Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Tony Firshman wrote: Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted? Argh! See infinity. You can't count the points on a line (finite or infinite length). They are plural, but not countable. -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: Tony Firshman wrote: Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted? Argh! See infinity. You can't count the points on a line (finite or infinite length). They are plural, but not countable. Maybe then one should think the other way round. There can be one point, therefore fewer applies. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
- Original Message - From: David Tubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes At 10:38 02/06/2006 +0100, you wrote: Reading through them you might think that you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops' Mentioned in the first posts under this heading. news group, rather than Ql-users! Please, please get back on topic! Cheers Colin I am sure you are more than welcome to make a contribution, pose a problem or question. Well maybe it's gone on a bit but I don't mind a bit of off topic banter, how many friends meet at workshops and talk QL and nought but QL all day. Only two exceptions; the usual two, politics and religion and thankfully this list never seems to fall into that one. trust I got all the dots in the right places Tony (;-) All the best - Bill ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
David Tubbs wrote: Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote: Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable, and went onto my infinity theme. Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the picking. Not my nit. TF's definition sounded wrong, somehow. I mentioned it to someone else. They gave me the correct (or should that be a /more/ correct) rule: Use 'fewer' iff plural. No mention of counting. Who else uses iff for if, and only if,? All the logicians and mathematicians, stand up please. The rest of you (philosophers excepted, if they exist) can sit down. but does the of a finite line by the zero magnitude of the point need such a bulky demo ? I don't think I understand your banter... I never mentioned a finite line or a zero magnitude and I don't suffer from BD. -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: David Tubbs wrote: Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote: Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable, and went onto my infinity theme. Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the picking. Not my nit. TF's definition sounded wrong, somehow. I mentioned it to someone else. They gave me the correct (or should that be a /more/ correct) rule: Use 'fewer' iff plural. No mention of counting. Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted? Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Την Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:00:43 -0400,ο(η) Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε: Laurence Reeves wrote: David Tubbs wrote: Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote: Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable, and went onto my infinity theme. Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the picking. Not my nit. TF's definition sounded wrong, somehow. I mentioned it to someone else. They gave me the correct (or should that be a /more/ correct) rule: Use 'fewer' iff plural. No mention of counting. Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted? Tony Not everything with a plural can be quantified: See for example waters as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico... You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix it with amounts. There is a plural in waters however you cannot say fewer in that case :-) I do not know therefore if this case in an exception (like most things in English) however your definition covers it, while the plural one doesn't. So I choose your definition: fewer iff quantifiable :-) Cheers, Ffibys -- Phoebus R. Dokos - B.Sc (Hons) in Management Information Systems ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Phoebus R. Dokos wrote: Not everything with a plural can be quantified: See for example waters as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico... You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix it with amounts. There is a plural in waters however you cannot say fewer in that case :-) I do not know therefore if this case in an exception (like most things in English) however your definition covers it, while the plural one doesn't. So I choose your definition: fewer iff quantifiable :-) That is indeed an exception, but that is what makes English interesting. I reckon though the vast majority will fit this 'rule'. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 13:21 04/06/2006 -0400, you wrote: Not everything with a plural can be quantified: See for example waters as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico... You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix it with amounts. There is a plural in waters however you cannot say fewer in that case :-) I do not know therefore if this case in an exception (like most things in English) however your definition covers it, while the plural one doesn't. So I choose your definition: fewer iff quantifiable :-) Cheers, Ffibys Try numerous instead of countable or plural. As to waters, I would think it a collective n' therefor singular. Will anyone speak of fewer waters ? In the Gulf or elsewhere, then again, bottled waters . . . . -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 02/06/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 10:38 02/06/2006 +0100, you wrote: Reading through them you might think that you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops' Mentioned in the first posts under this heading. news group, rather than Ql-users! Please, please get back on topic! Cheers Colin I am sure you are more than welcome to make a contribution, pose a problem or question. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 02/06/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:14:19AM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote: John Taylor wrote: Lau There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. Eh? 'People' is plural. Of course, people often use the awful plural 'persons' Ah, but you can have The peoples of the world meaning the multiple sets of people contained within the Universe. Or, to be even more tortuous, you can have something pertaining to multiple sets of people and then you can use peoples'. Don't you just love english grammar? Steve -- --- Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
For the last 12 days this list has been dominated by a discussion regarding English grammar, hardly on topic. Reading through them you might think that you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops' news group, rather than Ql-users! Please, please get back on topic! Cheers Colin On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:14:19AM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote: John Taylor wrote: Lau There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. Eh? 'People' is plural. Of course, people often use the awful plural 'persons' Ah, but you can have The peoples of the world meaning the multiple sets of people contained within the Universe. Or, to be even more tortuous, you can have something pertaining to multiple sets of people and then you can use peoples'. Don't you just love english grammar? Steve -- --- Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On 31 May 2006, at 14:29, Laurence Reeves wrote: Can I go sit quietly in the corner now? I am sure you are capable of that action. You would know best, so why ask us? Or perhaps you mean May I . . . George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Morning Lau, BIG SNIP (and I used that that that without qualms I might be able to do better : The owner of the Dog And Duck pub wanted a new sign painting and employed a craftsman to do so. (You can tell how old this joke is, there are no craftsmen left !) When done, he went to admire the work and said you seem to have left too much space between Dog and and and and and Duck. PEPS. Infinity. I considered introducing infinity in Minerva, but I wouldn't have been happy with just the one. Nope, you can't just have one, you have to have an infinty of them, apparently. Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Lynn Truss missed this one. Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing John. On 1 Jun 2006, at 01:22, Tony Firshman wrote: Laurence Reeves wrote: snip A la TF, A le TF surely (8-)# I deplore the loss of meaning specificity that a missed apostrophe causes Punctuation rules! Eats shoots and leaves. (Probably, has a diet of both parts of a plant). Eats shoots, and leaves. (Consumes some young bean plants in a Chinky(bleugh!), say, then exits). Eats, shoots and leaves. (Has a meal, fires a gun and departs). Eats, shoots, and leaves. (Ditto, but often with a little less ambiguity) (Ambiguity? A gun? How so?). .. and another Lynn Truss one: The judge, said the prisoner, was mad. The judge said the prisoner was mad. Totally opposite meanings. It is precisely for this reason that punctuation is not allowed in legal documents. However this results in totally incomprehensible sentences to non lawyers! Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves writes: PPS. Tony still hasn't told me whether he'd like to have fewer or less computable numbers than points in a (mathematical) line. Id vote for fewer because the words numbers and points represent discrete objects. The reason it is confusing is that we are mixing up the implication of the sentence with the meaning of the words. Thats my current theory anyway. Go on, tear it to sheds! ;) Shouldnt the above be PS? PPS only follows a PS, surely? PEPS. Infinity. I considered introducing infinity in Minerva, but I wouldn't have been happy with just the one. What is PEPS? Shouldnt that be PPS? or, following on from the paragraph above, PPPS? Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
John Taylor writes: Lynn Truss missed this one. Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing Shouldnt that be: Lynne Truss? Missed this one. See E,SL p9 Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Per I don't think so, my daughter has my copy, but where is the apostrophe in shouldnt? John. On 1 Jun 2006, at 10:24, P Witte wrote: John Taylor writes: Lynn Truss missed this one. Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing Shouldnt that be: Lynne Truss? Missed this one. See E,SL p9 Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Not only did the Ancient Greeks develop a great language they understood human nature quite well. At least if this is an accurate quote/translation: A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. Aristotle On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, [windows-1253] Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος) wrote: Την Fri, 26 May 2006 12:51:02 -0400,ο(η) John Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε: More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be remembered that English is not a fixed language. I am always deeply suspicious of people who make rules for other people. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in English? I would say that usability defines what is right. The perfect example would be Greek. Ancient Greek for example had words for almost everything. Modern Greek doesn't and as a consequence it is a lot more periphrastic now than ever.For example an average increase in word count etween Ancient and Modern Greek would sit roughly at 50%. Better (and more efficient) use of language and avoidance of one-size-fits-all words enhances the ability to communicate and reduces effort to acquire knowledge. (Not to mention the economic benefit of publishing smaller-sized books, reports etc.) :-) Ffibys___QL-Users Mailing Listhttp://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Την Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:31:04 -0400,ο(η) Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε: Not only did the Ancient Greeks develop a great language they understood human nature quite well. At least if this is an accurate quote/translation: A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. Aristotle No wonder Noam Tsomsky writes so well... he's copying him verbatim :-) And of course we know whom that passage suits perfectly ;-) hehehehe Ffibys ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
PS. (this is a Pre-script, just for variety). I've always liked: While marking their work, the teacher noted that John had written had, whereas Jim had had had had. Had had had had the teacher's approval. Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote: One very common one now is to use 'less' for everything, where 'fewer' should be used. Less people for instance. The rule is *so* simple. If one can count the noun (ie discrete items) then it is 'fewer'. http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/lessfewer?view=uk http://www.gcse.com/english/less.htm Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable, and went onto my infinity theme. Firstly, I asked another friend about this, and he instantly said that the rule is just fewer with a plural and less if not (I think that makes sense). The plural does not have to be countable, hence there are infinitely fewer calculatable numbers than there are points on a straight line. Secondly, you might like to read the first chapter of The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose. It could give you a feel for why the number of computable numbers is countable, versus points on a line, which aren't. Thirdly, the IEEE spec actually allows a choice of one (projective) or two (affine) infinities. The projective one is an unsigned infinity, and is what happens when cartographers project the globe onto a plane. You sorta have the south pole at the center of the plane and the north pole is projected off to infinity, all round the plane. The IEEE spec does allow a few operations involving infinities. It will happily let you add anything finite to an infinity with a quibble - the infinity is not affected. It will even allow two similarly signed infinities to be added together, and remain the same, and so on. Fourthly, the main sort of mathematical infinities that crop up are the Aleph sequence (Hebrew alphabet - or should that say alephbeth?). Aleph-null is the countable infinity, aleph-one is the first non-countable infinity. Have a look on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number. Fifthly, there are other number systems that can do sums just like the conventional stuff(sic), but can handle infinity plus one as a distinct number, which you can add one to and get infinity plus 2, and so on. language head=need aspirin handy The Penrose argument about computable/countable goes roughly like this: A Turing machine can perform any function that any more complex computer (a Super-Nano-Multi-Cray, say) can do. In effect, we define a number as calculatable if there exists some Turing machine that can churn out any *specified* finite number of digits of its decimal expansion, in a finite time, and then stop. It is provable (but to spare you a little, I won't go into detail) that there exist only a countable number of Turing machines (i,e, you can give every one a serial number). Thus, at this point, which is really a lot harder than I've let on, we've got computable numbers are countable. The number of points on a line are not countable. This is most prettily proved by the diagonal slash, a reductio ad absurdum argument. Say one *could count the points on a line (say from 0 to 1). In that case, you could write them down in order: Point number 1, decimal expansion: 0.445195495... and so on... Point number 2, decimal expansion: 0.724678748... and so on... Point number 3, decimal expansion: 0.256566745... and so on... Point number 4, decimal expansion: 0.154557676... and so on... Point number 5, decimal expansion: 0.786847688... and so on... Point number 6, decimal expansion: 0.959689689... and so on... Point number 7, decimal expansion: 0.747467476... and so on... Point number 8, decimal expansion: 0.990898997... and so on... Point number 9, decimal expansion: 0.265656565... and so on... ... and so on, to countable infinity. Along comes the irritating mathematician (me) and says Hey, you've missed one out! Where's the one that goes 0.537650506. I've given the first digit as one more than the first digit of point 1, the second digit one more than the second digit of point 2, and so on (wrapping 9's back to 0's). Oh dear! you say, and disappear in a puff of logic. /language head=normal -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: PS. (this is a Pre-script, just for variety). Shouldn't that be AS: Ante Script? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Phoebus R. Dokos writes: I would say that usability defines what is right. The perfect example would be Greek. Ancient Greek for example had words for almost everything. Modern Greek doesn't and as a consequence it is a lot more periphrastic now than ever. For example an average increase in word count etween Ancient and Modern Greek would sit roughly at 50%. Better (and more efficient) use of language and avoidance of one-size-fits-all words enhances the ability to communicate and reduces effort to acquire knowledge. (Not to mention the economic benefit of publishing smaller-sized books, reports etc.) :-) Isnt that just another variant of that old RISC/CISC chestnut? ;) Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness. The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections. Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation. And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you so. John Taylor On 30 May 2006, at 20:49, Tony Firshman wrote: George Gwilt wrote: On 29 May 2006, at 13:16, Tony Firshman wrote: Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural. Surely you mean 'You and I are the plural'. (8-)# No Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert Newson wrote: She is nicer than me and you. is wrong, it should be: She is nicer than you and I. or She is nicer than I and you. 'Fraid not. Replace nicer with heavier and it becomes obvious that in the above you almost certainly should have said or not and, and the verb is then is. I'm trying quite hard to think what it might mean, should one person be nicer than a pair of other people? P.S. I've just found out that I've probably got Asperger's, which is nice, because: a) I can say the first comment above. b) I can use the Oxford comma (even though I went to the other one), and can get away with it. b) I can have the last word. c) I can stop putting the toilet seat down. d) I can have two B's (which I happen to prefer with the apostrophe (on subject! even if not on list), even though current usage dictates(sic) otherwise) and not get so worried about worrying about it (or nested parentheses, or dissimilar capitalisation, or these multiple or's, which might have worked as ORs, but would've been really uncomfortable as ors, in the same way that the B's couldn't have been bs, but could have been b's or Bs (or bees?)) anymore (where, by the time you got to that anymore, I willing to bet that that word threw you, as you'd entirely lost the thread of the sentence by then) (and I used that that that without qualms) (and now I'm getting silly) (now?). (Try saying all that without taking a breath). PPS. Tony still hasn't told me whether he'd like to have fewer or less computable numbers than points in a (mathematical) line. PEPS. Infinity. I considered introducing infinity in Minerva, but I wouldn't have been happy with just the one. -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
John Taylor wrote: I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness. The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections. Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation. And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you so. And... should we put the missing apostrophe before or after the s in peoples? -- Lau http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
John Taylor wrote: Lau There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. John. On 31 May 2006, at 13:01, Laurence Reeves wrote: John Taylor wrote: I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness. The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections. Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation. And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you so. And... should we put the missing apostrophe before or after the s in peoples Other than exceptions (where would english be without exceptions?), such as its, yours, etc, possessive forms have an apostrophe. The problem with peoples is that the people might be the simple plural of person (persons is so yucky), when the apostrophe will go before the s - giving the most common way to form the possessive: stick apostrophe ess at the end. Alternatively, people might be the singular noun for an ethnic group, or some such (e.g. The ancient peoples of the southern chunk of America were the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, Toltecs, Olmecs, Moches, Mixtecs, Nazcas...)). In this case, peoples would be pluralising the groups, when, to form the possessive, the apostrophe would come at the end. I suspect you intended people's -- A la TF, I deplore the loss of meaning specificity that a missed apostrophe causes Punctuation rules! Eats shoots and leaves. (Probably, has a diet of both parts of a plant). Eats shoots, and leaves. (Consumes some young bean plants in a Chinky(bleugh!), say, then exits). Eats, shoots and leaves. (Has a meal, fires a gun and departs). Eats, shoots, and leaves. (Ditto, but often with a little less ambiguity) (Ambiguity? A gun? How so?). Can I go sit quietly in the corner now? -- Lau (pedantic - and proud of it) http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com) Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll get the commission! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 13:30 31/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. John. But do you mean the Pidgeon and bastardisation of English by peoples around the world or correcting another person's English -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 30/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
George Gwilt wrote: On 30 May 2006, at 20:49, Tony Firshman wrote: On 29 May 2006, at 13:16, Tony Firshman wrote: Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural. Surely you mean 'You and I are the plural'. (8-)# No Ah. So You and I are not the plural. You and I is a collective expression. ie it *is* a pair! Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: Robert Newson wrote: She is nicer than me and you. is wrong, it should be: She is nicer than you and I. or She is nicer than I and you. 'Fraid not. Replace nicer with heavier and it becomes obvious that in the above you almost certainly should have said or not and, and the verb is then is. I'm trying quite hard to think what it might mean, should one person be nicer than a pair of other people? P.S. I've just found out that I've probably got Asperger's, which is nice, because: a) I can say the first comment above. b) I can use the Oxford comma (even though I went to the other one), and can get away with it. b) I can have the last word. c) I can stop putting the toilet seat down. d) I can have two B's (which I happen to prefer with the apostrophe (on subject! even if not on list), even though current usage dictates(sic) otherwise) and not get so worried about worrying about it (or nested parentheses, or dissimilar capitalisation, or these multiple or's, which might have worked as ORs, but would've been really uncomfortable as ors, in the same way that the B's couldn't have been bs, but could have been b's or Bs (or bees?)) anymore (where, by the time you got to that anymore, I willing to bet that that word threw you, as you'd entirely lost the thread of the sentence by then) (and I used that that that without qualms) (and now I'm getting silly) (now?). (Try saying all that without taking a breath). .. I like the 'little professor' analogy: http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html It is funny how late in life one can discover 'problems'. Ben (my son for those not in the know) was diagnosed Dyslexic a few years ago. Sarah (my wife) was diagnosed as Dyslexic at age 9 in school, when she had only just started catching up with reading/writing. She ended up with two degrees! so she got the blame at that stage. A QL man (forget his name, but he is high up in the British Dyslexia Assocn) gave me a list of 10 things to measure against Ben - five or more matches signals Dyslexia. I looked at them and quickly forgot Ben! I fitted 9 out of 10 very closely. The most revealing was 'Finds learning by rote difficult (languages etc) but is good at subjects that involve analysis and lateral thinking (science etc) but can be good at art and photography. This fitted my school days so exactly that I got a 'hairs of the back on neck' moment - and again now. Poor Ben did not stand a chance (8-)# ... but Dyslexia was not known until well after I left school! It just shows that one just gets on with life and never mind what is 'wrong' with oneself. PPS. Tony still hasn't told me whether he'd like to have fewer or less computable numbers than points in a (mathematical) line. I thought I did. fewer, or maybe I did not understand the question (more likely) (8-)# Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
John Taylor wrote: Lau There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. Eh? 'People' is plural. Of course, people often use the awful plural 'persons' Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
David Tubbs wrote: At 13:30 31/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case peoples is plural. John. But do you mean the Pidgeon and bastardisation of English by peoples around the world or correcting another person's English I do of course. However I have never been told off by any non-English native speaker. Phoebus for instance positively *demands* it. If I was writing/talking French to someone (very badly of course) I would hope that I would be corrected. How on earth can one improve otherwise? Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: snip A la TF, A le TF surely (8-)# I deplore the loss of meaning specificity that a missed apostrophe causes Punctuation rules! Eats shoots and leaves. (Probably, has a diet of both parts of a plant). Eats shoots, and leaves. (Consumes some young bean plants in a Chinky(bleugh!), say, then exits). Eats, shoots and leaves. (Has a meal, fires a gun and departs). Eats, shoots, and leaves. (Ditto, but often with a little less ambiguity) (Ambiguity? A gun? How so?). .. and another Lynn Truss one: The judge, said the prisoner, was mad. The judge said the prisoner was mad. Totally opposite meanings. It is precisely for this reason that punctuation is not allowed in legal documents. However this results in totally incomprehensible sentences to non lawyers! Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst on the subject, are the angels dancing on the head of my pin male or female ? Neuter. According to my Sunday School (granted many years ago so things may have changed), onve you die and are elevated to the rank of Angel, you are sexless. Sounds pretty boring to me. Which does beg the question, how exactly did 'the Angel of the Lord' manage to impregnate Mary then :o) Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
George Gwilt wrote: On 29 May 2006, at 13:16, Tony Firshman wrote: Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural. Surely you mean 'You and I are the plural'. (8-)# No Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert Newson wrote: Tony Firshman wrote: ... She is nicer than me and you /are/. Now you see why it's wrong. Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are. As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am. I was referring to the 'correct' She is nicer than than you and I (are) Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Tony Firshman wrote: ... Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are. As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am. I was referring to the 'correct' She is nicer than than you and I (are) As I thought, but shirley you and I, the subject of the missing/implicit verb is plural (together as one pronoun: we) and so would use are and not am? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert wrote - As I thought, but shirley you and I, the subject of the missing/implicit verb is plural (together as one pronoun: we) and so would use are and not am? = I bet I'm not the only one what would like to meet shirley! What fun ;) John in Wales -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.2/349 - Release Date: 26/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert Newson wrote: Tony Firshman wrote: ... Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are. As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am. I was referring to the 'correct' She is nicer than than you and I (are) As I thought, but shirley you and I, the subject of the missing/implicit verb is plural (together as one pronoun: we) and so would use are and not am? Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Thanks Tony re: the gnokii software and a serial interface. (http://bryns.org.uk) === David wrote - Whilst on the subject, are the angels dancing on the head of my pin male or female ? = Has it been hissed That the jist Of this list Has been missed? Whatever happened to 'QL-Chat'?! :) Cheers, John in Wales. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.2/349 - Release Date: 26/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On 27 May 2006, at 18:00, Dilwyn Jones wrote: Except I can't remember who wrote that one originally. Shaw? Yes GBS didit George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert Newson writes: John Taylor wrote: More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. And often wrong: She is nicer than me and you. is wrong, it should be: She is nicer than you and I. or She is nicer than I and you. Why? There's a missing (implicit?) verb: She is nicer than me and you /are/. Now you see why it's wrong. All well and good, but most of the time it doesnt matter (though its good to learn the language properly in the first place). Sometimes even the most precise and correct language cannot convey 1's meaning (hence the use of emoticons in text comms, 4x ;) Fools try to change the world. The wise conform. Without fools the world would never change! Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Robert Newson wrote: John Taylor wrote: More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. And often wrong: She is nicer than me and you. is wrong, it should be: She is nicer than you and I. or She is nicer than I and you. Why? There's a missing (implicit?) verb: She is nicer than me and you /are/. Now you see why it's wrong. Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Tony Firshman wrote: ... She is nicer than me and you /are/. Now you see why it's wrong. Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are. As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On 26 May 2006, at 18:22, Tony Firshman wrote: As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it has to, or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of meaning. sine die? George ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Dilwyn Jones wrote: As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it has to, or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of meaning. sine die? George Any language where you can spell fish as ghoti cannot possibly be dull. gh = f as gh in rough o=i as o in women ti=sh as ti in potion Except I can't remember who wrote that one originally. Shaw? Yes indeed. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
David Tubbs schreef: At 00:31 26/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at infinity the answer must be less. OOOps, boobed did not mean that, obviosly fewer ! But curiously still a lesser number. Would 'a smaller number' be correct here too? François Van Emelen ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote: Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers (countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or fewer? Ah, but this assumes that space-time doesn't have a finite smallest unit of distance. If there's quantum space and quantum time then the number of points on a straight line will be finite and countable, as would be the time it takes to count them. Steve -- --- Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
- David Gilham - The universe is a queer place --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:59:39 +0100 On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote: Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers (countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or fewer? Ah, but this assumes that space-time doesn't have a finite smallest unit of distance. If there's quantum space and quantum time then the number of points on a straight line will be finite and countable, as would be the time it takes to count them. I think there is a category error , lawrence is talking about the idealised mathematical line which has an uncountable infinite number of points and steve is considering the physical line which migh or might not have a countable number of points. you are comparing apples with pairs - David Gilham ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Stephen Usher scripsit:: On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote: Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers (countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or fewer? Ah, but this assumes that space-time doesn't have a finite smallest unit of distance. If there's quantum space and quantum time then the number of points on a straight line will be finite and countable, as would be the time it takes to count them. No, you do not get it. It's not a problem of physics, it's a problem of grammar! The initial problem is that IN ENGLISH countable quantities should be compared with fewer, whereas uncountable quantities should be compared with less. There is less milk in my glass than in yours. There are fewer peas in my dish than in yours. Now, due to some lacks of the educational system (is that english ?), as well as everyone in the world stating that they speak english when in fact they are only able to reproduce the basic scheme of spoken words which might be understandable as english (do not get me going on the write it as you listen it, it starts with nite-club... ends up in some vice-president spellings a vegetable), we have to face the universal incorrect usage of less for everything. There is a difference between: I want less jockey on my horse! and I want fewer jockey on my horse! On the former sentence, there is probably a fat jockey on it. On the latter sentence, there is at least two jockeys on it... poor horse! ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote: There is a difference between: I want less jockey on my horse! and I want fewer jockey on my horse! pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the plural of jockey is jockeys./pedant ;-) Steve -- --- Nostalgia isn't as good as it used to be. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
- Original Message - From: Stephen Usher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes It would work with fish , though perhaps they (it?) would slip off the horse. Yeah, slippery things, fish.. and I've not heard good things about them winning horse races. I think it's the lack of arms to hold the reins. Steve No they fail at the weigh in - problem with the scales ( not sure whether they need less scales or fewer scales, this could become recursive) All the best - Bill ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Stephen Usher wrote: On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote: There is a difference between: I want less jockey on my horse! and I want fewer jockey on my horse! pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the plural of jockey is jockeys./pedant ;-) That actually is a perfect demonstration of the importance of the use or less and fewer. The first though is implies that the owner wants a lighter jockey. The second sentence should have been I want fewer jockeys on my horse and the meaning is clear - he wants to have only one or two jockeys using the horse. Well done Jerome - it takes a non-native speaker to get to the *real* reason we should not dull down English. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Tony Firshman wrote: Stephen Usher wrote: On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote: There is a difference between: I want less jockey on my horse! and I want fewer jockey on my horse! pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the plural of jockey is jockeys./pedant ;-) That actually is a perfect demonstration of the importance of the use or less and fewer. The first though is implies that the owner wants a lighter jockey. Whoops - The first implies that the owner wants a lighter jockey. The second sentence should have been I want fewer jockeys on my horse and the meaning is clear - he wants to have only one or two jockeys using the horse. Well done Jerome - it takes a non-native speaker to get to the *real* reason we should not dull down English. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be remembered that English is not a fixed language. I am always deeply suspicious of people who make rules for other people. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in English? John Taylor ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
John Taylor wrote: More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be remembered that English is not a fixed language. I am always deeply suspicious of people who make rules for other people. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in English? It is not a question of rules at all. It is an issue of meaning. The issue of jockeys (previous post) demonstrates that perfectly. You are right about 'more' - I reckon there must have been an equivalent in the past which has died. There is 'much' and 'many' of course. This also fits into the 'more jockey' concept. Other than the use of 'more jockeys' there is not way to establish whether we are talking about the increased weight or numbers of jockeys without adding more words. That is dulled down language! As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it has to, or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of meaning. There is a school of thought, to which I don't wholly subscribe, which says that if there is not a way to express something in ones language, one can not even think it. There was an interesting article in the Independent a few Saturdays ago about a tribe in South America which had an incredible simple 'language'. Someone lived with them for a long while and learnt the language. It had nothing other than the present tense, and the tribe simply could not understand the concept of past or future. They also had no numbers, and were unable to grasp the concept of counting. Even 1+1 was beyond them. Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Tony Firshman wrote: John Taylor wrote: More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I. While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be remembered that English is not a fixed language. I am always deeply suspicious of people who make rules for other people. Who decides what is right and what is wrong in English? It is not a question of rules at all. It is an issue of meaning. The issue of jockeys (previous post) demonstrates that perfectly. You are right about 'more' - I reckon there must have been an equivalent in the past which has died. There is 'much' and 'many' of course. This also fits into the 'more jockey' concept. Other than the use of 'more jockeys' there is not way to establish whether we are talking about the increased weight or numbers of jockeys without adding more words. That is dulled down language! As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it has to, or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of meaning. There is a school of thought, to which I don't wholly subscribe, which says that if there is not a way to express something in ones language, one can not even think it. There was an interesting article in the Independent a few Saturdays ago about a tribe in South America which had an incredible simple 'language'. Someone lived with them for a long while and learnt the language. It had nothing other than the present tense, and the tribe simply could not understand the concept of past or future. They also had no numbers, and were unable to grasp the concept of counting. Even 1+1 was beyond them. Tony It does partly explain, however, how different national traits develop. English is exceptionally rich in that, by taking words from both the romance and the germanic languages, nuances of meaning can more readily be conveyed than in many other languages. That has been often been cited as one of the reasons why the British seem to bat above their weight in inventivenss. It does not explain everything though; The Americans use near-identical language to tie themselves in legal knots for their lawyers to untie. Most of the rest of the world do not even have the language to follow their legal arguments. Jeremy ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Laurence Reeves wrote: Tony Firshman wrote: One very common one now is to use 'less' for everything, where 'fewer' should be used. Less people for instance. The rule is *so* simple. If one can count the noun (ie discrete items) then it is 'fewer'. (Surprise, surprise... I do still exist). I couldn't resist getting in on this one... for two reasons. Firstly, there are more good bits in Never Mind the Full Stops than bad bits. Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers (countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or fewer? Fewer I reckon. OK the points might be uncountable but a point is a discrete thing. I suppose that is a better definition - something that is discrete. BTW I managed to get the sH programmed OK. It was a bad batch of chips, and I had to throw away the five I had (8-(# Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 20:10 25/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: (Surprise, surprise... I do still exist). Good on yer Belated thanks and congrat's for Minni From one of the old Lolworth crowd. I couldn't resist getting in on this one... for two reasons. Firstly, there are more good bits in Never Mind the Full Stops than bad bits. A recent interview with Julien Fellows impressed and the trails intrigued, sadly more Play School than wit, Stephen Fry would have been a more promising choice. Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers (countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or fewer? Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at infinity the answer must be less. We have to blame fools and horses for Del and Tel being widely spoken with the 'l' pronounced, Lau may be a better representation of this cut off. Does it have a name like the glottal stop - I go' a luvverly bunch of cokernuts ? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 23/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 00:31 26/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at infinity the answer must be less. OOOps, boobed did not mean that, obviosly fewer ! But curiously still a lesser number. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 23/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
David Tubbs wrote: Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at infinity the answer must be less. Not quite, all computers following the IEEE 754 standard (which includes every PC and Motorola FPU) can handle infinity just fine. Only the QL does not know the concept. Marcel ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought he was a prime something else? I'm sure we don't know *exactly* what you mean - but I'll bet we can think of a few choice terms. :o) Actually, I'm a bit of a prime tw_t myself. Yesterday I managed to use IE instead of Firefox to view my mails on-line and managed to delete all the ones I wanted to keep, and keep all the virus infected, spam laden, penis enhancing, pornographic rubbish that I don't want. I included in the deletions the email from Dilwyn which attached his Quill to HTML source code. Dilwyn, if you are able, would you please send it again, thanks. I promise never to use IE to read my mails ever again :o) Cheers, Norman. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος) wrote: Την Mon, 22 May 2006 08:14:11 -0400,ο(η) Robert Newson [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε: P Witte wrote: David Tubbs writes: ... Youre welcome ... Three missing apostrophes (8-)# ... BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant information for the benefit of the discerning reader. Actually, they're not redundant, they represent the missing a from You are, giving You're. Without, them it looks like a typo of Your welcome (or an attempt at a quaint olde looke by adding a trailing e to your) which then begs the question of What about mine welcome? And to that I have to comment that I am really surprised that Tony did not make that comment :-) I know that Per knows (8-)# (Did no-one spot the smiley?) Apostrophes are so essential. I really don't mind language developing, but I hate changes that dull meaning. One very common one now is to use 'less' for everything, where 'fewer' should be used. Less people for instance. The rule is *so* simple. If one can count the noun (ie discrete items) then it is 'fewer'. http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/lessfewer?view=uk http://www.gcse.com/english/less.htm However *all* youngsters today never use 'fewer'. If you are tuned in to this, you will find it has spread to adults (Tony Blair is a prime example). Tony -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
P Witte wrote: David Tubbs writes: ... Youre welcome ... Three missing apostrophes (8-)# ... BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant information for the benefit of the discerning reader. Actually, they're not redundant, they represent the missing a from You are, giving You're. Without, them it looks like a typo of Your welcome (or an attempt at a quaint olde looke by adding a trailing e to your) which then begs the question of What about mine welcome? ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Την Mon, 22 May 2006 08:14:11 -0400,ο(η) Robert Newson [EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε: P Witte wrote: David Tubbs writes: ... Youre welcome ... Three missing apostrophes (8-)# ... BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant information for the benefit of the discerning reader. Actually, they're not redundant, they represent the missing a from You are, giving You're. Without, them it looks like a typo of Your welcome (or an attempt at a quaint olde looke by adding a trailing e to your) which then begs the question of What about mine welcome? And to that I have to comment that I am really surprised that Tony did not make that comment :-) Cheers, Ffibys (soon to be back on European soil) ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
David Tubbs writes: Youre welcome Youre welcome Youre welcome Three missing apostrophes (8-)# Tony Did you watch never mind the full stops ? Bit disappointing I thought. D I didnt watch it, and quite enjoyed that. Another one I enjoyed not watching was Grumpy Old Men.. BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant information for the benefit of the discerning reader. ;o) Per ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Sorry Per, The riposte was aimed towards the reader who discerned. At 19:29 21/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: I didnt watch it, and quite enjoyed that. Another one I enjoyed not watching was Grumpy Old Men.. BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant information for the benefit of the discerning reader. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 23:52 19/05/2006 +0100, you wrote: Youre welcome Youre welcome Youre welcome Three missing apostrophes (8-)# Tony Did you watch never mind the full stops ? Bit disappointing I thought. D -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
