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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #5840 > unrolled thread

a doubt about c

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

Contents

  a doubt about c Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 06:11 -0700
    Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-11 09:36 -0400
    Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 14:37 +0000
      Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 11:55 -0700
        Re: a doubt about c Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-11 20:41 +0000
          Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 08:58 +1200
            Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:09 -0500
            Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-11 18:25 -0400
              Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:43 +1200
              Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 05:38 -0700
                Re: a doubt about c Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:12 -0400
                  Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 10:59 -0400
                    Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:07 +0100
                  Re: a doubt about c Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:33 -0700
                  Re: a doubt about c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 09:53 -0400
                  Re: a doubt about c Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:46 +0100
            Re: a doubt about c DSF <notavalid@address.here> - 2011-06-11 18:53 -0500
              Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 16:18 -0700
                Re: a doubt about c Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-06-11 21:13 -0500
                  Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 14:56 +1200
                  Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 20:24 -0700
                  Re: a doubt about c Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-12 08:10 -0400
              Re: a doubt about c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-12 11:49 +1200
          Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:36 -0700
        Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-12 00:23 +0100
          Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000
            Re: a doubt about c Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-15 15:44 -0700
              Re: a doubt about c Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-15 19:57 -0700
                Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-16 18:39 +0100
                  Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-17 15:39 +0100
                    Re: a doubt about c Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-17 14:49 +0000
                      Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
                      Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 12:00 -0500
                    Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 11:08 -0500
                      Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 13:00 -0500
                        Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 19:01 -0500
                    Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-17 09:14 -0600
                    Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-17 22:16 +0000
                    Re: a doubt about c "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-18 02:24 +0100
        Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:09 -0600
        [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-12 10:05 -0400
          Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-12 11:22 -0700
            Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-12 11:44 -0700
          Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Ralph Spitzner <rasp@spitzner.org> - 2011-06-13 11:31 +0200
            Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-15 10:03 -0400
              Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c) Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-06-17 07:52 +0100
              Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-19 00:41 -0700
                Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-19 07:04 -0400
                  Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question.  (Re: a doubt about c) Bill Waddington <william.waddington@beezmo.com> - 2011-06-23 11:03 -0700
    Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 11:23 -0500
      Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 13:56 -0400
        Re: a doubt about c "dr.oktopus" <blindwilly@freeonline.zzn.com> - 2011-06-11 12:53 -0700
          Re: a doubt about c Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@teksavvy.com> - 2011-06-11 16:01 -0400
          Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 13:07 -0700
          Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 14:13 -0600
            Re: a doubt about c Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-11 23:31 +0100
              Re: a doubt about c pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-11 20:07 -0400
              Re: a doubt about c Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-06-11 23:05 -0600
        Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 16:42 -0500
          Re: a doubt about c "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-11 14:23 -0700
            Re: a doubt about c Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-11 17:27 -0500
              Re: a doubt about c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-11 15:42 -0700
    Re: a doubt about c Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-13 14:39 +0000

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

#5878

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 11-Jun-11 18:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> DSF <notavalid@address.here> writes:
>>>   May I ask why you feel that way?  #define constants certainly have a
>>> potential performance benefit over a const variable.  The use of a
>>> #define constant is often replaced with an immediate value, whereas a
>>> const variable is likely to be stored in a static memory pool which is
>>> often part of the program itself.  This leaves the potential for
>>> slower execution and a larger program size.
>> 
>> If a const object's initialization is a constant expression, any
>> decent optimizing compiler will replace any reference to the object
>> with its value (unless fetching it from memory is actually faster
>> on the system in question).
>
> AFAICT, that would not be legal since some other code outside the
> current compilation unit could cast away the variable's const-ness and
> alter its value.  It's also not possible to eliminate the object
> entirely if some code takes its address with the & operator.

It's not possible to change the value of a const-qualified object
without invoking undefined behavior, when means that the compiler
is permitted to assume that you haven't done that.

You're right that the object can't be eliminated if its address is used
-- but the compiler can still replace a reference to its value with the
actual initial value.

> If const objects were actually constant expressions in C rather than
> merely read-only objects, as one might naïvely expect (and they are in
> C++), that'd be a different matter.

I've just posted to comp.std.c suggesting such a change.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5899

On 6/11/2011 10:13 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 11-Jun-11 18:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> DSF<notavalid@address.here>  writes:
>>
>> If a const object's initialization is a constant expression, any
>> decent optimizing compiler will replace any reference to the object
>> with its value (unless fetching it from memory is actually faster
>> on the system in question).
>
> AFAICT, that would not be legal since some other code outside the
> current compilation unit could cast away the variable's const-ness and
> alter its value.  [...]

     ... thus invoking undefined behavior (6.7.3p5).  The optimization
is permitted, the non-optimization is permitted, *anything* is
permitted, including scribbling "I Love Lucy" all over the disk.

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

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

#5871

On 06/12/11 11:53 AM, DSF wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 08:58:36 +1200, Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/11 08:41 AM, Angel wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-11, Keith Thompson<kst-u@mib.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I'd really like to see is for C to adopt C++'s feature, where
>>>> a const object of numeric type whose initializer is a constant
>>>> expression can be used as a constant:
>>>>
>>>>       const int max = 1000;
>>>>       const double pi = 3.14159265358979;
>>>>
>>>> But it's probably too late to add that to C201X.
>>>
>>> Yeah, #defines and macros have their place, but this seems like a much
>>> more natural way to define a numerical constant to me.
>>
>> The place for #define constants is the dustbin of history!
>
>    May I ask why you feel that way?

They are an anachronism.  I don't believe in mixing the preprocessor 
realm (conditional compilation) with the C code realm.  Unfortunately C 
has never adopted the C++ definition of const as compile time constant, 
so we will be stuck with them for a while longer.  I really don't 
understand why this change has never been made.

> #define constants certainly have a
> potential performance benefit over a const variable.  The use of a
> #define constant is often replaced with an immediate value, whereas a
> const variable is likely to be stored in a static memory pool which is
> often part of the program itself.  This leaves the potential for
> slower execution and a larger program size.

Not with a half decent modern compiler.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#5864

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 2011-06-11, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> On 2011-06-11, Ya Shou <zxyzxy12321@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Enumeration defines constants used in c++, but not seen any in c, why?
>>>
>>> It's mainly historical. Enums were originally not a part of the C
>>> language when K&R designed it; they were first added in C89. Many
>>> sources still use #defines over enums, and both forms are acceptable
>>> as in C there is functionally very little difference between them.
>>
>> Enums are older than that.  If I recall correctly, they were added
>> shortly after K&R1, which was published in 1978.
>
> I was going by Wikipedia, which claims it was first introduced by ANSI.
> But it is quite possible that you are right. I was only five back then
> so I don't remember 1978 too well. ;-)

I was %*&*^ at the time.  (Hope this article isn't garbled by line
noise.)

According to http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html (yes, the dmr
is Dennis Ritchie):

    During 1973-1980, the language grew a bit: the type structure
    gained unsigned, long, union, and enumeration types, and
    structures became nearly first-class objects (lacking only a
    notation for literals).

unsigned, long, and union all appear in K&R1 (1978), but enums and
struct parameters did not.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5869

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:55:01 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

> (Incidentally, the word "doubt" is not synonymous with "question",

No, but doubts often lead to questions to clear up the doubts.

If someone says that they have a doubt in the context of a usenet post,
it's usually safe to assume that they also have a question, and they're
not just giving us a running commentary on their thought processes.

> at least not in most dialects of English.

This usage of "doubt" appears to be quite common in dialects from south
and south-east Asia. 

The western equivalent is along the lines of "I'm unsure about ...".
Again, the question is implied rather than stated explicitly.

> A "doubt" generally implies that you disbelieve something.)

In its most general form, it just means that you're uncertain.
"I doubt ..." tends to specifically signify disbelief, but "I have doubts
about ..." is more on-the-fence.

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

#5977

On 2011-06-11, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> The western equivalent is along the lines of "I'm unsure about ...".
> Again, the question is implied rather than stated explicitly.

Yes.

> In its most general form, it just means that you're uncertain.
> "I doubt ..." tends to specifically signify disbelief, but "I have doubts
> about ..." is more on-the-fence.

Interestingly, outside of the Asian-influenced dialect, I've never seen "a
doubt" used in English.  I've seen doubt used as a verb, and doubts (plural)
referred to, but I've not seen a native speaker say "a doubt".

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#6125

On Jun 13, 7:39 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-11, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > The western equivalent is along the lines of "I'm unsure about ...".
> > Again, the question is implied rather than stated explicitly.
>
> Yes.
>
> > In its most general form, it just means that you're uncertain.
> > "I doubt ..." tends to specifically signify disbelief, but "I have doubts
> > about ..." is more on-the-fence.
>
> Interestingly, outside of the Asian-influenced dialect, I've never seen "a
> doubt" used in English.  I've seen doubt used as a verb, and doubts (plural)
> referred to, but I've not seen a native speaker say "a doubt".

Maybe you're forgetting the expression "without a doubt."

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

#6129

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Squeamizh
<squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 7:39 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-06-11, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The western equivalent is along the lines of "I'm unsure about ...".
>> > Again, the question is implied rather than stated explicitly.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > In its most general form, it just means that you're uncertain.
>> > "I doubt ..." tends to specifically signify disbelief, but "I have doubts
>> > about ..." is more on-the-fence.
>>
>> Interestingly, outside of the Asian-influenced dialect, I've never seen "a
>> doubt" used in English.  I've seen doubt used as a verb, and doubts (plural)
>> referred to, but I've not seen a native speaker say "a doubt".
>
>Maybe you're forgetting the expression "without a doubt."

Also, FWIW, Webster's lists "question" as a synonym of "doubt" but not
vice versa.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubt

It's entirely possible the Jesuits who pioneered the Asian-European
translation efforts in the 1700's are responsible for this "doubt vs.
question" problem since the connotation of "doubt" is one of
incertitude and distrust vs the interrogative connotation of
"question" and the Spanish-French speaking Jesuits had their own
cultural biases and criteria when the references were developed.

In other words, give it up Seebs, you aren't going prevail against a
300 year old etymology.

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

#6168

Geoff wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:44:07 -0700 (PDT), Squeamizh
> <squeamz@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 13, 7:39 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-11, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The western equivalent is along the lines of "I'm unsure about ...".
>>>> Again, the question is implied rather than stated explicitly.
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> In its most general form, it just means that you're uncertain.
>>>> "I doubt ..." tends to specifically signify disbelief, but "I have doubts
>>>> about ..." is more on-the-fence.
>>> Interestingly, outside of the Asian-influenced dialect, I've never seen "a
>>> doubt" used in English.  I've seen doubt used as a verb, and doubts (plural)
>>> referred to, but I've not seen a native speaker say "a doubt".
>> Maybe you're forgetting the expression "without a doubt."
> 
> Also, FWIW, Webster's lists "question" as a synonym of "doubt" but not
> vice versa.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doubt
> 
> It's entirely possible the Jesuits who pioneered the Asian-European
> translation efforts in the 1700's are responsible for this "doubt vs.
> question" problem since the connotation of "doubt" is one of
> incertitude and distrust vs the interrogative connotation of
> "question" and the Spanish-French speaking Jesuits had their own
> cultural biases and criteria when the references were developed.
> 
> In other words, give it up Seebs, you aren't going prevail against a
> 300 year old etymology.

What's to "give up"? It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, 
to the extent that most speakers of other forms of English find it 
puzzling when they first come across it. It does no harm to advise its 
users that it is a usage which is not widely understood, and may do them 
some good.

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

#6241

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:

> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
> come across it.

Have you conducted a survey?

I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.

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

#6242

Nobody wrote:
) On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
)
)> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
)> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
)> come across it.
)
) Have you conducted a survey?
)
) I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
) might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.

Of course the meaning is clear.  It's the connotation that is unclear.

'Doubt' is like 'Question', but with the *extra* connotation that the asker
suspects the distruth of what he is asking.

I would be surprised if most people do not read this connotation
into such questions, even after repeated occurrences.  I sure do.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#6248

Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes:

> Nobody wrote:
> ) On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
> )
> )> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
> )> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
> )> come across it.
> )
> ) Have you conducted a survey?
> )
> ) I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> ) might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.
>
> Of course the meaning is clear.  It's the connotation that is unclear.
>
> 'Doubt' is like 'Question', but with the *extra* connotation that the asker
> suspects the distruth of what he is asking.
>
> I would be surprised if most people do not read this connotation
> into such questions, even after repeated occurrences.  I sure do.

I have to conciously remind myself that the connotation isn't intended.

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

#6252

On 6/17/2011 9:49 AM, Willem wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
> ) On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
> )
> )>  It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
> )>  most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
> )>  come across it.
> )
> ) Have you conducted a survey?
> )
> ) I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> ) might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.
>
> Of course the meaning is clear.  It's the connotation that is unclear.
>
> 'Doubt' is like 'Question', but with the *extra* connotation that the asker
> suspects the distruth of what he is asking.
>
> I would be surprised if most people do not read this connotation
> into such questions, even after repeated occurrences.  I sure do.

Assuming someone's doubt is a question of true versus false, why 
"distruth" and not "unknown truth value"?

If I have a doubt that you are generally a positive person, it might be 
that I've seen some evidence that calls that into question...  But if 
the evidence were really convincing and I suspected you were not 
generally a positive person, I wouldn't have a question...  I might have 
an agenda to call attention to this perceived evidence to others.  But I 
think that's a leap from "doubt".

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

#6244

On 6/17/2011 9:39 AM, Nobody wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
>
>> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
>> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
>> come across it.
>
> Have you conducted a survey?
>
> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.
>

I've always understood the subject of "doubt" as being two-valued 
whereas the subject of "question" being "any-valued."  But that's just 
my impression.

I remember when I first heard "doubt" in a similar context to this, I 
silently wondered, "What was the claim you have a doubt about?"  But a 
second later I dismissed it as uncommon usage (for the places I've 
lived) and assumed the speaker meant "concern."  'Twas puzzling and 
unusual, and I am having a doubt about the speaker knowing of this 
potential.

I haven't spoken to all English speakers, so really have no idea how 
common such usage actually is.  I think most people I know would agree 
that it sounds like a quirk, but seems an easy difference to tolerate.

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

#6256 — Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c)

On 6/17/2011 11:08 AM, Shao Miller wrote:
> On 6/17/2011 9:39 AM, Nobody wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
>>> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
>>> come across it.
>>
>> Have you conducted a survey?
>>
>> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
>> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.
>>
>
> I've always understood the subject of "doubt" as being two-valued
> whereas the subject of "question" being "any-valued." But that's just my
> impression.
>
> I remember when I first heard "doubt" in a similar context to this, I
> silently wondered, "What was the claim you have a doubt about?" But a
> second later I dismissed it as uncommon usage (for the places I've
> lived) and assumed the speaker meant "concern." 'Twas puzzling and
> unusual, and I am having a doubt about the speaker knowing of this
> potential.
>
> I haven't spoken to all English speakers, so really have no idea how
> common such usage actually is. I think most people I know would agree
> that it sounds like a quirk, but seems an easy difference to tolerate.

I just asked a fellow who I see on a regular basis about this, in 
person, "When you use the word \"doubt,\" do you mean the same thing as 
\"question?\""  He unhesitatingly responded, "Yes."  He began to add 
detail, but his wife interjected about "grammar" and so I didn't catch 
it.  Then he suggested that his experience with North Americans was that 
some words and grammar were different than the British influence that he 
believed was responsible for his intended meanings and usage. 
Interesting... Though off-topic, of course. :)

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

#6679 — Re: [OT] Doubt vs. question. (Re: a doubt about c)

On 6/17/2011 1:00 PM, Shao Miller wrote:
> On 6/17/2011 11:08 AM, Shao Miller wrote:
>> On 6/17/2011 9:39 AM, Nobody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
>>>> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they
>>>> first
>>>> come across it.
>>>
>>> Have you conducted a survey?
>>>
>>> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it.
>>> People
>>> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is
>>> unclear.
>>>
>>
>> I've always understood the subject of "doubt" as being two-valued
>> whereas the subject of "question" being "any-valued." But that's just my
>> impression.
>>
>> I remember when I first heard "doubt" in a similar context to this, I
>> silently wondered, "What was the claim you have a doubt about?" But a
>> second later I dismissed it as uncommon usage (for the places I've
>> lived) and assumed the speaker meant "concern." 'Twas puzzling and
>> unusual, and I am having a doubt about the speaker knowing of this
>> potential.
>>
>> I haven't spoken to all English speakers, so really have no idea how
>> common such usage actually is. I think most people I know would agree
>> that it sounds like a quirk, but seems an easy difference to tolerate.
>
> I just asked a fellow who I see on a regular basis about this, in
> person, "When you use the word \"doubt,\" do you mean the same thing as
> \"question?\"" He unhesitatingly responded, "Yes." He began to add
> detail, but his wife interjected about "grammar" and so I didn't catch
> it. Then he suggested that his experience with North Americans was that
> some words and grammar were different than the British influence that he
> believed was responsible for his intended meanings and usage.
> Interesting... Though off-topic, of course. :)

Seeing as how we've just seen "doubt" used again, I'll share that:

I had another, lengthier conversation with another couple I see on a 
regular basis (and who happen to know the first couple that I 
doubted^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hquestioned) and they suggested that they understood 
the subject of a "doubt" to be two-valued versus the subject of a 
"question" being many-valued.  This wasn't the same exchange as the 
first fellow I asked, since he seemed pretty sure that using the terms 
interchangeably was all right.

The example one of them gave was, "I have a doubt that you gave me 
enough cash money."  They also suggested that they (the two of them) use 
the word to mean something like "disbelief," and "do not agree."

They also suggested that from time to time, when they lack the 
vocabulary (she wasn't lacking "vocabulary") to express something in 
English, they'll substitute a similar word, even though they can tell 
that it doesn't belong.  I'm quite certain I'd do precisely the same 
thing; association.

So as far as "surveying" goes, I have asked two couples (who know each 
other) and have gotten two different answers.

I wonder if a "bedrock doubt" is about something "fundamental" or 
"foundational" or the "basis" of something...  For whatever it's worth, 
Google translates "I have got two bedrock doubts" into some text which 
translates back as "I have found the suspect."

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

#6247

Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:

> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
>
>> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
>> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
>> come across it.
>
> Have you conducted a survey?
>
> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.

Speaking only for myself, when I first encountered Indian students using
it, I did think they were challenging the accuracy of what I said rather
than not understanding it.  It didn't take long to clear up my
confusion, but the confusion was there.

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

#6307

On 2011-06-17, Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Have you conducted a survey?

No.

> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.

I dunno, I certainly got it wrong the first few times.  "I have my doubts
about X" does not mean "I would like some questions answered", it means "I
think X looks ungood."  So the first few times I saw someone say "I have
a doubt about C", I interpreted their posts as complaints, not requests for
information.  And then they didn't even state what the actual complaint was...

The problem is that, in the English I learned, there's simply *no* connotation
of "doubt" which can be used in the sense of "a request for information which
does not imply distrust or dislike".

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#6325

Nobody wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:56 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:
> 
>> It is not a normal usage outside "Indian" English, to the extent that
>> most speakers of other forms of English find it puzzling when they first
>> come across it.
> 
> Have you conducted a survey?

No, but I remember my first coming across it, and I've observed many 
speakers of several other English dialects first coming across it. 
Depending on the context of how they first hit it, responses varied from 
slight puzzlement over an odd usage to simply not understanding what was 
being said.

> I would be surprised if many people actually didn't understand it. People
> might find it unusual, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is unclear.

I think that depends entirely on the context in which they first come 
across it. In my case a brand new colleague came to my cube and said 
"Hi, I have a doubt for you". I guessed at several different things he 
could have meant, none of which was correct. I most suspected that he 
was saying he didn't understand something he'd been told, perhaps where 
to find something - but why would that be "for me"? I said "I'm sorry, I 
don't understand" and he replied "I just have a little doubt" - that 
headed me more in the right direction, but all confusion was removed by 
another Indian English speaker popping his head over the cube wall and 
saying "he means he has a question for you".

In other contexts it would be much more obvious - "can I ask you a 
doubt" for example gives enough context, or "I have a doubt - what time 
do we go to lunch?". I've never known anyone come across this usage for 
the first time who wasn't a little taken aback and puzzled by it, even 
if the context gave them enough information to make the meaning clear.

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

#5880

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>
> (Incidentally, the word "doubt" is not synonymous with "question",
> at least not in most dialects of English.  A "doubt" generally
> implies that you disbelieve something.)

My experience with Indian students is that on that subcontinent they are
indeed synonymous.

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

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

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

csiph-web