1. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by useless_ Apr 07, 2012
- 5119 views
Thanks Matt, Looks like your right, changed the command line to
It's just amazing to me you can write Euphoria code when you do not know the difference between "your" and "you are". Congratulations.
useless
2. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by wynco Apr 07, 2012
- 5028 views
Thanks Matt, Looks like your right, changed the command line to
It's just amazing to me you can write Euphoria code when you do not know the difference between "your" and "you are". Congratulations.
useless
Common expression in my part of the world. Would you'r be better :) We tend to combine two words into one to save time in theser hills, I.E. These here hills :) (and yes I know that's not proper english either) Course if euporia used some of my lingo it would be perfect instead of just very good!
3. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by useless_ Apr 08, 2012
- 5032 views
Thanks Matt, Looks like your right, changed the command line to
It's just amazing to me you can write Euphoria code when you do not know the difference between "your" and "you are". Congratulations.
useless
Common expression in my part of the world. Would you'r be better :) We tend to combine two words into one to save time in theser hills, I.E. These here hills :) (and yes I know that's not proper english either) Course if euporia used some of my lingo it would be perfect instead of just very good!
There is a contraction for "you are", it's "you're". I do not know of "you'r", which you mentioned. The word "your" is not pronounced like "you're"; "your" is pronounced a lot like "yore" (which is also a word), while "you're" starts with pronouncing "you", which is quite a bit different to my ear. And the words "yore", "your", and "you're" all mean different things, just like "byte", "bite", and "bight", , or "they're", "there", and "their", , or "two", "too", "to", "tu" (Spanish), and "tutu" mean different things. It's not a matter of "better" words, or snob appeal, it's about choosing the word to write what you mean. Words are names for concepts, if you chose the wrong word, you are stating the wrong concept.
useless
4. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 08, 2012
- 5082 views
Thanks Matt, Looks like your right, changed the command line to
It's just amazing to me you can write Euphoria code when you do not know the difference between "your" and "you are". Congratulations.
Common expression in my part of the world. Would you'r be better :) We tend to combine two words into one to save time in theser hills, I.E. These here hills :) (and yes I know that's not proper english either) Course if euporia used some of my lingo it would be perfect instead of just very good!
There is a contraction for "you are", it's "you're". I do not know of "you'r", which you mentioned. The word "your" is not pronounced like "you're"; "your" is pronounced a lot like "yore" (which is also a word), while "you're" starts with pronouncing "you", which is quite a bit different to my ear.
Dictionary.com shows that the two have overlapping pronounciations:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/your?db=%252A http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you're?db=%252A
To compare with the word yore :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yore?db=%252A
It's possible that some dialects of english prefer a "yore" sounding "your", while others prefer a "you're" sounding "your" - but either pronounciation is correct.
Trying to state that one pronounciation is better than the other smacks of snob appeal - it feels to me like one is saying "my dialect is superior to your dialect."
And the words "yore", "your", and "you're" all mean different things, just like "byte", "bite", and "bight", , or "they're", "there", and "their", , or "two", "too", "to", "tu" (Spanish), and "tutu" mean different things. It's not a matter of "better" words, or snob appeal, it's about choosing the word to write what you mean. Words are names for concepts, if you chose the wrong word, you are stating the wrong concept.
True. Absolutely true. Even so, I believe that as long as the meaning can be understood easily and effortlessly, there is nothing wrong with this sort of word confusion in informal speech (or less formal text-based communication). The words "to" and "tu" can be mixed up by a typo, as applies to "byte" and "bite" - but one can usually determine the meaning (and thus the correct word) by context.
This is the case even when typos do not result in valid words at all. Consider:
tehre numeric keys and table_names, but i cannot lable a key, nor can i do any wildmatch searches on tables, records, keys , or data?
5. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Apr 08, 2012
- 4993 views
It's possible that some dialects of english prefer a "yore" sounding "your", while others prefer a "you're" sounding "your" - but either pronounciation is correct.
Trying to state that one pronounciation is better than the other smacks of snob appeal - it feels to me like one is saying "my dialect is superior to your dialect."
Pronunciation is one thing. It becomes bad spelling when written.
And the words "yore", "your", and "you're" all mean different things, just like "byte", "bite", and "bight", , or "they're", "there", and "their", , or "two", "too", "to", "tu" (Spanish), and "tutu" mean different things. It's not a matter of "better" words, or snob appeal, it's about choosing the word to write what you mean. Words are names for concepts, if you chose the wrong word, you are stating the wrong concept.
True. Absolutely true. Even so, I believe that as long as the meaning can be understood easily and effortlessly, there is nothing wrong with this sort of word confusion in informal speech (or less formal text-based communication). The words "to" and "tu" can be mixed up by a typo, as applies to "byte" and "bite" - but one can usually determine the meaning (and thus the correct word) by context.
In speech, it's usually not a problem. When reading it, however, I usually have to go back and reread the sentence, so for me at least, this sort of misspelling does not lead to effortless understanding. It seems like a loosing* battle, though, and I get tired of tilting at windmills.
Matt
* Ha!
6. [OT] spelling contest
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 08, 2012
- 4976 views
It's possible that some dialects of english prefer a "yore" sounding "your", while others prefer a "you're" sounding "your" - but either pronounciation is correct.
Trying to state that one pronounciation is better than the other smacks of snob appeal - it feels to me like one is saying "my dialect is superior to your dialect."
Pronunciation is one thing. It becomes bad spelling when written.
Agreed, but that turns into the argument below.
In speech, it's usually not a problem. When reading it, however, I usually have to go back and reread the sentence, so for me at least, this sort of misspelling does not lead to effortless understanding.
You really need to go back and reread a sentence if someone uses "your" in the context and with the meaning of "you are" ? Typically I will read it and often fail realise that the word was misspelled (or the wrong word used), unless I'm reading it very slowly in an attempt to proof-read it.
It seems like a loosing* battle, though, and I get tired of tilting at windmills.
Matt
* Ha!
Agreed. My point was simply that deriving meaning and understanding were different from having bad spelling and/or bad pronounciation (although good spelling and correct pronounciation help, obviously), and therefore this sort of thing should only be reserved for cases when understanding is hindered.
Something like:
<euKat> If the position of the Global Elite were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a one-world Government and one-unit monatary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the 10 NWO government-regions into their various categories.
7. Re: [OT] spelling contest
- Posted by useless_ Apr 08, 2012
- 5072 views
Something like:
<euKat> If the position of the Global Elite were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a one-world Government and one-unit monatary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the 10 NWO government-regions into their various categories.
When the hell did i ever say that for myself?? Answer: i didn't, and you are obviously reaching to extremes in the usual attempt to trip me up and/or slander. You owe me another appology, for the line you attribute to me is a copy/pasted quote of someone else, and even if i copy/pasted it, i did not edit it. It's entirely possible i posted it because of the bad spelling. But you, in this context, have stripped the context this copy/paste was in, and cast me in a bad light. I believe the original source is now offline, but you can look for 49,000 similar posts with this url:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22one-unit%20monatary%20system%22
Besides, not knowing the difference between different words is a whole other situation than typos.
useless
8. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by useless_ Apr 08, 2012
- 5009 views
Dictionary.com shows that the two have overlapping pronounciations:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/your?db=%252A http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you're?db=%252A
I'll say it flat out: is wrong.
The written contraction is a representation of the audible contraction. People who run togther the word "you" and the word "are" will produce the correct pronunciation of the contraction "you're". What has done is patch their dictionary to keep up with the way the words are currently used, the acceptable use of the masses, which is what dictionaries have done since the first. They add words, they change words, they drop words. The fact that the mispronunciation is now mainstream does not make it correct to print the wrong word, and it doesn't make it correct to mispronounce it.
FWIW, it's also annoying to hear weather people on tv say "tempachur" for "temperature", when they'd never say "tempach" for "temperate". No doubt will legitimize that too.
useless
9. Re: [OT] spelling contest
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 08, 2012
- 5046 views
I'll say it flat out: is wrong.
The written contraction is a representation of the audible contraction. People who run togther the word "you" and the word "are" will produce the correct pronunciation of the contraction "you're". What has done is patch their dictionary to keep up with the way the words are currently used, the acceptable use of the masses, which is what dictionaries have done since the first. They add words, they change words, they drop words. The fact that the mispronunciation is now mainstream does not make it correct to print the wrong word, and it doesn't make it correct to mispronounce it.
Pronounciation and spelling change over time. Languages change over time.
Do you pronounce "meat" and "meet" differently?
Do you pronounce "knight" with a k?
If not "the masses" then who has the right to define a language? The fact that you place yourself in opposition to "the masses" smacks of "snob appeal" and elitism.
FWIW, it's also annoying to hear weather people on tv say "tempachur" for "temperature", when they'd never say "tempach" for "temperate". No doubt will legitimize that too.
Looking at it, I'm not seeing an alternative pronouciation where temperature is pronounced like temperate. The pronounciation "tempachur" or "tem-per-uh-cher" seems to be standard.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/temperature?qsrc=2446
10. Re: [OT] spelling contest
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 08, 2012
- 4959 views
Something like:
<euKat> If the position of the Global Elite were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a one-world Government and one-unit monatary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the 10 NWO government-regions into their various categories.
When the hell did i ever say that for myself?? Answer: i didn't
What you did was paste that line into the #euphoria irc channel, on June 18th, 2009, at around 5:30pm EST.
and you are obviously reaching to extremes in the usual attempt to trip me up and/or slander. You owe me another appology,
I apologize wholeheartedly for the appearance of slandering you/tripping you up. That was not my intention. I was simply looking for a good example of a sentence which would be difficult to understand while being grammatically correct. From the original context, that sentence seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
I wasn't aware that I currently owed you an apology.
I wasn't aware that this sentence would cast you in a bad light, any more than your typo of apology (as "appology") would have.
for the line you attribute to me is a copy/pasted quote of someone else, and even if i copy/pasted it, i did not edit it. It's entirely possible i posted it because of the bad spelling. But you, in this context, have stripped the context this copy/paste was in, and cast me in a bad light.
As I recall, you pasted 4 separate sentences or sentence fragments at once to demonstrate a nonsensical but grammatically correct sentence. (I disagreed at the time, believing that any grammatically correct sentence has a valid meaning, no matter how difficult it was to understand.)
Since you pasted it, and since I was not aware of what the original source (or sources) was (or were), I believe it is correct to quote you with that sentence, even if you did not originally create it. (However, I believe that you were the first to show that exact sentence, creating from pieces of other sentences but still making it an original writing of yours.)
I don't see any spelling errors in that sentence, unless you mean that NWO should be NGO.
Besides, not knowing the difference between different words is a whole other situation than typos.
I agree, but I don't think that there's any indication that the original poster did not understand the difference between the two different words in question. The poster understood the difference but chose to use a dialectal spelling rather than the more formal spelling. So what?
Forked into: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
11. Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by K_D_R Apr 08, 2012
- 4959 views
Forked from compile with watcom fails
The last "tin" or so posts in the "Compile with Watcom fails" thread were largely off topic. I think grammatical criticism can be of value, but the Phillistine hijack of the thread is an egregious effront to decency and good taste, not to mention effective communication.
I hope the grammatical discussions will be continued here.
12. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by wynco Apr 08, 2012
- 4863 views
generated the 50 .c files and the makefile fine. Edited the makefile to include -mwindows in the lflags line. After running euc, it instructed to switch to tempdir and type
make -f MyDatabase.mak
Note: ascii was the console program I compiled earlier, MyDatabase is a small GUI database for personal use.
Got an error message stating that 'make' is not a valid internal or external command.
is 'make' a program file like 'euc' or an operator for another program file? Searched the euphoria directory and sub directories but could not find a file named 'make'.
FYI for useless: we pronounce 'you're' and 'your' as 'yore' , YeeHaa :)
13. Re: Compile with watcom fails
- Posted by useless_ Apr 08, 2012
- 4819 views
FYI for useless: we pronounce 'you're' and 'your' as 'yore' , YeeHaa :)
FYI for wynco: you're intentionally doing it wrong.
useless
14. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jaygade Apr 08, 2012
- 4891 views
"Monetary" is misspelled.
I usually pronounce "your" and "you're" the same. Not always, but usually. And even though I know the difference, I sometimes make a mistake and use the shorter version when my thoughts outrace my fingers.
I also pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same. Mostly. And "marry" and "merry". And lots of others where English speakers from other countries might notice more of a difference.
Attacking someone's spelling or grammar mistake on the internet, unless it's especially egregious and cannot be interpreted, is usually the hallmark of a person who has no legitimate argument.
15. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 08, 2012
- 4887 views
"Monetary" is misspelled.
I usually pronounce "your" and "you're" the same. Not always, but usually. And even though I know the difference, I sometimes make a mistake and use the shorter version when my thoughts outrace my fingers.
I also pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same. Mostly. And "marry" and "merry". And lots of others where English speakers from other countries might notice more of a difference.
Attacking someone's spelling or grammar mistake on the internet, unless it's especially egregious and cannot be interpreted, is usually the hallmark of a person who has no legitimate argument.
That's a bit like calling a suicide bomber a coward. Lets see you have the guts to do it. But now that i know wynco is choosing to write and speak incorrectly, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw my congratulations to him on being able to write working software.
useless
16. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by wynco Apr 08, 2012
- 4892 views
hey useless
We actually do pronounce 'your' and 'you're' as 'yore'. Everyone that grew up around here pronounces it that way. We are sort of a cross between a hillbilly and a southern dialect. It is fading though, as every generation gets closer to standard english in pronunciation. Grammar however is getting worse I'm afraid. :( I tend to avoid contractions when typing but that one slipped by on use and spelling. Wish I was perfect, but ain’t there yet. :)
(could not resist an ain’t, sorry)
17. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 09, 2012
- 4895 views
hey useless
We actually do pronounce 'your' and 'you're' as 'yore'. Everyone that grew up around here pronounces it that way. We are sort of a cross between a hillbilly and a southern dialect. It is fading though, as every generation gets closer to standard english in pronunciation. Grammar however is getting worse I'm afraid. :( I tend to avoid contractions when typing but that one slipped by on use and spelling. Wish I was perfect, but ain’t there yet. :)
(could not resist an ain’t, sorry)
I have spent most of my life in the south usa too, and suffered thru conversations with backwood people who i couldn't understand. I tried to improve my skills, they try not to. I still cannot get past "drivin mah ca da-own the rah-ode like i was teached to".
The words "ain't" is not an english term, afaik it's from Scottish, and as you know the Brits never did care for them, so their words get frowned on.
You may be surprised to know that after years of reflection on the matter, i find "you all" (or "y'all") to be a viable non-formal phrase, where no alternative really exists to mean "this group of humans i am now speaking to, and others like them". Strangely, "you people" has a racist connotation.
We've had a lot of arguements on this list about "it's" and "its". Other lists have seen arguements over "Hawaii" vs "Hawai'i".
I have often thought words from Star Wars were pulled from the southern usa, for instance, "chewbacca" is a real word in southern rural Georgia, it means "do you chew tobacco?", and yeas, i have heard it used. And with his mouth packed full of tobacco to prove his manhood, most replies sound like the "YEOOENAAHNNNUUNNNUMM" of Chewbacca, complete with the head tilted back.
As jimcbrown is all to happy to point out, i also make typos, but seldom on purpose.
useless
18. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by wynco Apr 09, 2012
- 4890 views
You would have loved to listen to grandpa, with words like 'yourn' instead of yours, 'hair' pronounced 'har'. I try to improve my grammar and pronunciation when in public, but at home with family I revert back to the old ways. Such as 'Potato' in public and 'tater' around family. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve oneself, but you should never forget where you come from. I do not consider one place or way of life any better than any other. I only know what I prefer.
19. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jaygade Apr 09, 2012
- 4898 views
Well, while I don't think that suicide bombers are cowards, neither would I have the guts to do it myself.
I fail to see how it compares to criticizing or not criticizing someone's use of grammar and spelling on an internet forum. The consequences of the one seem to be several orders of magnitude different from the consequences of the other.
Heck, I write "gonna" in place of "going to" in all but the most formal contexts. Ain't that cool y'all?
20. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by ChrisB (moderator) Apr 09, 2012
- 4824 views
Hi
Language is evolutionary, spelling is secondary, meaning within context is what counts.
Even my children's schools no longer bother with correcting spelling mistakes, much to my wife and my self's (?) consternation, as lng as the meening gets acros thay dont seam too miynd how its spilt.
Chris
21. Re: [OT] spelling contest
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Apr 09, 2012
- 4856 views
In speech, it's usually not a problem. When reading it, however, I usually have to go back and reread the sentence, so for me at least, this sort of misspelling does not lead to effortless understanding.
You really need to go back and reread a sentence if someone uses "your" in the context and with the meaning of "you are" ? Typically I will read it and often fail realise that the word was misspelled (or the wrong word used), unless I'm reading it very slowly in an attempt to proof-read it.
Yes, often I do. As I scan the words, it can be somewhat jarring. Of course, in the context of a book or some other source where this is an affected style, I'm typically ready for it, which generally means I'm also reading slower in order to take in the meaning. Often it seems like the difference of hearing the words in my head vs simply reading them by sight, which is much quicker.
Matt
22. OT: English pronunciation (was: Compile with watcom fails)
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Apr 09, 2012
- 4794 views
FYI for useless: we pronounce 'you're' and 'your' as 'yore' , YeeHaa :)
FYI for wynco: you're intentionally doing it wrong.
useless
Damn ... I'm doing it wrong too it seems. Australians pronounce those three words the same. If fact, all the following words have the same sound ...
yore yaw your you're
23. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 09, 2012
- 4748 views
That's a bit like calling a suicide bomber a coward. Lets see you have the guts to do it.
1) By definition, people who commit cowardly acts are cowards.
1b) There are exceptions for those who through their future acts are able to redeem themselves, but for reasons which should be self-evident, this does not apply to suicide bombers.
2) By definition, a suicide bomber commits a suicide bombing.
3) A suicide bombing is a cowardly act. (As distinguished from sacrificing one's life in a noble act.)
There is some merit in the concept that overcoming fear of death is a form of bravery, but I don't believe that this makes a suicide bombing any less of a cowardly act.
At any rate, there are plenty of reasons why individuals who are brave enough to overcome fear of death on a daily basis and who are willing and able to sacrifice their lives would be unwilling to perform a suicide bombing.
Likewise, I contend that individuals exist (or have existed) that are not brave enough to summon the courage to overcome their fear of death, but are willing to perform a "suicide" bombing in the foolish and obviously false belief they will emerge alive and uninjured.
Lets see you have the guts to do it.
That probably should be "Lets see if you have the guts to do it." It's hard to attribute the error to a typo.
But now that i know wynco is choosing to write and speak incorrectly, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw my congratulations to him on being able to write working software.
You mean your veiled insult at the poster regarding the poster's native language? I agree.
There's an implication here that the poster is unable to write working software. This is obviously false.
24. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 09, 2012
- 4782 views
The words "ain't" is not an english term, afaik it's from Scottish, and as you know the Brits never did care for them, so their words get frowned on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Scottish_Gaelic_origin
Whiskey isn't English?! Trousers isn't English?!
We've had a lot of arguements on this list about "it's" and "its". Other lists have seen arguements over "Hawaii" vs "Hawai'i".
I can easily see "its" being a typo when "it's" is meant.
As jimcbrown is all to happy to point out, i also make typos, but seldom on purpose.
Yet I have never insulted you for doing so, and only very rarely mention them when they occur.
25. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jaygade Apr 09, 2012
- 4764 views
Lets see you have the guts to do it.
That probably should be "Lets see if you have the guts to do it." It's hard to attribute the error to a typo.
"Let's see if you have the guts to do it." "Let's" being a contraction of "let us".
26. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by johnrpm Apr 10, 2012
- 4676 views
This all sounds like my wife, she constantly pulls me up on my grammar, maths have clearly defined rules, whereas grammar is opinion.
however I do like to hear English spoken well, although I will never be able to.
27. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4628 views
Lets see you have the guts to do it.
That probably should be "Lets see if you have the guts to do it." It's hard to attribute the error to a typo.
"Let's see if you have the guts to do it." "Let's" being a contraction of "let us".
Actually, if i may nitpick, i meant "Let's see you have the guts to do it.", without the "if". To me, the "if" implies determining only if the "guts to do it" exist, whereas leaving out the "if" implies following thru (through) with the detonation. I was rather upset. I did typo the "let's", leaving out the "'", i wasn't bothering to go back and correct it.
useless
28. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4681 views
So there was a child psychologist on tv, and she said "blah blah mini psychologists blah blah", and i was thinking, ok, this is code for "child psychologists" or "short-statured psychologists", because she is 5ft tall in high heels, and treats children. Maybe it's a phrase in anime or Pokemon or TransformerBots or such genre. But later on her discussion isn't at all about the children or her own tallness, and to make a long story short, she meant "many" instead of "mini" (they are pronounced differently), and i quit listening, threw out the mental gymnastics of post-correcting her monologue, and turned the tv off.
There was once a medical doc on a tv show, very eloquent, perfect enunciation, of the darker-skinned sort of human (aka black, african-american, etc), and i mention her skin tone only to relate there is a group of people who somehow got it unto their heads that to end a word with a "d" sound is "ghetto sounding", especially if the word ends a sentence. This woman had not fallen for this before, but one day ended a sentence with "blut". Since she had never mispoken before, i figured this was a new word i did not know, and eagerly awaited a definition. She didn't give a definition, but said it again. I spent 20 minutes with google looking for medical references to "blut", trying different spellings, and i could not find the word. Sadly, as you prolly (Brit informal slang) guessed by now, she meant "blood".
Tv commercial, guy says "CompanyName were experienced in blah blah", and i am thinking, glad to know you are no longer experienced. But the way he went on, i realised he meant "we're". He most likely didn't know the difference between "were" and "we're", always wrote "were", and so pronounced both words the same. I won't buy from him. If he cannot find the proper words to describe his company and product, how can i know he can properly read or write the instructions on installation and use of his product? What if his instructions include using "mini screws" to attach the product, when what is needed is a fair amount of 3.5 inch #10 deck screws?
Another set of words almost everyone messes up is "moral" and morale". One word means ethics, the other means state of well being, and the words are not pronounced the same. I keep hearing, and seeing in print, people who get into a bind needing ethics support, when i'd have thought they needed a bit of support in their mental outlook towards the problem. They wouldn't need "moral support", but they may need "morale support".
useless
29. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4639 views
You mean your veiled insult at the poster regarding the poster's native language? I agree.
There's an implication here that the poster is unable to write working software. This is obviously false.
No, i was fascinated that he could write working software using a non-spoken language, yet couldn't construct proper sentences with a native spoken language. My honest congrats to him weren't sarcastic. I have known people who could barely speak at all but were amazing at electronics repair (for instance). My mother memorised vast amounts of data for an advanced college degree when i was in high school, yet her writing was on par with 8th grade, and i edited all her homework for her.
Considering how much my words are screwed up passing thru other people's language filters, perhaps i should never post any followups to any initial post i make here.
useless
30. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4608 views
Considering how much my words are screwed up passing thru other people's language filters, perhaps i should never post any followups to any initial post i make here.
I'd be happy with you not posting at all. Ever. Unless it's about programming Euphoria, of course.
31. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by AndyDrummond Apr 10, 2012
- 4604 views
Can you imagine how hard it would be to write a Euphoria interpreter which would accept the variations in spelling and grammar (syntax?) which are being proposed as acceptable? You'd have to consider all the ways a word might be misspelled with possible phonic equivalence, and then, worse still, try and work out what the user actually meant when he omitted words or symbols?
fr i-1 2 10 du prnt I j is i pow 2 If j.GT.i times 4 stop
It's very hard just to imagine the rubbish code. Yet it is possible for us humans to understand it. Maybe. There is a fighting chance we'd get it wrong, of course, but hey ho! Who gives a Buzz Lightyear?
The point of grammar and spelling is to ensure not only error-free communication but also communication with the minimum of excess processing/thinking to effect that communication. Just as true for a human as for a computer. Bad grammar and poor spelling is not a sign of originality or individuality but of laziness. Possibly of ignorance, but that smacks of being insulting which I do not intend.
Offered in my humble (but not very) opinion.
32. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4594 views
Can you imagine how hard it would be to write a Euphoria interpreter which would accept the variations in spelling and grammar (syntax?)
I'll add a "Fuzzy parser/interpreter" enhancement request to the tickets! Then the interpreter can be TRAINED to accept YOUR particular spelling and nuanced programming grammar variations! BRILLIANT! 
33. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jaygade Apr 10, 2012
- 4571 views
I hate when people mix up "moral" and "morale" too. That just grates on me.
I can see regional dialect pronunciation of "were" and "we're" being the same.
34. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4560 views
Can you imagine how hard it would be to write a Euphoria interpreter which would accept the variations in spelling and grammar (syntax?)
I'll add a "Fuzzy parser/interpreter" enhancement request to the tickets! Then the interpreter can be TRAINED to accept YOUR particular spelling and nuanced programming grammar variations! BRILLIANT!
Seconded.
35. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4588 views
... she meant "many" instead of "mini" (they are pronounced differently) ...
Ever visited Christchurch or Johannesburg?
36. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4606 views
Can you imagine how hard it would be to write a Euphoria interpreter which would accept the variations in spelling and grammar (syntax?) which are being proposed as acceptable?
You'd have to consider all the ways a word might be misspelled with possible phonic equivalence, and then, worse still, try and work out what the user actually meant when he omitted words or symbols?
Yes, it'd be quite difficult.
The human language organ is believed to work quite differently from a conventional computer, though, so I think this is comparing apples to oranges.
fr i-1 2 10 du prnt I j is i pow 2 If j.GT.i times 4 stop
It's very hard just to imagine the rubbish code. Yet it is possible for us humans to understand it. Maybe. There is a fighting chance we'd get it wrong, of course, but hey ho! Who gives a Buzz Lightyear?
This is getting very close to the point where the errors in spelling and grammar interfere with the ability (of a human) to derive understanding, if it hasn't already crossed the line.
If there's a fighting chance that you or I would get it wrong, then the line has been crossed.
The point of grammar and spelling is to ensure not only error-free communication but also communication with the minimum of excess processing/thinking to effect that communication.
I agree. The idea is to make this as easy and effortless as possible.
Of course, real life is neither easy or effortless. Sometimes you have to deal with people who do not know your native language very well, and who speak a language that you don't know at all.
If in situations like these you are able to communicate relatively error-free, then I don't see why a missing apostrophe should cause problems.
Just as true for a human as for a computer.
I disagree. Conventional computers are not as flexible as human minds are. Change a single bit in an executable and you may not be able to run it anymore. Change a single character in a written sentence and the reader can generally discern the meaning.
Bad grammar and poor spelling is not a sign of originality or individuality but of laziness. Possibly of ignorance, but that smacks of being insulting which I do not intend.
None of this is true for a person who has learned English as a Second Language in adulthood. That person can make every effort to speak, pronounce, and write perfect english, but it is a rare case when that person's grammar is perfect or when that person's accent is identical to a native speaker's.
What is your view on typos?
37. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4578 views
... she meant "many" instead of "mini" (they are pronounced differently) ...
Ever visited Christchurch or Johannesburg?
I'd like to visit Christchurch (despite the name), not so much Johannesburg.
What you said earlier, Derek, about different pronunciations in different countries (to make this simple, lets say english-speaking usa, UK, NZ, Oz, and some of India and Malaysia and SA), got me thinking about a scenario in which people who program in Eu got togther to meet in real life, and couldn't understand each other speaking the Eu keywords, but understood the written code perfectly. Would it be decided how to pronounce anything in the interest of easier and speedier communication? If i pronounce "cat" as "cow", wouldn't it make for tedious conversation to understand not feeding "cow" milk to infants? If i had a horrible southern drawl, and pronounced "while" as "wall", and had a wonderful 3D drawing program with a wall() function, wouldn't you get tripped up sometimes in discussing the program? They do that here. What if i had a hydrology program and pronounced "well" as "whale"? They do that here.
Once upon a time, dictionaries carried one way of diction, so that anyone saying that word spoke it as anyone else, and communication was possible. Now, dictionaries are being modified to include all possible ways of saying a word, to make it possible to decrypt what someone else is saying, but they don't specify a correct diction any more.
useless
38. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4595 views
You mean your veiled insult at the poster regarding the poster's native language? I agree.
There's an implication here that the poster is unable to write working software. This is obviously false.
No, i was fascinated that he could write working software using a non-spoken language, yet couldn't construct proper sentences with a native spoken language.
You assumed that the poster could not construct proper sentences in the written form of a native spoken language simply because of an error that could be the result of a two-keystroke typo?
There must be more to it than that. If this was the case, then you'd be advocating a very high standard that even you have demonstrated that you couldn't achieve.
My honest congrats to him weren't sarcastic. I have known people who could barely speak at all but were amazing at electronics repair (for instance). My mother memorised vast amounts of data for an advanced college degree when i was in high school, yet her writing was on par with 8th grade, and i edited all her homework for her.
I'm not sure that I believe this. A two-keystroke typo resulted in a congrats for being .. average? Almost average?
This would be considerably more plausible for someone who couldn't string two sentences together, or was completely mute, or had severe dyslexia. A congrats for missing an apostrophe and the letter e?
Even if this is true, your congrats to the poster and your later statement withdrawing it contain implied insults that are obvious to any fluent reader of modern English. You really can't see it?
Even if THAT is true, I consider the honest inability (or at least the lack of serious effort) to check your own statements for these kinds of double meanings far more serious than bad spelling.
Considering how much my words are screwed up passing thru other people's language filters, perhaps i should never post any followups to any initial post i make here.
On the one hand, there would be a loss as your followup posts may have contained useful information that now will not exist. If you aren't around to explain why a "refutation" is incorrect, readers may assume that you didn't respond because you accepted that you were mistaken in your original post and agree completely with the reply.
On the other hand, there are certainly more productive things you can spend your time doing and (within reason) you should not put these forums above your own emotional health. A balance must be struck.
My half of a cent would be to try it out and see if it helps.
39. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4580 views
... she meant "many" instead of "mini" (they are pronounced differently) ...
Ever visited Christchurch or Johannesburg?
I'd like to visit Christchurch (despite the name), not so much Johannesburg.
What you said earlier, Derek, about different pronunciations in different countries (to make this simple, lets say english-speaking usa, UK, NZ, Oz, and some of India and Malaysia and SA), got me thinking about a scenario in which people who program in Eu got togther to meet in real life, and couldn't understand each other speaking the Eu keywords, but understood the written code perfectly.
As a professional coder, I can't recall a situtation where I've had to discuss code verbally without having a copy (on-screen or on print) of the code in front of me. Admittedly, I've never been to a hacker space.
Would it be decided how to pronounce anything in the interest of easier and speedier communication? If i pronounce "cat" as "cow", wouldn't it make for tedious conversation to understand not feeding "cow" milk to infants? If i had a horrible southern drawl, and pronounced "while" as "wall", and had a wonderful 3D drawing program with a wall() function, wouldn't you get tripped up sometimes in discussing the program? They do that here. What if i had a hydrology program and pronounced "well" as "whale"? They do that here.
Tedious perhaps, but hardly insurmountable. One could just use body language and hand gestures while speaking to clarify.
If this were done over the telephone, this is still easy to deal with. Simply add on more verbage.
E.g. feline cat milk vs dairy cow milk, do-while-loop type while vs graphical wall function, constructed and drilled wells vs mammalian whales.
Once upon a time, dictionaries carried one way of diction, so that anyone saying that word spoke it as anyone else, and communication was possible. Now, dictionaries are being modified to include all possible ways of saying a word, to make it possible to decrypt what someone else is saying, but they don't specify a correct diction any more.
What time period was this? Would this be before or after the spelling of English was standardised? Which standard?
40. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 10, 2012
- 4599 views
Actually, if i may nitpick,
This is acceptable to me.
i meant "Let's see you have the guts to do it.", without the "if". To me, the "if" implies determining only if the "guts to do it" exist, whereas leaving out the "if" implies following thru (through) with the detonation.
Ok, so "Let's see if you have the guts to do it." is the same as "Let us see whether or not you are brave enough to do it."
On the other hand, "Let's see you have the guts to do it." is the same as "Let us see not only whether or not you are brave enough to do it, but whether or not you actually carry it out."
I wouldn't have been able to see the implication without having it pointed out explicitly.
I was rather upset. I did typo the "let's", leaving out the "'", i wasn't bothering to go back and correct it.
That's what I thought. I believe that you and the original poster and I can use our time more efficiently than rereading all of our posts and trying to correct every single typo in them. My posts alone would probably take a massive effort to bring up to shape.
41. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4637 views
You mean your veiled insult at the poster regarding the poster's native language? I agree.
There's an implication here that the poster is unable to write working software. This is obviously false.
No, i was fascinated that he could write working software using a non-spoken language, yet couldn't construct proper sentences with a native spoken language.
You assumed that the poster could not construct proper sentences in the written form of a native spoken language simply because of an error that could be the result of a two-keystroke typo?
There must be more to it than that. If this was the case, then you'd be advocating a very high standard that even you have demonstrated that you couldn't achieve.
My honest congrats to him weren't sarcastic. I have known people who could barely speak at all but were amazing at electronics repair (for instance). My mother memorised vast amounts of data for an advanced college degree when i was in high school, yet her writing was on par with 8th grade, and i edited all her homework for her.
I'm not sure that I believe this. A two-keystroke typo resulted in a congrats for being .. average? Almost average?
This would be considerably more plausible for someone who couldn't string two sentences together, or was completely mute, or had severe dyslexia. A congrats for missing an apostrophe and the letter e?
Even if this is true, your congrats to the poster and your later statement withdrawing it contain implied insults that are obvious to any fluent reader of modern English. You really can't see it?
Even if THAT is true, I consider the honest inability (or at least the lack of serious effort) to check your own statements for these kinds of double meanings far more serious than bad spelling.
Considering how much my words are screwed up passing thru other people's language filters, perhaps i should never post any followups to any initial post i make here.
On the one hand, there would be a loss as your followup posts may have contained useful information that now will not exist. If you aren't around to explain why a "refutation" is incorrect, readers may assume that you didn't respond because you accepted that you were mistaken in your original post and agree completely with the reply.
On the other hand, there are certainly more productive things you can spend your time doing and (within reason) you should not put these forums above your own emotional health. A balance must be struck.
My half of a cent would be to try it out and see if it helps.
Response to troll.
useless
42. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4663 views
Actually, if i may nitpick,
This is acceptable to me.
i meant "Let's see you have the guts to do it.", without the "if". To me, the "if" implies determining only if the "guts to do it" exist, whereas leaving out the "if" implies following thru (through) with the detonation.
Ok, so "Let's see if you have the guts to do it." is the same as "Let us see whether or not you are brave enough to do it."
On the other hand, "Let's see you have the guts to do it." is the same as "Let us see not only whether or not you are brave enough to do it, but whether or not you actually carry it out."
I wouldn't have been able to see the implication without having it pointed out explicitly.
I was rather upset. I did typo the "let's", leaving out the "'", i wasn't bothering to go back and correct it.
That's what I thought. I believe that you and the original poster and I can use our time more efficiently than rereading all of our posts and trying to correct every single typo in them. My posts alone would probably take a massive effort to bring up to shape.
Response to troll.
useless
Forked into: Off Topic: Long-Standing Moratorium on Trolling
43. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 10, 2012
- 4600 views
... she meant "many" instead of "mini" (they are pronounced differently) ...
Ever visited Christchurch or Johannesburg?
I'd like to visit Christchurch (despite the name), not so much Johannesburg.
What you said earlier, Derek, about different pronunciations in different countries (to make this simple, lets say english-speaking usa, UK, NZ, Oz, and some of India and Malaysia and SA), got me thinking about a scenario in which people who program in Eu got togther to meet in real life, and couldn't understand each other speaking the Eu keywords, but understood the written code perfectly.
As a professional coder, I can't recall a situtation where I've had to discuss code verbally without having a copy (on-screen or on print) of the code in front of me. Admittedly, I've never been to a hacker space.
Would it be decided how to pronounce anything in the interest of easier and speedier communication? If i pronounce "cat" as "cow", wouldn't it make for tedious conversation to understand not feeding "cow" milk to infants? If i had a horrible southern drawl, and pronounced "while" as "wall", and had a wonderful 3D drawing program with a wall() function, wouldn't you get tripped up sometimes in discussing the program? They do that here. What if i had a hydrology program and pronounced "well" as "whale"? They do that here.
Tedious perhaps, but hardly insurmountable. One could just use body language and hand gestures while speaking to clarify.
If this were done over the telephone, this is still easy to deal with. Simply add on more verbage.
E.g. feline cat milk vs dairy cow milk, do-while-loop type while vs graphical wall function, constructed and drilled wells vs mammalian whales.
Once upon a time, dictionaries carried one way of diction, so that anyone saying that word spoke it as anyone else, and communication was possible. Now, dictionaries are being modified to include all possible ways of saying a word, to make it possible to decrypt what someone else is saying, but they don't specify a correct diction any more.
What time period was this? Would this be before or after the spelling of English was standardised? Which standard?
Response to troll.
useless
44. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by AndyDrummond Apr 11, 2012
- 4537 views
Bad grammar and poor spelling is not a sign of originality or individuality but of laziness. Possibly of ignorance, but that smacks of being insulting which I do not intend.
None of this is true for a person who has learned English as a Second Language in adulthood. That person can make every effort to speak, pronounce, and write perfect english, but it is a rare case when that person's grammar is perfect or when that person's accent is identical to a native speaker's.
What is your view on typos?
I nearly added a codicil on typographical errors, but I felt that there would be a more exciting response if I left the whole question hanging.
Yes, people who have learnt English (or whichever language in being considered) as a second language are not going to know the grammar, syntax, vocabulary or idioms. It's the Tower of Babel syndrome; we can't understand each other without considerable work.
I am having an exciting email correspondence with a Chinese lady. Believe me when I say that the difficulties of communication are considerably worse when you don't even have a vaguely related orthography, let alone a commonality of perspective. But it is highly eductational, though more for her than for me. I merely use Babelfish or similar. She actually writes English!
But there is a similar problem when you use several different computer languages. I began with Mercury Autocode in 1968, progressed to Fortran, Basic, Intel 4004 assembler, many other assemblers, C, Cplusplus (which I persoanlly hate), and, of course, Euphoria. In each case there is a significant re-learning exercise. I find I add semicolons on the ends of statements in Euphoria (which it complains of) or use slash-slash comment delimiters. And so it goes on. Flexibility in a computer language can make the transition much easier, and aid the new programmer in picking up the language and running with it. The best of Euphoria is the sequence idea (nice one, Rob!) because it separates you from a lot of strictly unnessary extra coding and simplifies the use of arrays and structures.
45. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 11, 2012
- 4506 views
I just ran across this one:
Paranormal writer Michael Cohen said of the latest supposed spot: 'NASA recently admitted that there is a good chance that aliens are monitoring are civilization through the use of 'unmanned' probes.
on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073132/Russian-protesters-distracted-UFO-Moscow-demo-Vladimir-Putin.html.
I presume the author, Chris Parsons, is english, and is writing for a Brit paper. And he doesn't know "are" and "our" are different words which are not pronounced the same.
useless
46. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Apr 11, 2012
- 4458 views
... I presume the author, Chris Parsons, is english, and is writing for a Brit paper. And he doesn't know "are" and "our" are different words which are not pronounced the same ...
Or, some editor got the copy wrong. The more probable reason is simply a typo.
47. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jaygade Apr 12, 2012
- 4446 views
And in less-than-formal speaking, "are" and "our" are remarkably similar enough as to be the same.
I sometimes, though not always, pronounce them the same way.
- shrug*
48. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 12, 2012
- 4465 views
And in less-than-formal speaking, "are" and "our" are remarkably similar enough as to be the same.
But not in writing!
I sometimes, though not always, pronounce them the same way.
- shrug*
I always pronounce the 'u' in "our", which is easy since there's no 'a' sound in it like "are".
useless
49. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 12, 2012
- 4477 views
And in less-than-formal speaking, "are" and "our" are remarkably similar enough as to be the same.
I sometimes, though not always, pronounce them the same way.
*shrug*
Dictionary.com agrees that they have overlapping pronounciations (they can both be pronounced "ahr").
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/are?db=%252A http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/our?db=%252A
50. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by bill Apr 12, 2012
- 4380 views
'I never look for my reveal til its ben.' ...
Ready to cry ready to dy ready for any thing is how I come to it now.
In fear and tremmering only not running a way. In emtyness and ready to be fult.
Not to lern no body nothing I cant even lern my oan self all I can do is try not
to get in front of whats coming. Jus try to keap out of the way of it.
- from Riddley Walker
Ambiguity has its uses
51. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by Lnettnay Apr 12, 2012
- 4540 views
And now here's something we hope you'll really like (shades of Rocky the squirrel). http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/can-you-pronounce-all-these-words-correctly?
Lonny
52. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 22, 2012
- 3955 views
Here's another that i see every day that gets me every time, because it explicitly says the wrong thing:
<quote>
"The assert is intended to only execute the test during the development phase of the application."
</quote>
Obviously, it's not meant to only execute the test, it's also supposed to take some action based on the test result. Also, this line doesn't specify what happens at any other time, it doesn't rule out the test executing during non-development time.
The word "only" seems to be getting placed as far away as possible from the word or phrase it's modifing. In this case, i believe the sentence should be:
"The assert is intended to execute the test only during the development phase of the application."
useless
53. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 23, 2012
- 4068 views
Here's another that i see every day that gets me every time, because it explicitly says the wrong thing:
<quote>
"The assert is intended to only execute the test during the development phase of the application."
</quote>
I'm not sure that it does. At the very least, the intended meaning seems obvious from the context. Alone, the sentence is arguably ambiguous, but since it is not ambiguous in context, I don't see a problem. Your version of it, below, has the same problem.
The word "only" seems to be getting placed as far away as possible from the word or phrase it's modifing. In this case, i believe the sentence should be:
"The assert is intended to execute the test only during the development phase of the application."
You mean that the adverb "only" should be modifying the phrase "during the development phase of the application" as opposed to "to execute the test" ?
I disagree. The previous statement to that ("It always executes the test.", available here: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/m/118018.wc ) has the adverb preceding the verb "execute". It makes sense that the following sentence would want to modify the same verb in an analogous way.
Additionally, the phrase "during the development phase of the application" is a adverbial phrase that describes time, and it modifies the preceding verb, "to execute".
Regardless, your version of the sentence is grammatically correct and clearly have the same meaning. It places an adverb ("only") describing the manner of the verb ("to execute") immediately after the verb and its noun ("the test"), and follows with an adverbial phrase describing the time. It also avoids the use of a split infinitive, unlike the original.
(Ever since Star Trek, I have embarked on a campaign to boldly make use of split infinitives whenever possible.)
In this sense, aside from the position of the adverbs, the two sentences are grammatically and logically identical. This means that both sentences should share the same level of ambiguity.
I don't believe that there is anything wrong with having one adverb preceding the verb and another adverb at the end of the sentence, however. This may make sense for stylistic reasons, e.g. to convery emphasis. For example:
"Andy always reads a comic every afternoon." (Original taken from here: http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/adverbs_position.htm)
Obviously, it's not meant to only execute the test, it's also supposed to take some action based on the test result.
Not necessarily. Based on the test result, no action may be taken at all. In fact, this is the ideal scenario.
Also, this line doesn't specify what happens at any other time,
Your version also fails to explicitly specify what happens at non-development time.
54. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by useless_ Apr 24, 2012
- 3767 views
Jimcbrown , i believe you'd argue with me if i said the moon orbits the earth.
useless
55. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 25, 2012
- 3717 views
Regardless, your version of the sentence is grammatically correct and clearly have the same meaning. It places an adverb ("only") describing the manner of the verb ("to execute") immediately after the verb and its noun ("the test"), and follows with an adverbial phrase describing the time. It also avoids the use of a split infinitive, unlike the original.
(Ever since Star Trek, I have embarked on a campaign to boldly make use of split infinitives whenever possible.)
In this sense, aside from the position of the adverbs, the two sentences are grammatically and logically identical. This means that both sentences should share the same level of ambiguity.
To clarify, what I meant was that someone could read your version of the sentence
In this case, i believe the sentence should be:
"The assert is intended to execute the test only during the development phase of the application."
and still parse it as "execute ... only" (instead of "to execute" and "only during") and still understand the meaning as "to perform the action of execution by itself without performing any other action".
The word "only" seems to be getting placed as far away as possible from the word or phrase it's modifing.
Ironicly, your version moves the adverb further away from the verb that it's modifying.
56. Re: Off Topic: English Grammar, Spelling, colloquialisms, etc.
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 25, 2012
- 3728 views
Jimcbrown , i believe you'd argue with me if i said the moon orbits the earth.
Nah, you can't fight the truth.
Like I said before, if I see something that I believe is incorrect or inaccurate, then I like to respond with my point of view. The identity of the other person or group of people typically does not matter.
