA

[1] Yes, I went there.
[2] cf "Up"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60584 — Re: Still off topic. Deal with it. [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

Steven D'Aprano writes:

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:24:16 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Although i would strongly prefer for him to choose ubiquitous
> > definitions *over* regional definitions when posting to internet
> > forums, i would have happily ignored this thread had it not been
> > for Stevens emotional plea of:
> > 
> >     "As this is an international forum, it behoves [sic] us all to
> >     make allowances for slight difference in dialect."
> 
> Please don't mislabel my correctly spelt words with "sic" just
> because your regional variation of the Queens English uses a
> different spelling.

Don't you know POTUS's Kenyan? [/joke]

(Well done about "behove". I knew the word is FORMAL[*] but I had no
idea that the variant spelling I knew was a regionalism. "Queen's",
though. :)

[*] Not shouting. Imitating the small caps that COBUILD uses for such
labels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60589

On 11/26/13 11:24 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:11:54 PM UTC-6, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
>> Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are
>> advocating.  The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way
>> that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is
>> from.  What is it you want us to do?
>> Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that?
>
> Hello again Ned. I now understand why you're confused.
> Please allow me to explain.
 >
 > (16 paragraphs snipped)
 >

Rick, I am confused because you have taken a direct question, "what is 
it you want us to do", and haven't actually answered it.  You've spoken 
strongly, you've made elaborate but baffling analogies to squirrels, 
you've given us pop quizzes, you've created mock dialogs with others, 
etc.  Where is the answer to the question?  Speak directly and plainly, 
and maybe I will understand.

The OP asked a question using the word "codes" for "program".  (This was 
actually the word that got us started, not "doubt", I had to look back 
to realize.)  A number of people tried to answer the question.  Denis 
made a joke, which often happens on the list, based on the multiple 
meanings of "codes".  Stephen said we should make allowances for slight 
difference in dialect.

What parts here are you objecting to?

I don't know what course of action you are advocating.  Can you explain, 
briefly, without resorting to analogies, quizzes, or philosophers?  What 
do you want people in this forum to do?

It could be that you are fine with the way things are going in this 
forum, and are only objecting to a fine point of Steven's plea.  If so, 
then maybe we could just drop it as off-topic.

--Ned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60571 — Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:26:48 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional variation of
> English, you fail to realize that this "regional redefinition" of the
> English word: "doubts" to mean what the *majority* of  English speaking
> world understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of his
> region.

"Fail to realize"? What regional redefinition of "realise" is that? How 
do you justify using that regional variation outside of your region?


> It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never been defined,
> NO, his region has redefined a widely understood word.
[...]
> In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word is fine,
> because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we will *instantly* know
> that we need to find a definition for the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully*
> comprehend what the author is trying to tell us.

I completely sniglim with what you are saying. I'd go further and state 
that, without exception, your argument is the most vumtigious I've ever 
seen, and if there were any justice in the world, people would follow you 
down the street shouting "Gedus! Gedus!" and giving you a keddener. If 
anyone deserves it, it is you.


[...]
> When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated listing, we
> falsely believe the lad 

"The lad"? Well, I suppose that's a step up from calling men twice your 
age "boy", but not much.


> is confused or has some level of concern.

Whereas when somebody says they have a question, we immediately assume 
that they are not confused, and have no concern at all.


[...]
> Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question" and
> "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.

Now Rick, I know that you're a speaker of a regional variation of 
English, so you might not be familiar with the standard meanings of the 
word "doubt" in English, including:

    3.  A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured 
        me by answering my doubts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doubt


It is without doubt that "question" and "doubt" are synonyms, or perhaps 
I should say that it is without question that "doubt" and "question" are 
synonyms.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/doubt

Of course, if you have any doubts about this, feel free to ask, we're 
happy to answer all reasonable questions.


[...]
>  "A new home-run record!"

What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run. 
Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60573 — Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I completely sniglim with what you are saying. I'd go further and state
> that, without exception, your argument is the most vumtigious I've ever
> seen, and if there were any justice in the world, people would follow you
> down the street shouting "Gedus! Gedus!" and giving you a keddener. If
> anyone deserves it, it is you.

I would go look some of those up, but I'm on kitchen duty today and
it's nearly brillig. In lieu of comprehension, I will just have to
glark your meaning from context.

ChrisA
firmly believing that Steven has good precedent for what he did there

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60583 — Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:18:11 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:26:48 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> [...]
> >  "A new home-run record!"

> What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run. 
> Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?

Six!

[If you are Brit/Aussie/Indian, you'd get that
 If not you probably dont
 If not and you do then you are a true cosmopolite
]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60585 — Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:18:11 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:26:48 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> >  "A new home-run record!"
>
>> What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run.
>> Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?
>
> Six!
>
> [If you are Brit/Aussie/Indian, you'd get that
>  If not you probably dont
>  If not and you do then you are a true cosmopolite
> ]

That's better than "Six and out, and go find it", which is what
happens if you put it over a fence or in any inaccessible place.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60586 — Re: Completely and utterly Off Topic [was Re: Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !]

On 27/11/2013 06:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:26:48 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional variation of
>> English, you fail to realize that this "regional redefinition" of the
>> English word: "doubts" to mean what the *majority* of  English speaking
>> world understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of his
>> region.
>
> "Fail to realize"? What regional redefinition of "realise" is that? How
> do you justify using that regional variation outside of your region?

Had a really good chuckle over this, thanks.

>
>
>> It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never been defined,
>> NO, his region has redefined a widely understood word.
> [...]
>> In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word is fine,
>> because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we will *instantly* know
>> that we need to find a definition for the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully*
>> comprehend what the author is trying to tell us.
>
> I completely sniglim with what you are saying. I'd go further and state
> that, without exception, your argument is the most vumtigious I've ever
> seen, and if there were any justice in the world, people would follow you
> down the street shouting "Gedus! Gedus!" and giving you a keddener. If
> anyone deserves it, it is you.
>

Don't have time now but search engine will be busy later, can't let 
these things pass unchequed.

>
> [...]
>> When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated listing, we
>> falsely believe the lad
>
> "The lad"? Well, I suppose that's a step up from calling men twice your
> age "boy", but not much.
>
>
>> is confused or has some level of concern.
>
> Whereas when somebody says they have a question, we immediately assume
> that they are not confused, and have no concern at all.
>
>
> [...]
>> Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question" and
>> "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.
>
> Now Rick, I know that you're a speaker of a regional variation of
> English, so you might not be familiar with the standard meanings of the
> word "doubt" in English, including:
>
>      3.  A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured
>          me by answering my doubts.
>
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/doubt
>
>
> It is without doubt that "question" and "doubt" are synonyms, or perhaps
> I should say that it is without question that "doubt" and "question" are
> synonyms.
>
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/doubt
>
> Of course, if you have any doubts about this, feel free to ask, we're
> happy to answer all reasonable questions.
>
>
> [...]
>>   "A new home-run record!"
>
> What is this "home-run" of which you speak? Houses don't generally run.
> Surely you're not using a regional idiom outside of your region?
>

I believe that he's referring to the need to rush home in order to use 
the toilet, water closet or whatever your dialect uses.  Apparently in 
some parts of the world a guy called John is constantly being urinated 
and defecated on, I'll admit to feeling really sorry for him.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60526

Op 26-11-13 15:37, Roy Smith schreef:
> In article <mailman.3219.1385452076.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>  Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> 
>> So I think we may expect more effort from the writer in trying to be 
>> understandable than from the readers in trying to understand. And 
>> that includes idiom use.
> 
> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't need that 
> annoying unicode stuff).  When you say, "effort to be understandable", 
> what you're really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".

Are you sure? I certainly hope not. That would be horrible!

> Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since 
> variety and exploring different cultures is part of what makes life 
> interesting.

So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?

> Keep in mind, there's a lot of native Mandarin speakers who are 
> wondering why they need to bother learning English at all.

So what is your point? Do you think they can just come and ask
there questions here in Mandarin or do you expect them to do
an effort to be understandable in english?

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60541

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 27 November 2013 03:57, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be>wrote:

>
> So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
> understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
> literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
> a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?


1. No, because this is stated to be an English-speaking list/newsgroup. It
just doesn't specify what dialect of English.

2. If you suspect that the literal translation could be misunderstood or
insulting, then I would expect you to make an effort to find a better
translation. If someone I didn't know posted it, I'd be willing to give
them leeway if the rest of their message indicated that they are used to
another dialect or language. If *you* posted it, I'd probably assume you
meant it, because I know your command of the english language is pretty
extensive ...

Participants are expected to attempt to be understandable in English, but I
personally expect responders to make an effort to work with multiple
dialects. If you're too unfamiliar with a dialect that you cannot respond,
either don't respond, or respond saying something like "I think I can help
here, but I'm confused about <unfamiliar phrase> - could you or someone
else clarify please?"

And if an unfamiliar dialect annoys you, killfile the person. No skin off
my nose.

Tim Delaney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60575

Op 26-11-13 22:42, Tim Delaney schreef:
> On 27 November 2013 03:57, Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be
> <mailto:antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     So I can now ask my questions in dutch and expect others to try and
>     understand me instead of me asking them in english? Or can I use
>     literal translations of dutch idioms even if I suspect that such
>     a literal translation could be misunderstood and even be insulting?
> 
> 
> 1. No, because this is stated to be an English-speaking list/newsgroup.
> It just doesn't specify what dialect of English.

Well so much for this group being an international group with only one
language allowed.

However that second sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Modern
languages contain a subset that is called the standard language. This
is the subset that is generally taught. Especially to those for whom
the language is foreign. So when you define a specific language to
use on an international forum, it is strongly suggested that people
limit themselves to the standard subset and don't use dialects since
"dialect" AFAIU means it is outside this standard.

Yes I accept that everyone deviates from this standard language and that
it isn't always easy to know what is and what is not within the standard
language and that we should allow each other some leeway. However there
is a difference between saying standard usage is something to aspire to
and then be tolerant for deviations on the one hand and saying any
dialect is allowed on the other hand.

So this being an international forum in which for a significant number
of members english is not their first language, I think it would be
prudent for those who have englisch as a mother tongue, to try and
stick to standard english, so as not to burden the first group even
more.

Doing otherwise IMO doesn't show much respect for that first group, from
whom is expected they adapt to a (for them) foreign language and then to
learn that those for which english is their mother tongue don't feel an
obligation to be helpful by limiting themselves to that part of the
language that is most likely to be understood by the first group.

> Participants are expected to attempt to be understandable in English,
> but I personally expect responders to make an effort to work with
> multiple dialects.

Why do you expect from people who already had to learn a foreign
language to familiarize themselves with dialects. The variations
within the standard are already plentyful enough, that you shouldn't
burden these peoples with dialects too.

You seem to suggest that we can hardly expect from people for whom
english is their mother tongue to do a serious effort in making
themselves understandable to others by trying to express themselves
in standard english.

And that in what is accepted to be an international forum so in which
we can expect a significant number of people for whom english is not
their mother tongue.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web