I know what you do with () and [], but we're given {} as well!
I know their use in programming, or at least in JavaScript, but what is their use in daily life?
I decided that whn I write something that needs to be enclosed in the sentence but not because of punctuation or in a ()-[] way, I use {}. That is, if I write a biblical reference I say something like: "it is a stated fact in {Nubers 7:68} that..." or "I read once in {Mishne Torah, Science Book: Torah Fundamntal rules - Chapter 1: Halacha 1}* that God is the sole God". Also, if I write a table or show an image with a tag below it'll be {from the IMDb.} or something.
But what's the proper use? Also what's the different between the two apostrophes (the one next to Semicolon Key and the one that if you SHIFT it will become a tilde)?
Jonathan Howard
* I still need to settle on a standard bibliographic system for showing what's in Mishne Torah, as there are five levels: The whole MT, the individual Book, the series of Halachot, the chapters and the rules themselves.
[ June 28, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Haloed Silhouette ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Curly brackets (so-called in European English; North American English prefers braces) are sometimes used in prose to indicate a series of equal choices: "Select your animal {goat, sheep, cow, horse} and follow me". They are used in specialized ways in poetry and music (to mark repeats or joined lines). In mathematics they are used to delimit sets.
I would highly recommend not using them in the way you decided to.
edit: grave, not acute. >_<
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have seen curly brackets used exactly that way before. Never understood why () and [] weren't sufficient, but there ya go. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So how can I get my grave accent to sit on top of letters rather than beside it: `e ?
quote:Curly brackets (so-called in European English; North American English prefers braces)
Personally I think "curly brackets" is a better name. Braces is a bit {yawn, boredom, sigh} inducing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Curly brackets (so-called in European English; North American English prefers braces) . . .
Weird. I've always thought it was the other way around.
Teshi: You can't, as far as I know. I really don't know why it's on the keyboard.
Jonathan: Curly brackets really don't have any use in daily life. They're mostly just used in the specialized settings that've already been mentioned.
Posted by Desdemona (Member # 7100) on :
Teshi: Macs can.
Very useful in French class.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
èh?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Squiggly Brackets!
I like to have a use for every button on my keyboard that can be typed into a word processor (and combinations, like SHIFT + <button>). I have uses for (), [] and <> (which I use to mark an Internet site's URL, or use to represent something to be inserted, suck as: "Hello, my name is <name>"), so I need to use {} for something - aside programming at which I am useless.
And why does the keyboard have a grave accent, but no other diacritical marks? Prejudiced discrimination!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
There are a lot of problems with the current keyboard. We have plus and equals signs, but no minus sign, division sign, or multiplication sign. There's a hyphen but no en or em dashes, straight quotes and apostrophe but no curly quotes and apostrophe. And then we've got mostly useless characters like the grave and tilde (which is another diacritical, by the way), the caret, curly brackets, and angle brackets. Who designed this layout, anyway?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Typewriters, up to a level. But I've never used typewriters so even though the left "chunk" of the keyboard (namely the QWERTY alignment) is based on that, I don't know about the rest. Surely, in typewriters the CTRL and ALT keys were absent.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Macs can utilize the grave key, but not the tilde. You have to option-N to get one that will go over a letter. I can't figure out what on earth the tilde key is there for, unless maybe those mathematical things where you can say 2~4 or something.
In Mexico, the keyboards have a tilde key like that, but you still can't make it go over the N. So -- you got me.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Let's make a new HatracKeyboard(TM)! We all have brilliant ideas, we'll base it on QWERTY, and we can manufacture it.
I'm serious. Seriously, I'm serious; let's get this place to be a more effective one!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, 'cause Hatrack's pretty ineffective right now.
I'm sure there's some kind of software involved to let the computer know what's supposed to appear on the screen when you type. Knock yourself out, kiddo.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can easily change the way the keys on your keyboard map to actions. There are plenty of resources on it online, go ahead and do some googling if you want to try.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Yeah, but then the labels on the keys are all wrong! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's what paper and paste are for Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:
I said I was serious!
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm totally serious. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So am I. Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
quote:Jon Boy - There are a lot of problems with the current keyboard. We have plus and equals signs, but no minus sign, division sign, or multiplication sign.
Erm, I beg to differ... 3+3-3*3/3=3
Jesse
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Let's see . . . you've got a plus sign, a hyphen, an asterisk, a slash, and an equals sign. That's two out of five.
This is what I'm talking about: 3 + 3 − 3 × 3 ÷ 3 = 3.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Nobody uses ÷ beyond elementary school.
Silly english majors .
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
English language major, thanks.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
And you stop using × as soon as you take alegebra.
} is for making your smilies look wry, and { is for mustaches! :^{)
--Enigmatic
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
×
I wonder what happens when you italicise it... Testing...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: And you stop using × as soon as you take alegebra.
And then you start using ·, which also isn't on the keyboard. See my point?
Oh, and for that matter, a real division slash is ⁄, not /.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Let's make a new HatracKeyboard(TM)! We all have brilliant ideas, we'll base it on QWERTY, and we can manufacture it.
If you want it to be MORE effective, don't base it on QWERTY. QWERTY was designed to slow typing speeds down rather than to speed typing speeds up.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think Tom Davidson once linked to a really great article about the history of the qwerty keyboard and the longstanding myths about it and the Dvorak keyboard. I have no idea where that link is, unfortunately.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Aha! And it was actually Troubador, not TomDavidson. I guess I just remembered a long t name.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: And then you start using ·, which also isn't on the keyboard. See my point?
Oh, and for that matter, a real division slash is ⁄, not /.
If your point was, as originally said, that the lack of these symbols is a problem with the keyboard, then I guess I see it but not agree with it. I don't really want extra keys for a slash with a slightly different angle or a dot (which is showing as one pixel in that font and almost invisible) when / and * are easily understood and widely accepted for the same purposes. If you're in the habit of writing math textbooks, then I can see why you might want to have the keys for them, as well as at least a dozen other symbols my keyboard doesn't have or need.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
All I'm really saying is that a few characters like that would be more useful than characters like ~ and `.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
They could just turn the ~ button into a ñ button. Wouldn't that be handier?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Let's make it German, then, QWERTZ! (Reminds me of Swiss QUARTZ watches.)
Who's in for a HatracKeyboard? I'll build my own punctuation style for it, if you want.
-;;־;–;—;―;−.
I just wrote down: hyphen; soft hyphen; Maqqaf (a biblical sign connecting two words, just like a hyphen); EN Dash; EM Dash; Horisontal Bar; Minus Sign. I think the Soft Hyphen won't appear, but still - you have so many symbols when, in fact, their properties in some cases are identical, but have ambiuses in different fields. Hyphen and minus, for instance.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Oh, and it's Dvořak, by the way. Since we're discussing [endobily] diacritic marks: there's a caron/háček over the "r" in the name.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
A hyphen and a minus sign are only the same to a layman. A hyphen and an en dash, on the other hand, are identical (I think).
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I may be mistaken, but I think that's right, Jon Boy. I think an en dash is - and an em dash is —. The ens and ems come from typographic measurement units and are just another way of referring to the hyphen and the dash.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: A hyphen and an en dash, on the other hand, are identical (I think).
Most definitely not! Type word-space-hyphen-space-word-space in MS Word and look what happens to the hyphen! Miraculously, it's an EN dash! (Which is why I don't use EM dashes, but EN for normal context.)
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And while a Hatrack keyboard would be cool, I think it would be hard to make it useful. I'm sure a lot of people would want all kinds of mathy programmy things and I would want one with more foreign diacriticals. A custom keyboard would be best if tailored to your specific function.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I guess I'm confused about en and em dashes too, then.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Make a three-cased keyboard!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry, that was a mistake. I mean to say, "A minus sign and an en dash are the same."
Hyphen: -
Minus sign: −
En dash: –
Em dash: —
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I may be mistaken, but I think that's right, Jon Boy. I think an en dash is - and an em dash is —. The ens and ems come from typographic measurement units and are just another way of referring to the hyphen and the dash.
That's just a hyphen, not an en dash. But yes, I know all about typographic measurement units. Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
But their purposes and properties are the real issue.
Practically, they look very similar. They serve the same graphical association. But their fields and meanings are different.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: Oh, and it's Dvořak, by the way. Since we're discussing [endobily] diacritic marks: there's a caron/háček over the "r" in the name.
It's not, actually. The composer, however, also had an accute accent on the a.
Also, what in the world is "endobily"? If you want to be a language nazi, you're going to have to start using real words.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Do we get geek points for being in this thread?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: But their purposes and properties are the real issue.
Practically, they look very similar. They serve the same graphical association. But their fields and meanings are different.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Do we get geek points for being in this thread?
Yes.
But you lose those points for having to ask.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: I have no idea what you mean by that.
Their ultimate purpose (aside programming) is to be viewed in print or electronically on a screen. In those cases, their graphical images are virtually identical, so there's no real difference.
The real issue is when you get down to the actual meaning of each symbol; otherwise, Unicode wouldn't need SO MANY.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: If you want to be a language nazi, you're going to have to start using real words.
Jawohl, Mein Kommandant, but sometimes the 600,000 words that English supplies us are not sufficient. Ich haben in mir hertz das urge to construct mein own sprachens words.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ah, so now you're going to start butchering German as well as English.
And you still never said what endobily means.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Ich haben in mir hertz das urge to construct mein own sprachens words.
It should be habe, not haben. And "in mir hertz" should be "im meinem Herz".
Or what Jon Boy said...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But you lose those points for having to ask.
Darn.
All I can say in German, bad spelling: Enschuldigensibitte, wo ist der dome?
(Excuse me please, where is the church?)
Chokalade Kuken
(Chocolate Cake)
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Gedechtnichtkirchie! (Sp? I only heard it said.)
Think of it this way: the core word is "dobie"; add to that the prefix "en" such as enforce, enrage, empower; add to that the adverb form and get "endobily". It means "in a way of becoming a dobie but not at own (i.e., thread's) choice".
JH
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think when you make up words, other people have to get it. Like potlucky, my own illustrious creation. Everyone gets potlucky at one time or another.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Except that en- turns a noun or adjective into a verb, but -ly turns an adjective into an adverb. You're combining affixes that don't work together.
I hate to say it, Jonathan, but you're making me wonder about this whole training-you-to-be-my-apprentice thing.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Empotluckability?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Stop. >_<
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Fascinating read, JB. I had heard of Dvorak, though not much more beyond that. Now I get to be a smartass whenever someone brings up the Dvorak keyboard again.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: I hate to say it, Jonathan, but you're making me wonder about this whole training-you-to-be-my-apprentice thing.
Hey! I'm bilingual! So what if my conditionals aren't FLAWLESS? You cannot expect me to be you!
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: I hate to say it, Jonathan, but you're making me wonder about this whole training-you-to-be-my-apprentice thing.
Hey! I'm bilingual! So what if my conditionals aren't FLAWLESS? You cannot expect me to be you!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The Secret Fraternal Order of Linguists does not accept flawed applicants. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it just isn't going to work out.
*sticks papers back in briefcase and snaps it shut*
*smiles tightly and turns to leave*
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Shoots.*
See, I at least punctuate my "*...*"s and I use capitals in them.
*Takes over the SFOL and fires Jon Boy.*
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: If you want to be a language nazi...
Nazi needs to be capitalised, it's a name.
quote: The Secret Fraternal Order of Linguists does not accept flawed applicants.
Fwahaha.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You use capitals in your ellipses? How does that work?
Oh, and it's a fraternal order. You can't fire me from it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Also, your comma splice is showing.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Then fire yourself.
I punctuate it just as if it were quotes, in the method I chose to accept.
And "*...*" are not ellipses. When I write "*thinking*" I do not mean "...thinking...", I mean an action. The fact that you enclose it somehow gives it the right to be punctuated properly.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You could try using words instead of an agglomeration of typographical characters. I thought you were referring to the ellipsis points and not the asterisks.
I say "Ha!" to your willy-nilly punctuation rules.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I do not accept Webster Dictionary. The fact that you Americans take liberty does not mean I lower myself to your standards.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I say "Ha!" to your willy-nilly punctuation rules.
quote: I said to him "get lost."
Who ever heard of such crap?! And since when can you spell "practice" (the NOUN) with an "s"?! You people are pathetic sometimes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Dude, stop being such a jerk and a snob.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I know, I'm sorry. I can't hel. . . wait. You're not talking about me right now. Odd.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Hey, I didn't call you anything remotely associated with Nazism. *Thinks back to the days of the bitter fighting with AntiCool over the subject.*
Not that it is justification - but the weak spot was shown.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I want to see a battle of grammer.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I didn't say that you did, Jonathan. I'm referring to your obsessive and ignorant prejudice against American English despite your claims of being such a language guru.
Porter: To the death?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I want to see John vs. John in a grammer battle.
edit: *nod*
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:*Thinks back to the days of the bitter fighting with AntiCool over the subject.*
Isn't that a sentence fragment?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Porter: Only if you promise to spell my name right.
RRR: "Sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment. Oh, wait.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: I want to see a battle of grammer.
Bad memories of Dagonee vs me?
quote: your claims of being such a language guru.
For the circumstances I'm in - yes. Other than that, I do my best of understanding. And yet, when reading American English it catches the eye differently, and it slows me down. I'm not blaming you for using it, as you wre taught it, rather I'm critical of the original notion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*adjusts JB's sarcastometer*
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Twiches.*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*adjusts Pohrtehr's name*
Jonathan: See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. There is nothing inherently wrong with American English and nothing inherently right with British English. They're simply different.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
"Ich haben in mir hertz das urge to construct mein own sprachens words." Ich habe den Drang in meinem Hertz, um meine eigene Sprachwoerte aufzubauen.
"Enschuldigensibitte, wo ist der dome?" Entschuldigung, bitte, wo ist der Dom?
"Chokalade Kuken" Schokoladenkuchen -Germans don't believe in having two words when you can ram them togeather and make one.
"Gedechtnichtkirchie!", Haloed? I have no idea what you're shooting for. Maybe Gedaechtniskirche, which would be a church that's kept around for memory's sake. I think some of the cities in Germany have old, bombed-out churches that they refer to as Gedaechtniskirchen.
Please continue, this is getting interesting to watch.
~your friendly German Spelling Nazi
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Oh, so now my heated criticism won't go? *Bangs on wall, crashes building down.* Fine, I'm sorry.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Thanks, Jhai.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"The Secret Fraternal Order of Linguists"
I applied to the order. I saw my application on the net 3 months, attached to an article titled: "Grammar Nazi's Have a Gas, Die Laughing"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Except that we didn't use an apostrophe in "Nazis."
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Going to sleep! Night!
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
What do you mean 'we'? You guys died laughing. Quite literally.
It's a shame. A perfectly good joke ruined by bad grammar and explanation.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I am stepping in and imposing a temporary word ban here. No one in this thread will be permitted to use the word Nazi, or any derivation thereof, for the next 231 posts.
Thank you.
The Tired Cliché Prevention Society
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You . . . you . . . McCarthyist! Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Be careful, son. That one's next on the list.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
RED!
(I was looking for something good to post on for 14000 . . . and then I forgot. *sigh*)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ooh, are we shouting colors now? GREEN! ORANGE! PINK! BLUE! YELLOW! BROWN! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, BROWWWWWN! Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
What about a tender scalet background with vermillion stipes and saffron spots?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I find that scalet is much too fishy a color. I prefer scarlet.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Granny Smith Green
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Random color shouting?
Um, ok . . . except for the fact that Annie has red hair, and it went with the McCarthyist comment . . .
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Annie has red hair?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Rivka has beautiful hair. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Annie has red hair?
At least one or two.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I suppose it's possible.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Oh, I'm glad you think it's red. I spend much of my time trying to convince myself that it is. It's a very dark red.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*coughbrowncough*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I tend to go with self-description. Anyway, I think it's a similar color to mine (or what mine was, back in the days it saw the sun) -- brown with significant red highlights.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have just about every imaginable color of hair on my head, from blonde to brown (light and dark) to red to black.
I guess it matches my eyes. Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
ketchie, you know that a blend of all colours ends up white, right?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
And I repeat:
quote: What about a tender scalet background with vermillion stipes and saffron spots?
It's imaginable.
(Heck, is this another hair thread where I will be tried for Freudian motives?)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, most people do describe my hair color as "dark blonde" or "light brown". So something of the sort. Of course, you're talking light, and technically, hair color is pigment. A blend of all pigment colors ends up black (if you're lucky.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
JH, two things. One, as Jonathon mentioned earlier, your harping on British spelling is both annoying and ridiculous.
Second, as hair contains pigments, a blend of all colors will most certainly not make white. (Darn it, kq! )
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: as hair contains pigments, a blend of all colors will most certainly not make white.
Unless you spin it all very fast.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
... In which case you get hair like OSC's!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How will spinning it help? Unless it makes you dizzy and you black out . . . nope, still black. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I like my hair just the couleur it is, thank you very much.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
"Coulour" in Old French, if I'm correct.
quote:Unless it makes you dizzy and you black out
Or white out!
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Die Farben in deiner Haare sind sehr schoen, wenn du spinnst!
(German speakers: Yeah, I know. *giggles*)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*patiently* Two kinds of white out: to correct written mistakes, and when snow-blinded.
Are we supposed to coat you in correction fluid or snow?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
JH: What exactly does Old French have to do with anything? Other than trying to show off, that is.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Are we supposed to coat you in correction fluid or snow?
Wow, rivka's kinky. *adores from afar*
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Don't mean to seem presumptuous, Monsieur Silhouette, but I'm not gonna take your language expertise seriously for a while. If'n you don't mind.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And anyway, color is the original Latin (and Old French) spelling. Colour and coulour came later.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: Are we supposed to coat you in correction fluid or snow?
quote: What exactly does Old French have to do with anything? Other than trying to show off, that is.
What a chest of gems you people are! (*Self-mutter*: more like a mound of sulphur.)
White out in the sense that you go crazy but have white flashes in your eyes. I speak from EXPERIENCE. Since I checked it out in the [i]American[/quote] Heritage Dictionary, it's a sign of pluralism.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You scorn Merriam-Webster's, but you're okay with American Heritage? Ha!
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: Colour and coulour came later.
"Χρομος" came before that, so we should spell it "chromos"/"xpouos". And צֶבַע came even before that, so we should all say and write "ṣeṿaʔ".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: You scorn Merriam-Webster's, but you're okay with American Heritage? Ha!
The best way of facing a phobia is by gradually getting over it; getting over something you hate is done at one point, just like the way my father quit smoking 25 cigs a day and a pipe twice a week.
Aside that, Webster is responsible for American spelling in the first place, AH is just the HERITAGE.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
older ≠ better
Anyway, those aren't even etymons of color. And if you transliterate the Greek into English, you get chromos, not xpouos. Just 'cause they look like Latin letters doesn't mean they are.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You obviously don't realize that many American spellings are variant British spellings. Also, American Heritage is a relatively new dictionary. Merriam-Webster's is far older and more reputable.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
But they all derive from the Mother tongue which preceded Proto-Semitic and Indo-European. And why are you justifying the phonetical changes some people made based on Latin spelling, which is not the reason the changes were made? It's all phonetical.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: Merriam-Webster's is far older and more reputable.
quote: older ≠ better
And I'm younger than you, too.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: But they all derive from the Mother tongue which preceded Proto-Semitic and Indo-European.
So?
quote: And why are you justifying the phonetical changes some people made based on Latin spelling, which is not the reason the changes were made? It's all phonetical. [/QB]
I don't know what phonetic changes you're talking about. Spelling follows pronunciation, not the other way around.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette:
quote: Merriam-Webster's is far older and more reputable.
quote: older ≠ better
And I'm younger than you, too.
And older word-form is not a better word-form. And older dictionary, on the other hand, is probably a better dictionary. Context, my friend. And yes, I'm very much aware that you're younger than me. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Personally, I use the Oxford English Dictionary, although I don't get access except when I'm at University .
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Luckily, I can still access it from anywhere, but I imagine that I'll lose access pretty soon, now that I've graduated.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: Context, my friend.
I know, but it was still worth it!
quote: Spelling follows pronunciation, not the other way around.
Which is what I meant and yet I have no idea why I wrote it the other way round.
quote:So?
Which is what I meant; don't base your spelling on Latin, since that is not how it came to be in this case.
quote: And older word-form is not a better word-form.
So don't use Latin "color".
quote:And older dictionary, on the other hand, is probably a better dictionary.
Is Webster older than Oxford?
quote:I'm very much aware that you're younger than me.
Then the argument-odds are in your favour.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm gonna give you a little advice here, Jonny H.
Do not go up against Jon Boy in a grammar war when death is on the line.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was being facetious with the Latin thing; I was just one-upping your Old French comment. Color represents the actual pronunciation slightly better than colour does, though.
quote:Is Webster older than Oxford?
Yup. Webster's dictionary goes back to the 1820s, I think, while the OED wasn't finished until a full century later.
Here, why don't you read a little about your nemesis?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: I'm gonna give you a little advice here, Jonny H.
Thank you! I feel hopeless these days.
[quote] Do not go up against Jon Boy in a grammar war when death is on the line. [quote] You don't fight - you don't win. Learn the Hard Way, and always have your English teaching father to back you up in technical language. I am JB's fired apprentice, so I am free to do whatever I want.
But thanks! If I die, my will is all dedicated to you, since you were the one who almost saved me.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: your Old French comment.
Which followed Annie's modern French comment... Oh, right!
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote:great man
Bias!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Dude, chill.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Aha! You can't handle the truth! (Or does that belong on this thread...?)
In any case, add the "y" to chill, and get my status. I knew Webster was 19th century, but I thought Oxford was 19th too.
Ah, whatever, there were older dictionaries, older than Oxford! Older than Webster! And they were English, by the way.
JH
[ June 23, 2005, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: Haloed Silhouette ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The OED was started a couple decades after Webster's was finished, and it took about eighty years to finish it. The first good English dictionary was Samuel Johnson's in 1755. There were others before that, but they weren't very comprehensive.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
But Oxford is still the biggest, most extensive, and having the oldest-looking print.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Declaration: A Dead Thread.
[ June 23, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Haloed Silhouette ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: But Oxford is still the biggest, most extensive, and having the oldest-looking print.
Ack! Non-parallelism!
*dies*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, that was a bit like fingernails on a chalkboard for me too.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote: *dies*
*Cheers.*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette:
quote: *dies*
*Cheers.*
How sweet.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ha ha. Hoping for an easy win, eh?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
A Scrabble list I'm on is a little riled about this: The lexicographers for Random House Webster's College Dictionary have determined that "to fedex" (lowercase) has become widespread enough in its use to justify an entry in their dictionary. (This is why "fedex" has been added to the new Scrabble dictionary, along with other fun stuff like "grok" and "meme".)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Huh. It would never occur to me to use that term unless I was referring to shipping something using FedEx. Does anyone here use that term in a generic way?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
The new Scrabble dictionary defines it as "to send by Federal Express." I have heard it used in a more generic way once or twice, meaning, I suppose, something more like sending a package overnight. "Drat, my sister's birthday is Tuesday! I better go find something and fedex it by tonight!" But it isn't really clear that that is a generic usage. So I dunno.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think it'd be cool to be a lexicographer.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Me, too.
Oh, and on my dream list of things to buy eventually? The OED. I want to be able to leaf through it, on the floor on my stomach maybe -- not on CD, not on-line... page by page, just filling my mind with the words.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I have a compact OED. It's the crowning jewel in my small book collection. And get this: I got it for free from work when we were cleaning out the office. They were going to donate it to a thrift store!
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I am very jealous! Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Does the book-form OED have entymology in it?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yup. Entymology is just one of the hundreds of thousands of words available in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laughs*
*chokes*
*dies*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Someone told me that it doesn't have gullible. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: I am very jealous!
Unfortunately, I don't use it as much as I should. First off, it's an enormous book. Second, you need a magnifying glass to read it—literally. Good thing it came with one, though. Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *laughs*
*chokes*
*dies*
*Cheers.*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*thumps Jonathan on the head with a compact OED*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cheers*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*that horribly sad-looking smily with the tears in its eyes*
I walked right into that one, didn't I?
But my question still stands: Does the book version of the OED contain the entymology of words?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Etymology.
But yes, it does. That was the feature that set the OED apart back when they first started the project. The CD-ROM and website have simply carried that over.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I've looked at the compact one (for the life of me, I can't remember where) and really liked the look of it, magnifying glass and all. It's probably not a surprise that I have a shelf full of dictionaries already.
Tonight I played Scrabble (of course) with one of the guys who has been a major contributor to the Scrabble dictionary projects over the years. He told me before the game that although he wasn't as active in it this time around, he was responsible for adding several words to the current version, including "soulmate". I swear I felt a tingle talking to him.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
We've got the "Short Oxford English Dictionary" from 1959; it's STILL heavier than Webster's Lexicon whatsies that my father got in 1988.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
When's the Third Edition of the OED coming out, by the way?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Yup. Entymology is just one of the hundreds of thousands of words available in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Actually, no. It has it under the entomology spelling variant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, HS, having it under something is the veritable definition of it being in there.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Oh, he got me!
Jonathan: 1 Jonathon: 100
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*makes note of two different words, one about insects one about words*
Anyway the E-T-Y-M-O-L-O-G-Y is the bit I really like .
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
For what it's worth Teshi, I had to mentally stop and make sure that I was using the right word with those two for *years* before I finally stopped having a problem with saying the one in place of the other.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: When's the Third Edition of the OED coming out, by the way?
Well, they started it in 1990, and they're all the way to Paul right now. Maybe in another decade or so.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Isn't the correct form "entOmology"?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I thought so too, but just Google (the verb, correct or not) a string containing "entymology" and see what appears.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Why in the world would the verb "google" be incorrect?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I don't know, I'm taking the safe road.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The road of linguistic ignorance, you mean! Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You should know you must always take the narrow straight path rather than the wide crooked one.
</theology>
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I should not be listening to you.
[/wisdom]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I feel the conflict within you. Let go of your hate.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I feel you've been taking some rat poison with drug spicing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Hmm. Those are all English words, and the syntax seems good, but for the life of me I can't figure out what you're saying.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
That's because you've been taking some rat poison with drug spicing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
My trouble with the English language?!
*almost dies laughing*
*thumps JH on the head with the compact OED again*
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Thumps Jon Boy over the head with a shelf upon which the 32-volume edition of the [i]Encyclopædia Britannica lies bound and removed the words "almost" and "laughing" from Jon Boy's previous post.*
*Reports post for threat of violence* (not serious).
JH
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Hm. This thread title is disappointing. I was hoping to catch my husband slipping up in some way with the English language just so I could tease him about it, and I come in here to find he's perfect as usual. Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Reminds Jon Boy that "bind" is a strong verb and therefore it's form in the past-simple tense is "bound".*
His problem is comprehension.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: *Thumps Jon Boy over the head with a shelf upon which the 32-volume edition of the [i]Encyclopædia Britannica lies bound and removed the words "almost" and "laughing" from Jon Boy's previous post.*
There's that pesky nonparallelism again. So sad.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: *Reminds Jon Boy that "bind" is a strong verb and therefore it's form in the past-simle tense is "bound".*
His problem is comprehension.
*reminds JH that if you want to be possessive, it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's I-T-apostrophe-S*
So, um, where exactly did I use an incorrect form of the bind? Or were you just trying to lecture me in a subject that I already know about?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Alerts Jon Boy that "s" and "d" are very close on the QWERTY keyboard and it's a typo.*
*Reminds Jon Boy that strictly speaking - the possessive form is apostrophe-s, and therefore "its" should be "it's".*
I was - again - "just checking". One day I'll catch you again regarding one of your imperfect mistakes. We're all human.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
So it should be her's and hi's too?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
No, because those are Viking structures, not Latin.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: *Reminds Jon Boy that strictly speaking - the possessive form is apostrophe-s, and therefore "its" should be "it's".*
The possessive form of regular nouns is apostrophe-s. The possessive forms of pronouns are not the same thing. I remember explaining this once, but maybe you weren't listening. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Haloed Silhouette: No, because those are Viking structures, not Latin.
Neither of those are Viking in origin, nor are they Latin. They're good old-fashioned English, just like its, and thus they follow English rules.
Also note that the apostrophe-s ending is also not Latin.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:*reminds JH that if you want to be possessive, it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's I-T-apostrophe-S*
Scallawag.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:No, because those are Viking structures, not Latin.
Not quite. They're all English, but the neuter possessive pronoun (his) began to be confused with the masculine possessive pronoun. For a while people tried different things (still using his, using thereof to avoid the issue altogether, using of it, etc.), and eventually the construction its won popularity because it declined like the other possessive pronouns.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I was, but you were not referring to "its". And the reason for some pronoun differences - so I've been told by my father (a linguist who studied and studies Latin, German, Italian, French, Gaelic and ancient Norse) - is because of Viking influence. He's sleeping now, though.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Ahem, what about that forms "they" and "them"? Not Viking either?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The pronouns they/them/their/theirs and she are all Norse in origin (well, actually, it's not entirely clear where she came from, but it's probably Norse). All other personal pronouns in English trace themselves straight back to Old English and beyond that to West Germanic, Proto-Indo-European, and so on.
You missed Brinestone's point. She was saying that no other personal pronouns have apostrophes, so neither does its.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Hm. But that's still a supplemental issue in the post - I was trying to make sure you won't jump on me because I used something correct.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Huh?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Look at the original purpose of the post, Mrs Jon Boy.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I'm honestly not sure which post you're referring to right now. That's what the "huh" was about.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's a grammar war!
(I never paid attention to grammar so I can't participate. Parallel structure? What's that? Oh, I use that ordinarily.)
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
Seek, and ye shall find.
(And don't give me this "to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield" bit!)
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Are you talking to me or to Teshi?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
I'm talking to you, Mrs Jon Boy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not much of a war, really. Jon had his head handed to him a while ago, but he hasn't noticed yet.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Which Jon would that be?
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
*Hands TomD $20K.*
Me...?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I've looked at your posts, Jonathan, but I don't know which one I missed the original intent of. I can't read your mind.
Posted by Haloed Silhouette (Member # 8062) on :
It's not too much of an issue. I was just trying to get at your husband - which failed, so the score is still 101 => 1, in his favour.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)