Re: a doubt about c

From	Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: a doubt about c
Date	2011-06-17 12:00 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<itftn6$eoo$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <a7e60573-8039-40d8-9d19-206f9c3e689a@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <51riv65nq1lcm6riqhko9mjucva2qk3ki6@4ax.com> <itdf5c$cvg$1@dont-email.me> <pan.2011.06.17.14.38.51.266000@nowhere.com> <slrnivmqbd.1dah.willem@toad.stack.nl>

Show all headers | View raw

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".

Thread

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

csiph-web