Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #9489
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.development |
| Subject | Re: The morality of operating system security |
| Date | 2016-05-04 09:00 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ngca01$24q$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <20160426235820.1cd18000@_> <nfpke2$jgv$1@dont-email.me> <20160427054214.182c3530@_> <ng8m9m$ms2$1@dont-email.me> <20160503165548.0baa42a3@_> |
On 03/05/2016 21:55, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 3 May 2016 00:05:26 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 10:42, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:01:44 +0100 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Courgette - Zucchini >>> >>> ??? >> >> Why the question marks? > > It seemed strange. The others at least made some sense to me. I've > never heard or seen the word "courgette" before. It sounds like a > French word or a derivative. Maybe it's a female courg. >>>> Fish (plural) - Fishes >>> >>> I think that one is "fish" here too ... >>> Generally, most uses are plural. I.e., >>> "a fish" would be singular, I think. >>> "My fish" would be taken as singular also. >>> It's likely that "group of" or "school of" >>> would be added to "My fish" if it was meant >>> to be plural, e.g., "My school of fish". >> >> What about "a dozen fish"? >> Would you say "a dozen fishes"? >> > > I'd say "a dozen fish." I'd take "fish" in "a dozen fish" to be > singular due to use of "dozen." I seriously wouldn't doubt it that > Americans somewhere are using "fishes," but I don't know if you're just > messing with me a bit ... I was serious. I thought AmE used fishes rather than fish (plural). I guess there is room for variation in both countries. > I've noticed that "whomever" is being > consistently replaced with "whoever" now in AmE, even for news articles. Here, many - probably most - people don't know grammatically when to say "who" and when to say "whom" and the former is now often used in either place. Similarly, many people don't know when to say "less" and when to say "fewer". English is a complex language. I am continually coming across things about it that I didn't know. > I'm not sure if people just gave up or if this is an accepted change. > Most here still can't get the usage of "than" versus "then" correct > either. That reminds me of another difference. From what I have seen, in America people talk about one thing being different than another. In the UK people say that one thing is different from another. > Recently, I read that younger Americans only place one space > between sentences. So do I. I have noticed that you consistently use two spaces. > That's just for starters. I keep thinking of "A > Fish Called Wanda" for some reason. Searching for that movie, an old > American idiom came up: "to sleep with the fishes," meaning that you > were murdered. That uses "fishes" as a plural. So, that's at least two > exceptions. I'm not sure how frequent the exceptions are in AmE. The > real question is why "fishes" would be the plural instead of "fishs" ... > What's the point of adding a silent 'e'? English, perhaps because of its organic origins, is full of oddities. IMV AmE is more logical than BrE. Perhaps that's because Webster decided to start some things afresh..? OT but I wonder how feasible it would be to design a new language that was usable enough for humans but also logical enough to be understood by machines. -- James Harris
Back to alt.os.development | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:09 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-30 00:03 +0700
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 19:39 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:54 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2016-03-31 06:16 +0700
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-03-29 20:01 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 23:59 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-31 17:47 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:11 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-01 18:25 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 23:10 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-02 14:18 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-04-01 09:58 +0200
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:06 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-29 17:39 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:13 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-30 23:18 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:31 -0700
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-03-31 16:57 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 09:22 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-01 20:24 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 18:25 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-09 18:57 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 09:07 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:01 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 00:05 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:55 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:00 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 17:02 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-05 17:55 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-05-09 14:58 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-12 17:46 -0400
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:11 +0100
Re: The morality of operating system security James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:44 +0100
csiph-web