Groups > comp.lang.c > #53628 > unrolled thread

Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

Started by	Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com>
First post	2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Last post	2015-02-06 09:12 -0500
Articles	20 on this page of 129 — 23 participants

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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →

#57247

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-11 14:06 +0000
Message-ID	<mbfnju$oqq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57242

On 11/02/15 09:19, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

> The UK is always singular.  There is no analogy with the USA, and I am
> not sure whether the term "USA" is singular or plural.  I would be
> tempted to use the plural when there is strong emphasis on the states,
> but mostly I would say it is a singular country.

I think I would have to agree with you there. It is a /most/ singular 
country.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#57244

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2015-02-11 08:07 -0500
Message-ID	<mbfk4m$9bj$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57237

On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
...
>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
> 
> That term does get used.

I can't find it on the list at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
Is that list incomplete?
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#57246

From	Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
Date	2015-02-11 07:33 -0600
Message-ID	<mbflg7$f9j$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57244

James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
> ...
>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>
>> That term does get used.
>
> I can't find it on the list at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
> Is that list incomplete?
>


I believe the usage is informal. And we're back to whether language
lives in lists or not.

-- 
Les Cargill

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

#57248

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2015-02-11 09:08 -0500
Message-ID	<mbfnn9$pkq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57246

On 02/11/2015 08:33 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>> ...
>>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>>
>>> That term does get used.
>>
>> I can't find it on the list at
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
>> Is that list incomplete?
>>
> 
> 
> I believe the usage is informal. And we're back to whether language
> lives in lists or not.

Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law. You can call
Oprah the "Queen of Talk TV", and that's just ordinary English usage.
Calling Elizabeth II "Queen of England", on the other hand, is claiming
for her a legal title which she does not, in fact, possess, and which
has not even existed since 1707-05-01.
Legally, it's in the same category as claiming that you are owner of
your neighbor's house, and using the flexibility of the English language
as an excuse for doing so. Ownership is a legal status, and cannot be
changed by sloppy use of the language. Since England is part of Great
Britain, the analogy is inexact, but the legal principle is the same.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#57249

From	Bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Date	2015-02-11 14:29 +0000
Message-ID	<mbfov0$v11$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57248

On 11/02/2015 14:08, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 08:33 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>>>
>>>> That term does get used.
>>>
>>> I can't find it on the list at
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
>>> Is that list incomplete?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe the usage is informal. And we're back to whether language
>> lives in lists or not.
>
> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law. You can call
> Oprah the "Queen of Talk TV", and that's just ordinary English usage.
> Calling Elizabeth II "Queen of England", on the other hand, is claiming
> for her a legal title which she does not, in fact, possess, and which
> has not even existed since 1707-05-01.

Unless you're claiming that England is a republic, England does have a 
reigning monarch who is currently Queen Elizabeth II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_England

It's an informal term but, so what. Everyday speech is necessarily 
informal otherwise we'd all be talking legalese.

-- 
Bartc

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

#57252

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date	2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Message-ID	<mbfse6$eva$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57249

On 11/02/15 15:29, Bartc wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 14:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 08:33 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>>>>
>>>>> That term does get used.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find it on the list at
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
>>>>
>>>> Is that list incomplete?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the usage is informal. And we're back to whether language
>>> lives in lists or not.
>>
>> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
>> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law. You can call
>> Oprah the "Queen of Talk TV", and that's just ordinary English usage.
>> Calling Elizabeth II "Queen of England", on the other hand, is claiming
>> for her a legal title which she does not, in fact, possess, and which
>> has not even existed since 1707-05-01.
> 
> Unless you're claiming that England is a republic, England does have a
> reigning monarch who is currently Queen Elizabeth II.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_England
> 
> It's an informal term but, so what. Everyday speech is necessarily
> informal otherwise we'd all be talking legalese.
> 

England is not a monarchy, and does not have a monarch - it is part of a
union (the UK) that has a monarch.  There is no "Queen of England" - it
is not an "informal term", but an /incorrect/ term.  Informal, everyday
speech is fine - blatantly incorrect speech is not.

In the eyes of some, she is not even "Queen Elizabeth II", since there
has only been one Queen Elizabeth of the UK - the previous Queen
Elizabeth really was "Queen of England".  But I think it is practical to
take the highest numbering based on previous monarchs of the member
countries, and thus call her "the second".  British royals specifically
avoid the name "James" to avoid such a confusion - what would be the
next number after "James the first and sixth"?

Elisabeth is primarily the Queen of the UK, but also a figurehead
monarch for a number of other Commonwealth countries (such as Canada and
Australia).  For those of us from the UK, but not from England, the use
of terms like "the Queen of England" is an example of the domination of
England over the rest of the UK, and of the ignorance of people
(especially foreign media).

Fortunately, ignorance is curable - now you are educated, and you at
least have no excuse for referring to the "Queen of England" again
(except, of course, in historical contexts from when there was a Queen
of England).

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

#57254

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2015-02-11 11:52 -0500
Message-ID	<54DB88BF.9080205@verizon.net>
In reply to	#57248

On 02/11/2015 09:08 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
...
[OT]
> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law.

I overstated the case quite a bit there. I was thinking of Article 9 of
the US constitution, which says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted
by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any
King, Prince, or foreign State.", and Article 10 which says, "No State
shall ... grant any Title of Nobility."

That's quite a bit weaker than saying "Titles ... have no legal
meaning". I presume that official recognition of any foreign state that
does grant titles of nobility implies recognition, in the appropriate
contexts, of those titles themselves. There are no associated legal
benefits to holding such a title in the US, but legal issues could, for
instance, come up involving property associated with a title - and if
the US didn't recognize those property rights, it would make relations
with such countries very difficult.
[/OT]

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

#57257

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date	2015-02-11 10:37 -0800
Message-ID	<ln61b8guqt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to	#57254

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 02/11/2015 09:08 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
> [OT]
>> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
>> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law.
>
> I overstated the case quite a bit there. I was thinking of Article 9 of
> the US constitution, which says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted
> by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
> Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
> any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any
> King, Prince, or foreign State.", and Article 10 which says, "No State
> shall ... grant any Title of Nobility."
[...]

That's Sections 9 and 10 of Article I.

> [/OT]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#57262

From	Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com>
Date	2015-02-11 19:02 -0600
Message-ID	<mbgtrg$9mq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57254

James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 09:08 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
> [OT]
>> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
>> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law.
>
> I overstated the case quite a bit there. I was thinking of Article 9 of
> the US constitution, which says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted
> by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
> Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
> any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any
> King, Prince, or foreign State.", and Article 10 which says, "No State
> shall ... grant any Title of Nobility."
>
> That's quite a bit weaker than saying "Titles ... have no legal
> meaning".

Agreed. Titles, especially in Britain absolutely have legal meaning.

> I presume that official recognition of any foreign state that
> does grant titles of nobility implies recognition, in the appropriate
> contexts, of those titles themselves.There are no associated legal
> benefits to holding such a title in the US, but legal issues could, for
> instance, come up involving property associated with a title - and if
> the US didn't recognize those property rights, it would make relations
> with such countries very difficult.
> [/OT]
>

I know that Colin Powell was granted an honorary knighthood in 1993
or so. Emphasis on "honorary".

-- 
Les Cargill

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

#57266

From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Date	2015-02-12 14:55 +1300
Message-ID	<ck2fg8F10l3U3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#57262

Les Cargill wrote:
>
> I know that Colin Powell was granted an honorary knighthood in 1993
> or so. Emphasis on "honorary".

An honorary honour...

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#57251

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date	2015-02-11 15:38 +0100
Message-ID	<mbfpfe$1pq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57244

On 11/02/15 14:07, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
> ...
>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>
>> That term does get used.
> 
> I can't find it on the list at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
> Is that list incomplete?
> 

That's my point - she is /not/ "the Queen of England", as the position
and title does not exist.  But that does not stop many people
incorrectly and ignorantly /using/ the term - I suspect more people
refer to her as "the Queen of England" rather than the correct (albeit
abbreviated) title "the Queen of the UK".

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

#57253

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-11 16:09 +0000
Message-ID	<mbfuql$pjb$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57251

On 11/02/15 14:38, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

> I suspect more people
> refer to her as "the Queen of England"

My dear chap! No no no no no! We just call her "the Queen". Everybody 
*knows* to whom we refer. It is only /other/ queens (the Queen of 
Denmark, the Queen of Pop, the Queen of Hearts, etc) that need a 
clarifying word.

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

#57330

From	Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
Date	2015-02-14 18:39 +0200
Message-ID	<87d25cwipo.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>
In reply to	#57244

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> > David Brown wrote:
> ...
> >> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
> > 
> > That term does get used.
> 
> I can't find it on the list at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
> Is that list incomplete?

I presume it contains none of "Queen Liz", "Queen Lizzy", or
"Lizzy two", and therefore nowhere near approaches a complete
list of terms used for Brenda.

Phil
-- 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be well regulated.

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

#57216

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date	2015-02-10 10:14 +0100
Message-ID	<mbci5a$g3k$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57198

On 09/02/15 22:19, Richard Bos wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
>> They /had/ the first say, and exported that spelling to the US.  Then
>> they changed it - for most differences in spelling, the US version is
>> arguably closer to the "original" (or earliest standardised spellings).
> 
> You can argue that, just as you can argue that the USA are more
> democratic than the Netherlands. But you'd be wrong in both cases, and
> for much the same reason.
> 

I used the word "arguably" because I am not claiming a fact, merely
saying there is evidence or reasoning in favour of that viewpoint.

I would /not/ argue that the USA is more democratic than the
Netherlands, because I believe there are several critical failings in
the American voting procedures that are highly undemocratic - whereas I
know of no such problems in the Netherlands (I don't know much about
Dutch politics - I am merely assuming it is roughly like other Western
European countries).

So now I have to ask - what reason are you thinking of in your reply
above?  I can't figure out the connection.

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

#57078

From	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date	2015-02-06 17:49 +0000
Message-ID	<mb2uql$ckv$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#57051

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 06:15 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
(snip)

>> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.

>> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)

> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
> US(58.5%), and those from the UK form the second largest group (15.8%),
> those two (groups of) dialects are far from being the only ones in
> widespread use. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world>

But an interesting question is non-native speakers.

As far as I know, when Europeans learn English (that is, in non
English speaking countries) they learn British English. That makes
sense, as they are close.

I might guess that when Asian countries teach it, that they teach
the American form.  It might depend on the country and its history.

-- glen

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

#57069

From	Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com>
Date	2015-02-06 15:59 +0000
Message-ID	<qx5Bw.1409822$Y4.820868@fx24.iad>
In reply to	#57031

On 2015-02-05, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>
>> In Canada as well.
>
> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
>
> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
>

Except that Canadian English is not the same as British English. We're a
bit of a hybrid.

-- 
http://www.softsprocket.com

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

#57052

From	raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
Date	2015-02-06 13:34 +0000
Message-ID	<54d4c290.604968@news.xs4all.nl>
In reply to	#57016

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
> 
> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
> had it as "color"!

Simply not true. Both Middle English and Anglo-Norman spelled it
variously colur or colour, rarely if ever color. Check your Chaucer and
Grene Knight if you don't believe me.

Richard

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

#57068

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date	2015-02-06 16:58 +0100
Message-ID	<mb2oa4$a9c$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57052

On 06/02/15 14:34, Richard Bos wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
>>
>> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
>> had it as "color"!
> 
> Simply not true. Both Middle English and Anglo-Norman spelled it
> variously colur or colour, rarely if ever color. Check your Chaucer and
> Grene Knight if you don't believe me.
> 

At that time, there was no such thing as standardised spellings - people
made it up as they went along.  It wasn't until the printing press had
popularised literacy and publishing that there was a standard.  (Latin
spelling was more standardised - it has been a popular torture method
for kids for a couple of thousand years.)

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

#57200

From	raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
Date	2015-02-09 21:21 +0000
Message-ID	<54d92471.40638125@news.xs4all.nl>
In reply to	#57068

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 06/02/15 14:34, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
> >>
> >> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
> >> had it as "color"!
> > 
> > Simply not true. Both Middle English and Anglo-Norman spelled it
> > variously colur or colour, rarely if ever color. Check your Chaucer and
> > Grene Knight if you don't believe me.
> 
> At that time, there was no such thing as standardised spellings - people
> made it up as they went along.

All the more reason not to take the old Latin spelling, _not_
standardised in Middle English, as a Standard - and all the more so
because, even in this unstandardised spelling world, colour and colur
were _still_ noticably more common than *color.

Richard

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

#57092

From	Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Date	2015-02-06 20:54 +0000
Message-ID	<20150206092209.934@kylheku.com>
In reply to	#57052

On 2015-02-06, Richard Bos <raltbos@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
>> 
>> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
>> had it as "color"!
>
> Simply not true. Both Middle English and Anglo-Norman spelled it
> variously colur or colour, rarely if ever color. Check your Chaucer and

My source for the Old French was etymonline.com; but looks like that is
a mistake.

> Grene Knight if you don't believe me.

I didn't say anything about Middle English, Anglo-Norman or Chaucer.

1. Latin does not have "colour" or "colur". It is said that English
   spelling reflects history rather than phonetics. The "colour" spelling does
   neither: it reflects historic revisionism of an original.
2. The u makes no phonetic difference.
3. Plenty of "-or" words have no such u:
   - doctor
   - -ctor (actor, tractor, attractor, detractor, erector ...)
   - sailor, tailor
   - junior, senior
   - major, minor, manor
   - creator, senator
   Names:
   - Astor, Tayor, Eleanor, ...
4. There are inconsistencies w.r.t. Frentch congates.
   These French words go to -or:
   - minor <-> mineur
   - major <-> majeur
   - tailor <-> tailleur
   - tractor <-> tracteur
   - governor <-> gouverneur
   These French words go to -our in some English spelling systems:
   - colour <-> couleur
   - honour <-> honneur
   - ardour <-> ardeur
5. In French, the -eur is justified because it corresponds to a pronunciation.
   More recently imported French loanwords in English whose pronunication is
   (more or less) preserved also preserve the -eur:
   - amateur
   - saboteur
   - connoisseur
   - entrepreneur
   - ...
6. In Britain, there was already a revival of Latin spellings in the 16th
   century.

   Quote from "etymonline.com"

   "A partial revival of -or on the Latin model took place from 16c. (governour
   began to lose its -u- 16c. and it was gone by 19c.), and also among phonetic
   spellers in both England and America (John Wesley wrote that -or was "a
   fashionable impropriety" in England in 1791)."
   [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-or]

   Also: "Fowler notes the British drop the -u- when forming adjectives ending
   in -orous (humorous) and derivatives in -ation and -ize, in which cases the
   Latin origin is respected (such as vaporize)." [ibid.]

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

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

Contents

#57247

#57244

#57246

#57248

#57249

#57252

#57254

#57257

#57262

#57266

#57251

#57253

#57330

#57216

#57078

#57069

#57052

#57068

#57200

#57092