Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? |
| Date | 2015-02-10 05:36 +0000 |
| Organization | go, ion artisan! |
| Message-ID | <mbc5c2$bmk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <mb2fmr$63u$1@dont-email.me> <mb2h4l$bkg$1@dont-email.me> <mb2o53$a9c$1@dont-email.me> <54d9243d.40585750@news.xs4all.nl> <e8ad8dd4-69fc-40c3-a768-8ecc39fc37c9@googlegroups.com> |
On 10/02/15 05:16, Jim Barlow wrote:
> "the USA are"
>
> Your usage of the term "are" is certainly preferred, by me at least, to "is".
I (or we) don't know what it is (or are) about comp.lang.c, but it (or
they) seem(s) to spawn alt.usage.english-like subthreads with a greater
frequency than could be explained by chance. Perhaps it's because a
significant proportion of people who care enough about C to post to this
group also care about languages in general. Or maybe there is (or are)
some other reason (or reasons).
"the USA are":
USA = United States of America, obviously.
Because it's the United State*S*, there's a built-in plural, which is
going to make "are" an attractive option. That's +1 for "are".
Because it's an inherently plural entity (necessarily made up out of
many individual citizens or, for some countries, subjects), there is
also a case for using the plural even when the name is singular: "The
Government of the United Kingdom are in two minds about whether to raise
taxation", or even "The Board are of one mind"(!). That's +2 for "are".
Because the entity is (or are) lexically singular, however, there is (or
are) also a strong case for the singular form. "The Government /is/ in
two minds", and so on. So that's +1 for "is".
How we weigh those various pros and cons against each other is another
matter. Some will ascribe more importance to the lexical singularity of
the sentence subject, and some will ascribe more importance to the
semantic plurality thereof.
It is at times like this (or these) that we (or I) should be grateful
(or gratefuls) for LCPRNGs (or LCPRNG):
printf("The USA %s %s\n", (rand() & 1) ? "is" : "are", yadayadayada);
Or, since we are printing more than one wossname, should it be printfs?
--
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
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com> - 2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2015-02-05 04:40 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 11:08 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 14:18 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 13:52 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:32 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 14:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 15:31 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:58 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:07 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:43 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? jak <please@nospam.tnx> - 2015-03-10 10:43 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 17:01 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:58 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 22:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 18:11 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 12:15 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 03:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:22 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 03:39 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 15:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:31 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:08 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:37 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 11:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:41 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 13:56 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:55 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:16 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 13:34 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:44 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 19:00 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 01:46 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:20 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 06:47 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 10:51 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 19:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-06 15:26 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Jim Barlow <jim.j.barlow@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 21:16 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-10 05:36 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 07:53 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 15:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 19:57 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 10:19 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:32 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 14:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 08:07 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:33 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 09:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-11 14:29 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-11 10:37 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 19:02 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-12 14:55 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:38 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 16:09 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-02-14 18:39 +0200
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 17:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-06 13:34 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:58 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 21:27 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-07 11:31 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:22 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 10:10 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 16:48 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 16:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:36 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:20 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 11:59 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 10:47 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 19:38 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 10:54 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 15:27 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 13:04 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 14:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 18:35 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:47 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:53 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:26 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-05 08:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:12 -0500
csiph-web