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
