Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? |
| Date | 2015-02-10 07:53 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mbd2a5$cmt$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <mb2h4l$bkg$1@dont-email.me> <mb2o53$a9c$1@dont-email.me> <54d9243d.40585750@news.xs4all.nl> <e8ad8dd4-69fc-40c3-a768-8ecc39fc37c9@googlegroups.com> <mbc5c2$bmk$1@dont-email.me> |
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 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?
>
So - how come it's not the United Kingdom*s*, anyway?
:)
--
Les Cargill
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