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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #18011 > unrolled thread

Re: Python education survey

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Python education survey Carl Smith <carl.input@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 21:59 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 03:41 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:53 +1100
        Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:45 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 12:04 -0800
            Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 13:44 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 17:56 -0800
                Re: Python education survey Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-12-27 20:21 -0600
                  Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 18:42 -0800
                    Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 14:54 +1100
                    Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-28 06:59 +0000
                      Re: Python education survey rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 23:49 -0800
                      Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-31 16:27 +0000
                        Re: Python education survey Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-31 13:23 -0500
                          Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2011-12-31 20:06 +0100
                            Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-01 02:36 +0000
                              Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2012-01-01 05:53 +0100
                                Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:02 +0000
                          Re: Python education survey Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 23:44 -0600
                    Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2011-12-31 21:12 -0800
                      Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 21:27 -0800
                        Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2012-01-02 22:03 -0800
                        Re: Python education survey Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-03 01:31 -0500
                        Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 04:33 -0800
                          Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-04 01:30 +0000
                    Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 16:50 +1100
                Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:25 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#18372

On Dec 31 2011, 11:12 pm, Dominic Binks <dbi...@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no
> validation necessary.  You could potentially try to validate it's use
> but again that's not in your power.

Usage begets validation. By using words in a manner that is improper
we validate the continued existence of stupidity.

> I think you need to go back to school to understand what a dictionary
> is. (FYI, a dictionary codifies usage, not the other way around.)

So there are no standards by which a dictionary must meet? The sheeple
should just read and accept any garage that the dictionary writers
dictate? Sadly, a dictionary has the power to give legitimacy to a
word. When we expand the definitions of words like "pretty" and reduce
those definitions to the absurd AND then include those absurd
definitions in a "dictionary" NOW we have just given lunacy the
justification it so desires.

> Perhaps you mean, because more precise words or phrases for these uses
> exist?  By your token 'work' should refer to physical activity which is
> not appropriate in this context and probably 'fine' should refer to a
> payment that is made having broken some rule or regulation thus leading
> to monetary reparation.

Yes, i used the word "work" improperly here. Just another example of
the corrupting influence of garage verbiage. Thanks for bring this to
my attention!


> > Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
> > properties of a tangible object),
>
> Because many words have more than one meaning and their context
> describes the meaning.  For example 'Time flies like an arrow, fruit
> flies like a banana'.  I know you can parse and understand that but the
> sentences are precisely alike, yet completely different.

And that is just my point: by adopting so many meanings of a word that
are dependent on context, we obfuscate our communication.

> rr said: """Supposed to ->  required|expected"""
>
> probably 'intended' would be better here since 'supposed to' indicates
> that you should do this, but it is not required (pretty much the
> opposite for your given translation).

Actually, no. Consider this sentence: "We are supposed to-->[required
to|expected] follow the law, but sometimes i just cannot get used to
it!"

> rr said: """ Use to ->  accustomed|acquainted"""
>
> Sorry to be picky, but "use to" refers to application as in "When I say
> 'idiot', in this context 'idiot' I use to mean 'person who cannot speak
> English as it is commonly used'."

Completely wrong! Consider this: "I USED TO wear a tutu however i just
never could get USE TO the ridicule from others"

> rr said:  """Right (OOC) ->  Correct"""
>
> While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct'
> can be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for
> it's usage in 2011

So just because people have been using a word out of context we should
just continue? Why?

> rr said: """Hard (OOC) ->  Difficult"""
>
> Phrases to mean 'difficult' or 'tough' come from at least 1886 so again,
> it's use in this context is hardly new.

New or not, it's wrong!

> rr said: """Pretty (OOC) ->  very"""
>
> Pretty on it's own doesn't mean very at all.  (God knows where you got
> that idea from.) When combined with another adjective, such as hard,
> pretty does enhance the adjective.  However, pretty difficult is not the
> same as very difficult.  Pretty, in this context would probably be
> better defined as 'somewhat' or 'quite'.  (Oh and it's use in this
> context can be traced back to 1565.)

Pretty is by far the most ubiquitous use of a word in a manner that is
"out of context". If you don't believe me, grep this group for all the
occurrences of the word "pretty", and see if ANY instances of this
word are used to describe "the pleasurable physical attributes of a
tangible object". I would safely say that 99% are used out of
context. :-(

Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets
stupidity.

Do any of you remember the Unicode thread from way back? If so, you
will remember all the well known trolls who ranted about "how the
words you use shape the way your brain processes information".
Choosing the easy way out is detrimental to your future evolution.
Stop propagating your stupidity memes and use your F'in brain for
once!

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

#18378

On 1/2/2012 9:27 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 31 2011, 11:12 pm, Dominic Binks<dbi...@codeaurora.org>  wrote:
>
>> I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no

... taken off list


-- 
Dominic Binks: dbinks@codeaurora.org
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum

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

#18380

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

On 1/3/2012 0:27, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Yes, i used the word "work" improperly here. Just another example of
> the corrupting influence of garage verbiage. Thanks for bring this to
> my attention! 

"Diction" would be a far better word than "verbiage" there.

Evan

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

#18399

> Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
> specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets
> stupidity.

No, that would be because they are not autistic. Most people like
having a repertoire of words with subtly different meanings in their
natural language, because there is a demand for this semantic richness.

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

#18475

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:33:45 -0800, Eelco wrote:

>> Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
>> specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets stupidity.
> 
> No, that would be because they are not autistic. Most people like having
> a repertoire of words with subtly different meanings in their natural
> language, because there is a demand for this semantic richness.

+1 QOTW


-- 
Steven

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

#18290

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct' can
> be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for it's usage
> in 2011 (very nearly 2012 for me and definitely 2012 for anyone east of New
> York City).

And I am right, And you are right,
And everything is quite correct!
-- http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk103.html

Context matters, words have multiple meanings. Can we agree on this
point and move on? Otherwise, we're still going to be arguing this
come 2013...

ChrisA

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

#18118

On Dec 28, 2:56 am, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:44 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Despite the fact that you mis-attributed that quote to me, im going to
> > be a little bit offended in the name of its actual author anyway.
> > Thats a lot of words to waste on your linguistic preferences.
> > Personally, I reserve the right to botch my non-native languages as
> > much as I please.
>
> I hope you're just joking a bit because i have little respect for
> those who refuse to better themselves. If you are learning English as
> a second language then you have a legitimacy excuse, but at some point
> that excuse just becomes a lie. In any case, i apologize for mis-
> quoting you.

Yes, I was joking a bit; I learned my english primarily on programming
boards, and im proud to say it rivals that of a majority of native
speakers (low bar to beat, true). Furthermore, you are free to direct
criticism at my writing or that of anyone else, but I must say I dont
much care to hear it. A language is learned by using it, in reading,
writing or speech; not by grammar nazis, or style nazis for that
matter. Im here to discuss issues related to python, and anyone who
manages to make himself understood is welcome to do so, as far as I am
concerned. Im much more worried whether they have something
interesting to contribute to the actual discussion. Not getting stuck
picking nits, fighting personal feuds or getting dragged into the
swamp by trolls; those are the real challenges, in my opinion.

If you are insistent on bettering yourself; there is half a dozen
other languages we could continue the conversation in. Your marginal
gain per sentence read and written might be much larger there than in
english.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web