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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13078

Re: call by reference

Show all headers | View raw

Evertjan. wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote on 25 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Did you really not understand this?  This is the first time I've seen
>> someone here whose understanding of idiomatic English seems fairly
>> firm but who wouldn't recognize "nope" as an informal, but very common
>> English synonym for "no".  The word carries overtones slightly
>> different from plain "no", especially when used as a single-word
>> response to a declaration; whereas "no" might have other implications,
>> "nope" almost always implies, "you're wrong about that."  So did you
>> really not understand it?  Or are you simply being snarky?  [1]
>
> I don't think I want to follow your link about "snarky". It is just like
> "nope", see below, a word not to be used here because of local idiomatic
> implications.
>
>>> And why?
>>> Do you know my book?
>>
>> I think the implication is that your book is wrong.
>
> In sensu strictior the "nope" just says that it is not in my book, quod
> non.
>
>> But when you use
>> "in my book", you appear to be someone who has a clear understanding
>> of idiomatic English.  Again, did you really not recognize "nope"?
>
> Scot, this is not email but usenet. So responses should not go specificly
> and do not go uniquely to the poster responded upon.
> [The "Scot" just means that I respond to the above text written by Scot,
> not that I specifically address him/you, because then I should have used
> email]
>
> What I personally understand or can easily guess about English idiom is
> not that important as keeping the conversation understandable for the
> total NG-audience. Even so as a polyglottic English and so British
> native, I cannot and dion't want to claim to understand the idiomatic
> differences felt in other parts of the world where English lately became
> the first language, like India, the States, etc.
>
> In an international NG, that uses English as a lingua franca,
* being picky.."lingua franca" as in "language (of) France" or as in 
"common language consisting of Italian mixed with French, Spanish, 
Greek, and Arabic" or "language of/for confirmation"?

> English monoglots should be aware not to use this as an easy advantage by
> using local idioms.
>
> So claiming it is alright to use some idiom, just because the claiming
> monoglot claims he is an English native, is Netiquettically wrong.
> [Unless a NG has English idiom as a topic, ofcourse]
>
> "nope" is a clear example of a word to be avoided, because when it is no
> different from "no", why use it, but for adding some extra perhaps
> condescending, innuendo, that could mean "we the English natives know
> better".
>
> That's why a question of "what do you mean by that word" is not out of
> place in this NG.
>

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 18:13 -0700
  Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-25 08:12 +0000
    Re: call by reference Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 07:00 -0700
      Re: call by reference John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:56 +0100
    Re: call by reference Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi> - 2012-03-26 23:04 +0300
      Re: call by reference Dr J R Stockton <reply1213@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-27 18:20 +0100
        Re: call by reference Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-27 16:28 -0700
          Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-28 08:20 +0000
    Re: call by reference Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2012-03-26 21:31 -0800
      Re: call by reference "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-27 07:25 +0000

csiph-web