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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #13051

Re: call by reference

Show all headers | View raw

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,
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. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

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