On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:52:11 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith [...] wrote:
> > We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't
> > need that annoying unicode stuff). When you say,
> > "effort to be understandable", what you're really saying
> > is, "everybody should be just like me". Unfortunately,
> > that's not going to happen. Or maybe fortunately, since
> > variety and exploring different cultures is part of what
> > makes life interesting.
Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
beneficial to ones understanding of the world.
However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
chastising the people who are complaining about the
offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.
Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
variation of English, you fail to realize that this
"regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
mean what the *majority* of English speaking world
understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
his region.
It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:
My curflabals are:
1. blah
2. blah
...
My boygenjoygens are:
1. blah
2. blah
...
In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
author is trying to tell us.
So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
*specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
(inquisitiveness).
HOWEVER,
When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
but his request is the result of an internal emotional
distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.
HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.
Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.
But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...
============================================================
> > When you say, "effort to be understandable", what you're
> > really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
============================================================
That sword can cut both ways friend.
But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
objective point of view.
Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
"doubt" should mean.
Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
impartial?
"We shall consult the oracle!"
In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
peck into a keyboard.
Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.
Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
problem for us, eh?
============================================================
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
============================================================
Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!
============================================================
The reality, if you choose to believe it:
============================================================
But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?
============================================================
The result, if you choose to fight it.
============================================================
"Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
"Rick has done it again!"
"A new home-run record!"
> That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all
> learn to avoid. I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a
> rough prototype, but when I started communicating
> internationally more, I consciously started saying
> "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain
> groups of people
What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
sophistry!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
