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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #36265 > unrolled thread

Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

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: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-15 12:58 +0000
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 10:01 -0500
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:14 -0800
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 13:00 -0500
          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 10:28 -0800
            Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 16:05 -0500
              Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 13:54 -0800
                Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 22:51 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 05:06 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 09:28 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:37 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 11:13 -0500
              Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-02-15 16:24 -0800
                Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-15 22:55 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 02:09 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 09:31 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 11:09 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 14:34 -0500
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 12:14 -0800
                            Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:08 -0500
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2017-02-16 19:40 +0000
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 12:19 -0800
                          Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:09 -0500
                  Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-02-16 09:41 -0800
                    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 14:46 -0500
                      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:58 -0800
                        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-16 20:11 -0500
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 01:57 -0800
    Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-16 18:31 +0000
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2017-02-16 13:48 -0500
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-16 14:14 -0500
        Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2017-02-16 20:28 +0000
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" a.laforgia@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 11:10 -0800
      Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2017-02-16 14:31 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#36265 — Re: pronunciation of "ArithmeticException"

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.

Btw., In Greek language, probably the etymological root of
the terms, both the adjective (arithmitik'os) and the noun
(arithmitik'i) have their "tonos"(stress) on last syllable.

A variant of the word with stress on "rith" (ar'ithmitos)
actually means uncountable/uncalculatable, so the Greek
roots probably won't help much for English stressing rules. ;-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#36266

On 2/15/2017 7:58 AM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>   The noun is pronounced »a'rithmetic«.
> Iirc, the English noun ends in -cs: arithmetics.
>

No.  "Arithmetic" is a perfectly legitimate noun.  "Arithmetics" would
be improper (it even was flagged my my spell checker).

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36267

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:01:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No.  "Arithmetic" is a perfectly legitimate noun.  "Arithmetics" would
> be improper (it even was flagged my my spell checker).
> 


Arithmetics is more than one Arithmetic, like you know old math versus common core math.  Just right click Arithmetics, click "add to dictionary", spell checker fixed.

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

#36269

On 2/15/2017 10:14 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:01:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> No.  "Arithmetic" is a perfectly legitimate noun.  "Arithmetics" would
>> be improper (it even was flagged my my spell checker).
>>
> 
> 
> Arithmetics is more than one Arithmetic, like you know old math versus common core math.  Just right click Arithmetics, click "add to dictionary", spell checker fixed.
> 

Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
Arithmetic does not have a plural.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36270

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
> Arithmetic does not have a plural.
> 

It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.

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

#36273

On 2/15/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
>> Arithmetic does not have a plural.
>>
> 
> It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
> Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
> New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
> Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
> Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.
> 

Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
to make up a word doesn't work.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36274

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
> Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
> to make up a word doesn't work.
> 

Apparently you don't get satire.

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

#36280

On 2/15/2017 4:54 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
>> Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
>> to make up a word doesn't work.
>>
> 
> Apparently you don't get satire.
> 

No, I don't get stoopid.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36285

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:51:46 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No, I don't get stoopid.
> 

With that attitude please stay off the internet.  People like you are the problem with this world.

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

#36286

On 2/16/2017 8:06 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 10:51:46 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> No, I don't get stoopid.
>>
> 
> With that attitude please stay off the internet.  People like you are the problem with this world.
> 

Sorry, I just call stoopid as I see it.  And it's your stoopid attitude
that ruins things for everyone else.

But then people like you never think they're the problem.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36288

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I just call stoopid as I see it.  And it's your stoopid attitude
> that ruins things for everyone else.
> 
> But then people like you never think they're the problem.
> 

Again, please stay off the internet.  Your post has been reported for hateful content.

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

#36289

On 2/16/2017 10:37 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:28:19 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I just call stoopid as I see it.  And it's your stoopid attitude
>> that ruins things for everyone else.
>>
>> But then people like you never think they're the problem.
>>
> 
> Again, please stay off the internet.  Your post has been reported for hateful content.
> 

ROFLMAO.  Please stay off the internet.  Your post has been reported for
extreme stoopidity.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36278

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
>>> Arithmetic does not have a plural.

>> It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
>> Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
>> New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
>> Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
>> Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.
>> 
>
>Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
>Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
>to make up a word doesn't work.

     Set theory is even more elementary.

     "arithmetics" is perfectly acceptable in the right context.  You
can have a system of arithmetic.  You could have a second system of
arithmetic.  You then would have two systems of arithmetic.  They
could also be referred to as two arithmetics.

     Granted it would be an unusual usage, but it is definitely
possible.

     "algebra" can be pluralised similarly, and it is not so unusual.

Sincerely,

Gene "Minor in Math" Wirchenko

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

#36281

On 2/15/2017 7:24 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:05:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/15/2017 1:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:00:52 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not in English it isn't.  It not in my Merriam-Webster, either.
>>>> Arithmetic does not have a plural.
> 
>>> It's that new math, too new for dictionaries.
>>> Old math: 30 * 3 = 90
>>> New math: 30 * 3 = (30 + 30 + 30) = 90
>>> Then of course there's theoretical arithmetic, and floating point arithmetic.
>>> Word problems should count as a different kind of arithmetic.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.  It's not "new math", and it's not "too new for dictionaries".
>> Arithmetic is the most elementary branch of mathematics.  Your attempt
>> to make up a word doesn't work.
> 
>      Set theory is even more elementary.
> 

Actually, not.  Set theory uses arithmetic, i.e. for counting the number
of items in a set.

>      "arithmetics" is perfectly acceptable in the right context.  You
> can have a system of arithmetic.  You could have a second system of
> arithmetic.  You then would have two systems of arithmetic.  They
> could also be referred to as two arithmetics.
>

No, you have two systems of arithmetic.  You do not have two
"arithmetics".

>      Granted it would be an unusual usage, but it is definitely
> possible.
> 
>      "algebra" can be pluralised similarly, and it is not so unusual.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene "Minor in Math" Wirchenko
> 

But obviously not even a minor in English.  "Arithmetics" is not an
accepted word in any dictionary - American or British English.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36284

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 03:55:44 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

[...]
> But obviously not even a minor in English.  "Arithmetics" is not an
> accepted word in any dictionary - American or British English.

Yes, it is, but it has the same meaning as "Arithmetic":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetics
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetic

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

#36287

On 2/16/2017 5:09 AM, a.laforgia@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 03:55:44 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> But obviously not even a minor in English.  "Arithmetics" is not an
>> accepted word in any dictionary - American or British English.
> 
> Yes, it is, but it has the same meaning as "Arithmetic":
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetics
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetic
> 
> 
> 
> 

You should actually READ the link you refer to.  Merriam-Webster uses
"soft links" - which give the closest word available, in case you
misspelled it.  But that seems to be quite difficult for you.

Both links refer to "Arithmetic", with no plural version listed on the page.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36297

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:31:26 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

[...]
> You should actually READ the link you refer to.  Merriam-Webster uses
> "soft links" - which give the closest word available, in case you
> misspelled it.

Nope, it doesn't.

If you mispell "arithmetic" as "arithmeti", it presents you with a page of suggestions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/arithmeti

It does not point you to the closest word available. In the case of "arithmetics", it points you to "arithmetic" cause the two words are synonyms.
 
> Both links refer to "Arithmetic", with no plural version listed on the page.

"Arithmetics" is not a plural, it's a synonym. But that seems to be quite difficult for you.

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

#36301

On 2/16/2017 2:09 PM, a.laforgia@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:31:26 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> You should actually READ the link you refer to.  Merriam-Webster uses
>> "soft links" - which give the closest word available, in case you
>> misspelled it.
> 
> Nope, it doesn't.
> 
> If you mispell "arithmetic" as "arithmeti", it presents you with a page of suggestions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/arithmeti
> 
> It does not point you to the closest word available. In the case of "arithmetics", it points you to "arithmetic" cause the two words are synonyms.
>  
>> Both links refer to "Arithmetic", with no plural version listed on the page.
> 
> "Arithmetics" is not a plural, it's a synonym. But that seems to be quite difficult for you.
> 

Try again.  "Arithmeti" is not the same as "Arithmetics".  Part of the
soft link is to drop common suffixes.  And if you actually read the page
at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetics it says:

=====
arithmetic

noun arith·me·tic \ə-ˈrith-mə-ˌtik\
Popularity: Bottom 50% of words
Examples: arithmetic in a sentence

Definition of arithmetic
=====

Notice it says "Arithmetic" - NOT "Arithmetics".  It does not list
"Arithmetics" as a synonym - or anything else.

BTW - Synonyms are listed under "Thesaurus".  They include calculation,
calculus, ciphering, computation, figures, figuring, math, mathematics,
number crunching, numbers and reckoning.  Once again, no "Arithmetics".

In fact, there is nowhere in the dictionary that I can find that
actually lists the word "Arithmetics".

I think you need a course in remedial reading.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#36305

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:34:38 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

[...]
> Try again.  "Arithmeti" is not the same as "Arithmetics".

LOL :) Never said that. The funny thing is that you suggest others reading this and that, whilst you can't be bothered to read what others write. You said that when you misspell a word, M-W takes you to the closest word. That's a lie. If you misspell a word, the M-W dictionary takes you to a page with potential alternatives for the word you were searching. Got it? When you search for "Arithmetics" it does not take you to a page with alternatives; it takes you straight to "Arithmetic".

> Part of the soft link is to drop common suffixes.

LOL :) Yeah, right.

> Notice it says "Arithmetic" - NOT "Arithmetics".  It does not list
> "Arithmetics" as a synonym - or anything else.

Arithmetics is a synonym for Arithmetic. If you search for "Arithmetics", it points you to "Arithmetic" because it's a synonym. It's not a mispelled word. If you mispell a word, the M-W dictionary points you to a page with potential suggestions. A dictionary does not necessarily list all valid words: if you search for "persons", it points you to "person", because a dictionary does not normally list plurals. 
 
> BTW - Synonyms are listed under "Thesaurus".  They include calculation,
> calculus, ciphering, computation, figures, figuring, math, mathematics,
> number crunching, numbers and reckoning.  Once again, no "Arithmetics".

Arithmetics is a synonym for Arithmetic. 

http://bfy.tw/A8Qq
 
> In fact, there is nowhere in the dictionary that I can find that
> actually lists the word "Arithmetics".

Irrelevant.

> I think you need a course in remedial reading.

Yeah, right. Yawn.

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

#36316

On 2/16/2017 3:14 PM, a.laforgia@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:34:38 UTC, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> Try again.  "Arithmeti" is not the same as "Arithmetics".
> 
> LOL :) Never said that. The funny thing is that you suggest others reading this and that, whilst you can't be bothered to read what others write. You said that when you misspell a word, M-W takes you to the closest word. That's a lie. If you misspell a word, the M-W dictionary takes you to a page with potential alternatives for the word you were searching. Got it? When you search for "Arithmetics" it does not take you to a page with alternatives; it takes you straight to "Arithmetic".
>

Wrong. But trolls always try to deny what they said.  Fortunately,
history proves the opposite.

>> Part of the soft link is to drop common suffixes.
> 
> LOL :) Yeah, right.
> 

Yup, if you knew ANYTHING about the internet - which you obviously don't.

>> Notice it says "Arithmetic" - NOT "Arithmetics".  It does not list
>> "Arithmetics" as a synonym - or anything else.
> 
> Arithmetics is a synonym for Arithmetic. If you search for "Arithmetics", it points you to "Arithmetic" because it's a synonym. It's not a mispelled word. If you mispell a word, the M-W dictionary points you to a page with potential suggestions. A dictionary does not necessarily list all valid words: if you search for "persons", it points you to "person", because a dictionary does not normally list plurals. 
>  

You keep saying that, but have no proof that that is the case.  OTOH, I
have shown that is NOT the case.

>> BTW - Synonyms are listed under "Thesaurus".  They include calculation,
>> calculus, ciphering, computation, figures, figuring, math, mathematics,
>> number crunching, numbers and reckoning.  Once again, no "Arithmetics".
> 
> Arithmetics is a synonym for Arithmetic. 
> 
> http://bfy.tw/A8Qq
> 

ROFLMNAO.  So not Google is the standard for the English Language?  I
don't think so!  NOT ONE of those links refers to a resource accepted
by scholars.

>> In fact, there is nowhere in the dictionary that I can find that
>> actually lists the word "Arithmetics".
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 

So since you don't agree with it, it's irrelevant?  I guess that means
you are more of a standard for the English Language than any dictionary?

I don't think so.

>> I think you need a course in remedial reading.
> 
> Yeah, right. Yawn.
> 

Yea, right.  But idiots and trolls always think they are better than the
rest of the world.  Which are you?

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web