Re: Interview Questions

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Kaz Kylheku, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. Kaz Kylheku

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2009-03-04, Han from China <> wrote:
    > Han from China wrote:
    >> Kenny and me are regulars

    >
    > OK, so I suck at grammar.


    This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.

    Methinks.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Mar 4, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kaz Kylheku <> writes:
    [...]
    > This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.
    >
    > Methinks.


    <OT>
    Perhaps, but "methinks" isn't an example of it. The "think" in
    "methinks" isn't directly related to the modern verb "to think"; it's
    from a Middle English word (which is from an Old Englishmea word)
    meaning "seems". The "me" means "to me". So "methinks" means "it
    seems to me", not "I think".

    The "think" in "methinks" and the modern verb "think" are probably
    related, but to find a common ancestor you probably have to go back to
    Indo-European.
    </OT>

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Mar 4, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Keith Thompson wrote:
    > Kaz Kylheku <> writes:
    > [...]
    >> This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.
    >>
    >> Methinks.

    >
    > <OT>
    > Perhaps, but "methinks" isn't an example of it. The "think" in
    > "methinks" isn't directly related to the modern verb "to think"; it's
    > from a Middle English word (which is from an Old Englishmea word)
    > meaning "seems". The "me" means "to me". So "methinks" means "it
    > seems to me", not "I think".
    >
    > The "think" in "methinks" and the modern verb "think" are probably
    > related, but to find a common ancestor you probably have to go back to
    > Indo-European.
    > </OT>


    <OT>
    I fear that Keith is wrong. The OE form is <mē þyncþ> or <mē ðyncð>(the
    thorns and eths are interchangeable here)[a]. The key is that <mē> is
    _not_ the subject. It is a dative, "to me it seems". The verb means "to
    appear", "to seem". The same OE verb is a direct ancestor of the modern
    English word "think". You can see this in its preterite form <þũhte>
    or <þÅhte> which gives us the modern form "thought". One need not
    go back to Indo-European for the common root. This is another example
    of why one should stick to the topic of the newsgroup and not make
    attempts to post on other matters.

    [a] For the non-UTF-8-enabled, "me[macron] thyncth".
    My spill-chucker insists on preterit. It is obviously a US product.
    [c] For same folk, "thu[macron]hte" or "tho[macron]hte"
    </OT>
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Mar 4, 2009
    #3
  4. Kaz Kylheku

    Richard Guest

    Martin Ambuhl <> writes:

    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Kaz Kylheku <> writes:
    >> [...]
    >>> This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.
    >>>
    >>> Methinks.

    >>
    >> <OT>
    >> Perhaps, but "methinks" isn't an example of it. The "think" in
    >> "methinks" isn't directly related to the modern verb "to think"; it's
    >> from a Middle English word (which is from an Old Englishmea word)
    >> meaning "seems". The "me" means "to me". So "methinks" means "it
    >> seems to me", not "I think".
    >>
    >> The "think" in "methinks" and the modern verb "think" are probably
    >> related, but to find a common ancestor you probably have to go back to
    >> Indo-European.
    >> </OT>

    >
    > <OT>
    > I fear that Keith is wrong. The OE form is <mē þyncþ> or <mē
    > ðyncð>(the thorns and eths are interchangeable here)[a]. The key is
    > that <mē> is _not_ the subject. It is a dative, "to me it seems". The
    > verb means "to appear", "to seem". The same OE verb is a direct
    > ancestor of the modern English word "think". You can see this in its
    > preterite form <þũhte> or <þÅhte> which gives us the modern
    > form "thought". One need not go back to Indo-European for the common
    > root. This is another example of why one should stick to the topic of
    > the newsgroup and not make attempts to post on other matters.
    >
    > [a] For the non-UTF-8-enabled, "me[macron] thyncth".
    > My spill-chucker insists on preterit. It is obviously a US product.
    > [c] For same folk, "thu[macron]hte" or "tho[macron]hte"
    > </OT>


    Please leave out the pretentious OT tags. It's every, very silly.
     
    Richard, Mar 4, 2009
    #4
  5. Martin Ambuhl wrote:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Kaz Kylheku <> writes:
    >> [...]
    >>> This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.
    >>>
    >>> Methinks.

    >>
    >> <OT>
    >> Perhaps, but "methinks" isn't an example of it. The "think" in
    >> "methinks" isn't directly related to the modern verb "to think"; it's
    >> from a Middle English word (which is from an Old Englishmea word)
    >> meaning "seems". The "me" means "to me". So "methinks" means "it
    >> seems to me", not "I think".
    >>
    >> The "think" in "methinks" and the modern verb "think" are probably
    >> related, but to find a common ancestor you probably have to go back to
    >> Indo-European.
    >> </OT>

    >
    > <OT>
    > I fear that Keith is wrong. The OE form is <mē þyncþ> or <mē ðyncð>(the
    > thorns and eths are interchangeable here)[a]. The key is that <mē> is
    > _not_ the subject. It is a dative, "to me it seems". The verb means "to
    > appear", "to seem". The same OE verb is a direct ancestor of the modern
    > English word "think". You can see this in its preterite form <þũhte>
    > or <þÅhte> which gives us the modern form "thought". One need not
    > go back to Indo-European for the common root. This is another example
    > of why one should stick to the topic of the newsgroup and not make
    > attempts to post on other matters.
    >
    > [a] For the non-UTF-8-enabled, "me[macron] thyncth".
    > My spill-chucker insists on preterit. It is obviously a US product.
    > [c] For same folk, "thu[macron]hte" or "tho[macron]hte"


    For those not familiar with cases or the more esoteric tenses of verbs
    (common for English-only speakers), an easier-to-understand explanation:

    In Romance languages (e.g. French, which had a strong influence on
    English grammar), one places the object pronoun between the subject and
    the verb, not after the verb. For instance, "I see him" is written as
    "I him see". One can also omit the subject if it can be deduced from
    the conjugation of the verb, giving "him see".

    "Methinks" appears to be a vestige of this structure; "me" is the object
    of "thinks", not the subject, making the meaning "[it] thinks [to] me".
    And, as explained above, that "thinks" is now "seems", giving today's
    common phrase "it seems to me".

    This has absolutely nothing to do with "Kenny and me are regulars",
    which is an example of using the first-person object pronoun "me" when
    one should have used the subject pronoun "I".

    > </OT>


    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
    CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
    K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Isaac Jaffe
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Mar 4, 2009
    #5
  6. In article <golbtq$js9$>,
    Martin Ambuhl <> wrote:

    >I fear that Keith is wrong. The OE form is <mē þyncþ> or <mē ðyncð>(the
    >thorns and eths are interchangeable here)[a]. The key is that <mē> is
    >_not_ the subject. It is a dative, "to me it seems". The verb means "to
    >appear", "to seem". The same OE verb is a direct ancestor of the modern
    >English word "think".


    This does not seem to be the view of the OED, which traces the modern
    word "think" from OE {th}{ehook}nc(e)an. It suggests that

    The original meaning may thus have been `to cause (something) to seem
    or appear (to oneself)'. In ME., {th}enk (as was normal with the
    groups -eng, -enk) became {th}ink, with the result of confusing this
    in the present stem with the prec. vb., of which the pa. tense
    {th}{uacute}hte was also from 13th c. written {th}oughte, thought(e,
    so that the forms of the two verbs became completely identical. The
    practical equivalence of sense between me thinks, him thought, etc.,
    and I think, he thought, etc., also contributed to this result [...]

    [The "prec. vb." referred to is the obsolete verb "think" meaning
    "to seem" which appears in "methinks".]

    That is, the OE word in "methinks" is not a direct ancestor of "think"
    but a (presumably always related) word that became confused with it
    and affected its form.

    -- Richard
    --
    Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
     
    Richard Tobin, Mar 4, 2009
    #6
  7. Kaz Kylheku

    Rafael Guest

    Keith Thompson escreveu:
    > Kaz Kylheku <> writes:
    > [...]
    >> This ``me'' case has been valid for a few hundred years.
    >>
    >> Methinks.

    >
    > <OT>
    > Perhaps, but "methinks" isn't an example of it. The "think" in
    > "methinks" isn't directly related to the modern verb "to think"; it's
    > from a Middle English word (which is from an Old Englishmea word)
    > meaning "seems". The "me" means "to me". So "methinks" means "it
    > seems to me", not "I think".
    >
    > The "think" in "methinks" and the modern verb "think" are probably
    > related, but to find a common ancestor you probably have to go back to
    > Indo-European.
    > </OT>
    >

    As the standard says.
     
    Rafael, Mar 6, 2009
    #7
  8. Kaz Kylheku

    Richard Bos Guest

    Stephen Sprunk <> wrote:

    > In Romance languages (e.g. French, which had a strong influence on
    > English grammar),


    Oh? Where? On the vocabulary, yes, but the grammar of English is still
    predominantly Germanic.

    > one places the object pronoun between the subject and
    > the verb, not after the verb. For instance, "I see him" is written as
    > "I him see". One can also omit the subject if it can be deduced from
    > the conjugation of the verb, giving "him see".
    >
    > "Methinks" appears to be a vestige of this structure; "me" is the object
    > of "thinks", not the subject, making the meaning "[it] thinks [to] me".
    > And, as explained above, that "thinks" is now "seems", giving today's
    > common phrase "it seems to me".


    For example, the nearest Dutch equivalent, which is highly unlikely to
    be derived from French but like the rest of Dutch comes from the same
    Low-West-Germanic root as Saxon, is "me ducht" - a direct equivalent of
    *"me thought".

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Mar 6, 2009
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Vishal Pandey

    Interview Questions

    Vishal Pandey, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    629
    Vishal Pandey
    Nov 24, 2003
  2. Jobs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,029
  3. Dougie

    ASP.Net Interview Questions

    Dougie, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    986
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Apr 27, 2004
  4. Vijay
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    609
    Öö Tiib
    May 7, 2010
  5. reema
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    294
    reema
    Aug 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page