Uri Guttman wrote:
> JP> y/L/A/;
>
> tell that to perllol :)
I do, through clenched teeth, every time I see it.
"Perl: Laughing Out Loud" :-)
> the 'ian' suffix is overkill. think
> about all the classic mathematical transforms and they don't append
> 'ian' to the person's name. fourier, laplace, etc.
I find tons of counter-examples.
Lorentzian. Newtonian. Langrangian. Smithsonian.
Brownian. Wronskian. Boolean. Gaussian.
Keplerian. Orwellian. Hegelian. Russellian.
Gregorian. Dickensian. Cartesian.
Bayesian. Edwardian. Lucasian.
Pavlovian. Euclidean. Laplacian. Darwinian.
Hamiltonian. Jeffersonian.
etc.
I don't think adding "-ian" to a name to make it an
adjective is particularly bizarre. It also doesn't
seem to violate any rules of grammer that I know of.
And there's nothing special about a transform, that different
rules would apply to it anyway.
> maybe schwartzian sounds better
Indeed; afaict, how a proper noun is converted into an
adjective seems to depend *entirely* on how it sounds.
There's no reason it couldn't be "Hawkingian radiation"
except that absolutely no one would say that!
--
John Porter
Useless use of time in void context.
