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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #19315 > unrolled thread

The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed!

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

Contents

  The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 21:57 -0800
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-24 06:06 +0000
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Benedict Verheyen <benedict.verheyen@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 16:43 +0100
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-24 00:05 -0600
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 22:50 -0800
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 17:41 +1100
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-24 13:46 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 00:49 -0600
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 23:53 -0700
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 17:59 +1100
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Jérôme <jerome@jolimont.fr> - 2012-01-24 09:21 +0100
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-24 16:25 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 14:05 +0000
      RE: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rob Richardson <RDRichardson@rad-con.com> - 2012-01-24 14:54 +0000
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! J <dreadpiratejeff@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 09:51 -0500
        Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 16:26 +0000
          Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 03:41 +1100
          Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Blockheads Oi Oi <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-24 17:21 +0000
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-01-25 00:01 -0500
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 15:46 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Blockheads Oi Oi <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-24 17:25 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Blockheads Oi Oi <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-24 21:13 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 08:20 +1100
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Blockheads Oi Oi <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-24 21:26 +0000
    RE: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviours exposed! Phil Runciman <philr@aspexconsulting.co.nz> - 2012-01-25 13:32 +1300
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 16:43 -0800
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 22:49 -0700
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 22:55 -0700
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2012-01-25 19:50 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviours exposed! Blockheads Oi Oi <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-25 01:38 +0000
    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! K Richard Pixley <rich@noir.com> - 2012-01-25 09:26 -0800
      Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 12:14 -0800
        Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2012-01-25 20:32 +0000
        Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 14:45 -0700
          Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 15:23 -0800
            Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 17:20 -0700
              Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 17:00 -0800
                Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 19:02 -0700
                  Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 19:01 -0800
                    Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 14:57 +1100
            Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Jugurtha Hadjar <jugurtha.hadjar@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 01:28 +0100
              Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 17:34 -0800
            Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-01-26 11:37 +1100
            Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-26 05:14 +0000
              Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 16:19 +1100
              Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-01-25 21:25 -0800
                Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 00:51 -0700
              Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2012-01-27 09:06 -0800
                Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-27 19:42 +0000
        Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-26 00:53 +0000
          Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2012-01-26 16:31 -0800
        Re: The devolution of English language and slothful c.l.p behaviors exposed! "K. Richard Pixley" <rich@noir.com> - 2012-01-25 16:55 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#19453

I just came home. It is 01h19 AM here in Algiers (Algeria, North 
Africa.. Not New Orleans) and I find this funny thread. Thank you, by 
the way.

I started communicating in English about two years ago, mostly on human 
sciences topics and was forced to articulate ideas and concepts in this 
language. I speak several other languages and dialects (French, Kabyle, 
Arabic and Algiers dialect which can't be understood by other people.. 
Although I understand no problem Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian and other 
dialects. Something about Algerian dialects that gets people confused)

Anyway, I've learned mostly by emulating others, remembering idioms and 
expressions of everyday life. That and watching many movies (in English 
instead of French), and switching my technical documentation to English.

I have been raised reading Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Alexandre Dumas, 
Honoré de Balzac, Jules Verne, Jean Racine, Molière and many other great 
writers. I am sincerely sorry if my English offends some purists, but I 
am making efforts to write correctly, and making mistakes to learn. To 
learn this and many other things... Things like Python. Which is why I 
am on this list in the first place. Brilliant list, by the way.

Gentlemen, I wish you a good night.



-- 
~Jugurtha Hadjar,

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

#19464

On Jan 25, 6:28 pm, Jugurtha Hadjar <jugurtha.had...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sincerely sorry if my English offends some purists, but I
> am making efforts to write correctly, and making mistakes to learn. To
> learn this and many other things...

Hello Jugurtha,

You English does not offend me. i want you to realize that i am not
directing my complaints towards anyone who speaks English as a second
language. The many problems with the English language are manifesting
themselves internally. We are drilling holes in the bottom our own
wooden ships and then becoming confused when they fill with water. The
lemmings are full speed towards the precipice.

Given your rich knowledge of so many languages, I would very much like
you to weigh in on the superfluous usage of words like "pretty", the
bogus transformations of contextual meaning, and the other perversions
you have burdened you whist learning this language.

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

#19455

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:38:12 -0800
Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> wrote:

[...]
> >
> 
> Would you prefer the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries. They are
> a bit more established than dictionary.com in terms of standardizing
> the languages.
> 
> Definition 4 of the Merriam-Webster dictionary for "pretty" as an
> adjective says:
> 
> moderately large *:*
> considerable<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/considerable>
>  <a very *pretty* profit><cost a *pretty* penny>
> 
> See:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretty
> 
> 
> The only definition for "pretty" as an adjective in the Oxford
> dictionary says:
> 
> *[*as submodifier] *informal*
> to a moderately high degree; fairly:
> he looked pretty fit for his age
> 
> See:  http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pretty?q=pretty
> 
> As such, I would say using pretty as an adjective for fairly,
> considerably, or other, as in the sentence "That was pretty easy." is
> well established and accepted English. So far there have been three
> dictionary entries saying it is valid English, including one of the
> most widely accepted.
> 

No doubt His Rantingness has already widened the scope of his spampaign to include the world's lexicographers and the billion or so English speakers they represent, with the aim of liberating them all from their sad misapprehensions about what constitutes valid colloquial English, and by example, their burdensome preoccupations with spelling and punctuation, and their crippling fear of malapropisms and homonyms.


John   

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

#19472

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:23:10 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> Let's see what intelligent words we can find here...
> 
> """
> doohickey
> a name for something one doesn't know the name of, 1914, Amer.Eng.,
> arbitrary formation.
> 
> thing·a·ma·jig
> a gadget or other thing for which the speaker does not know or has
> forgotten the name.
> """
> 
> Wow, this dictionary has high standards. i stand humbled!


If only you did. You might learn something.

Rick, you mock what you do not understand. Shame on you.

"Doohickey" and "thing-a-ma-jig" (or "thingumajig") are metasyntactic 
variables like "foo/bar/baz" or "spam/ham/eggs". They are real words used 
by real people, not just in speech but in writing, and it is the job of 
the dictionary compiler to document actual words used by people, not to 
make arbitrary rules that some words aren't good enough.

Dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive. We do not need or 
want an "Académie Française" for English, especially not one that would 
impoverish the English language and reduce it to a poor shadow of itself 
by taking away fine distinctions of meaning.

Being able to distinguish between widget, gadget, doohickey, thingy, 
whatsit, wossname, etc. is a feature, not a bug. It is part of the 
richness of English that we aren't limited to just a single word, 
"thing", to describe multiple things. In a single sentence, we can easily 
use "thing" to refer to generic, abstract objects or concepts, and 
"doohickey", "whatsit", etc. to refer to *specific*, concrete objects 
whether or not they have a name.

These words are as rich and powerful as older words like "organ", "part", 
"stuff", "bits", all of which have subtle differences of meaning. In the 
same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of 
using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would 
never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.


-- 
Steven

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

#19473

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> In the
> same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
> using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
> never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.

I dunno... every Sunday I press keys on a keyboard at church, and I'm
pretty sure that's a mechanical device. Well, electrical and
mechanical, but not living.

But that's another specific meaning, and it would be equally incorrect
to call that a gadget as to call my lung one.

ChrisA

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

#19474

The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'

Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
length.
This does not match any meaning I can make of trolling.

Can someone please explain what 'troll' means?

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

#19479

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> The contents of this thread ostensibly argues about the word 'pretty'
> Actually it seems to be arguing about the word 'troll'
>
> Every other post calls the OP a troll and then outdoes his post in
> length.

I just grepped, and it's hardly "every other post".  Prior to your own
post that word had been used three times in this thread.  Thus, by
using the word four times in your own message, you have more than
doubled the number of times it has been used in this thread.

> This does not match any meaning I can make of trolling.
>
> Can someone please explain what 'troll' means?

>From Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts
inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online
community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog,
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional
response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

If the responses Rick is getting on his off-topic thread are longer
than his own posts in it (which I seriously doubt, considering the
enormity of his first two posts), that means that he is not just a
troll, but a successful troll.

Cheers,
Ian

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

#19524

On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...
> In the
> same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
> using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
> never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.

My wife introduced me to the term "picnic gadget" as the means by which 
males avoid restroom lines...

Emile

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

#19525

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:06:57 -0800, Emile van Sebille wrote:

> On 1/25/2012 9:14 PM Steven D'Aprano said...
>> In the
>> same way that a native English speaker would never make the mistake of
>> using "organ" to refer to an unnamed mechanical device, so she would
>> never use "gadget" to refer to an unnamed body part.
> 
> My wife introduced me to the term "picnic gadget" as the means by which
> males avoid restroom lines...

Well, that's hardly an *unnamed* organ, is it?



-- 
Steven

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

#19456

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:14:43 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> PS: Just like i suspected; not one single use of "pretty" was wielded to
> describe the pleasurable attributes of a person, place, or thing. Mind
> boggling!

Have you even bothered to look up "pretty" in the dictionary?

Dictionary.com has this usage note:

    The qualifying adverb pretty,  meaning "fairly or moderately" 
    has been in general use since the late 16th century. Although 
    most common in informal speech and writing, it is far from 
    restricted to them, and often is less stilted than alternatives 
    such as relatively, moderately, and quite. 

so your complaints are about 400 years late. Perhaps you don't know as 
much about the English language as you think.

The Oxford Dictionary lists the first definition of "pretty" as 

    Orig. cunning, crafty. Later (of a person) clever, skillful; 
   (of a thing) cleverly made or done, ingenious, artful.

and states that it is derived from Old English praettig, "capricious, 
overbearing".

Other meanings include:

    "excellent or admirable in appearance"

    "brave, gallant, warlike" (this one is chiefly Scots)

    "Of a person, esp. a woman or child: attractive and pleasing 
     in appearance; beautiful in a delicate, dainty or diminutive 
     way without stateliness"

    "Of a quantity or amount: considerable, great"

    "To a considerable extent, considerably; fairly, moderately,
     tolerably"


I think it is absolutely wonderful that the English language has evolved 
in such a way that "pretty" means both warlike and dainty :)



-- 
Steven

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

#19513

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> The Oxford Dictionary lists the first definition of "pretty" as
>
>     Orig. cunning, crafty. Later (of a person) clever, skillful;
>    (of a thing) cleverly made or done, ingenious, artful.
>
> and states that it is derived from Old English praettig, "capricious,
> overbearing".

Whereas the Dutch term prettig means "agreeable, gratifying,
pleasant"; I strongly suspect the meaning of the English term evolved
as a result of the commonality.

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

#19457

On 1/25/12 12:14 , Rick Johnson wrote:
> You don't even need
> "pretty" to get your point across.

If that's your argument, then we can drop the verb "to be", most 
articles, most verb conjugations, and nearly all adjectives and adverbs. 
  For that matter, the vast majority of posts here can be dropped as 
they don't convey any new factual knowledge at all.

Terseness isn't the only goal of language.

--rich

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web