[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[J. J. Farrell]

I and i alone stand as the sole judge of what i write and how i write
it. If the person i am reffering to understands it then that's all
that matters to me.
...
All i want to say is if americans can convert 'programme' to
'program' then why can't we use 'u' for you.

You obviously can use 'u' for 'you' if you want to, but I suggest
you think a little more about your first statement above. I'd be
very surprised if the recipient's understanding is all that matters
to you really.

For example: I can read and understand postings that use 'u' for
'you'. However, I find them a lot harder to read, and that
irritates me. That makes me much less likely to bother to respond
to them, and less likely to be as helpful as I could be if I do.
If you're posting a question here, I guess that you want an answer.
Deliberately choosing to post in a way that irritates readers and
makes them less likely to reply is not a good way to get answers.

 

[J. J. Farrell]

D: "How anyone can call Fred handsome at all."

No, that would be "I'm sorry, who said anything about
a question?".

 

[J. J. Farrell]

What is your first language Mark? You do very good at
English for somebody who isn't a native speaker...

Would you care to respond to his correct analysis? Do you always
resort to puerile attempts to change the subject of the discussion
when you are caught out talking nonsense?

 

[Joona I Palaste]

As has been explained by a native Indian speaker, "u" is used by many
Indians to convey that they are cosmopolitan, that they are cool and
trendy. It is not only used to convey information, it is used to say
something about the writer as well.

I already know Indians are cosmopolitan. They wouldn't be writing in
such (usually) good English otherwise. Therefore...

Unfortunately, when _I_ read "u", what it says about the author is
something very much different. Using "u" identifies you (in my culture)
as someone who cannot use their own brain, who thinks they stand out by
imitating a bad style, it identifies you as someone not worth listening
to.

I have to agree with Christian. I'd much prefer people to write in
grammatically correct English than try to appear as "k3wl". Especially
on technical newsgroups, where many C professionals hang out. If you
want chat rooms, you know where to find them.

So you see, using "u" will very much be misunderstood. 90% of the
readers will _not_ understand the underlying meaning correctly. I can
understand the message well enough, but what the message is supposed to
say about the author is misunderstood.

The same happens if someone uses words like "optomize", "scaler",
"algorhythm", which is something that lots of Americans seem to do: If
someone cannot even spell the word correctly, people conclude that they
have no idea what they are talking about.

That's different, however. "Optomize", "scaler" and "algorhythm" sound
like the writer really doesn't know the correct spelling. In words like
"u", he/she knows it, but still uses the wrong spelling, just to show
that he/she is a k3wl d00d(3tt3).

 

[Floyd Davidson]

And to strengthen this POV: I'd never seen this particular misuse of
"doubt" anywhere until it suddenly started cropping up on Usenet, a
couple of years ago, used mainly by USAnians, and young non-native
speakers who also show an imperfect grasp of grammar. I suspect it is a
Californication common among a certain generation of wannabe-cool kids.

That is absurd. I'm far too old to "wannabe-cool", have never lived
in California, and worse yet I am a native speaker who does have
a few dictionaries to refer to.

question n. 1) ... 2) ... 3) doubt; ...

"Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language", 1968.

Assertions that "I've never heard it" by people who have never been
where it would be heard do not strengthen a point of view, they
drive a discussion into trivialities.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

In sentences like
"Every single time you do the washing up, you break a plate."
"You forgot every single wedding anniversary."
"Every time he opens his mouth, a lie comes out."

It is called "hyperbole" and is very commonly used by native
speakers, but is also difficult for non-native speakers to
understand.

An interesting variation of language use by native and
non-native speakers of English is that hyperbole and sarcasm
(both of which could be described as "exaggeration for effect")
are very common with native speakers, but since understanding
requires cultural information not available in a dictionary the
meaning is not only sometimes very difficult for non-native
speakers to comprehend, but will be understood literally as
exactly the opposite of what is intended to be conveyed.

Likewise non-native speakers tend to use words in very obscure
ways that sometimes will throw a native speaker completely off.
In that respect it is simply invalid to claim that the /meaning/
of a word is wrong (such as the "doubt" for "question" claims)
if in fact they did understand what the speaker was trying to
communicate. That assumes there is actually a valid path
between the word used and some word a native speaker might
expect to be used instead. Such "word manufacturing" as
exchanging the meaning of a noun/verb/adjective/adverb to a
different form is a very commonly used device for professional
word smiths, and of course is often accepted without question
(by those who agree with the statement the user is making, while
perhaps not by those who disagree!).

Too many people here are assuming that English is or should be
like a programming language, where there can be an ISO Standard.
In fact a dictionary is *not* a standard, but rather a
history... and just because a given use is not common, or has
never been heard before and is therefore not recorded in any
dictionary does *not* mean the word is invalid.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

No, that would be "I'm sorry, who said anything about
a question?".

YOU did!

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Would you care to respond to his correct analysis? Do you always
resort to puerile attempts to change the subject of the discussion
when you are caught out talking nonsense?

I responded in kind. Sorry if you didn't like that particular
kind. Stating his opinion is one thing, but self proclaimation
as the expert source of correct information, along with such
puerile cracks as "Bzzt", doesn't win points.

In particular that is true when he is simply *wrong*.

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

As has been explained by a native Indian speaker, "u" is used by many
Indians to convey that they are cosmopolitan, that they are cool and
trendy.

That won't be the only reason to use such words in NG. I think,
people use it because they think it is acceptable. Sometimes I would
tempted to use such short words in email to my friends all because to
save the time 'coz in public Internet cafe the charge will be based on
the minutes slab for example 0 to 20-Rs.10, etc., and so saving a
second itself is saving money.

It is not only used to convey information, it is used to say
something about the writer as well.

Unfortunately, when _I_ read "u", what it says about the author is
something very much different. Using "u" identifies you (in my culture)
as someone who cannot use their own brain, who thinks they stand out by
imitating a bad style, it identifies you as someone not worth listening
to.

Hmmm... but through the media I see still people in western
countries publicly use "u" in T-shirts, posters, especially in the
rally against war or in sports. Also, through MTV, I see still "u" is
cool and trendy in those western countries itself. I know, the clc is
community is formal, upper crest community that comprise members of
ACM, ANSI, etc. But, still new visitors may not aware of those
netiquettes. At this point, I'm not arguing or starting any
flames---but I just conveying my thoughts.

So you see, using "u" will very much be misunderstood. 90% of the
readers will _not_ understand the underlying meaning correctly. I can
understand the message well enough, but what the message is supposed to
say about the author is misunderstood.

OTH, I find the regulars' abbreviations and idioms (or phrase)
are so uncomfortable to me. There was a time when most of the people
in clc used "C&V", I searched a lot in AcronymFinder.com, STANDS4.com,
Wikipedia.org, OneLook.com, and even Google. But, finally after couple
of months I came to know it's just "Chapter and Verse"---and
immediately I added it to those sites. The samething happend to me
when today RJH used MMDNV---which was not available in any online
dictionaries/Wiki, but fortunately I found it in Google itself and
added the meaning to other sites too.

BTW, I couldn't understand the double-standard between accepting
abbreviations Vs. accepting "u". Now, that I understand abbreviations
are used by upper crest intellectuals whereas "u" is used by idiots in
western countries.

 

[Dan Pop]

In sentences like
"Every single time you do the washing up, you break a plate."
"You forgot every single wedding anniversary."
"Every time he opens his mouth, a lie comes out."

Nope. You're right about the following sentences:

"Every time you do the washing up, you break a plate."
"You forgot every wedding anniversary."
"Every time he opens his mouth, a lie comes out."

The addition of "single" is meant to indicate the lack of exceptions.

Dan

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Nope. You're right about the following sentences:

"Every time you do the washing up, you break a plate."
"You forgot every wedding anniversary."
"Every time he opens his mouth, a lie comes out."

The addition of "single" is meant to indicate the lack of exceptions.

It is meant to increase the intensity of expression, which is to
say, to make it even *more* obvious that hyperbole is being used
and the expression is not to be taken literally.

"You break dishes."
"You break dishes every time."
"You break dishes every single time."

There is a progression being expressed, but it is *not* the count
or percentage of broken dishes, rather it is the frustration of
the speaker at dishes being broken.

 

[Alex]

This is just normal use of the English language. *every single* means *a
noticably large percentage* in normal use of the language.

....commonly used in the context of exaggeration. By the same token
you could say that "absolutely everything" means "a lot".

Alex

 

[Nilesh]

I don't see anything wrong with what joona posted about the way 'many'

indians who post to the newsgroup write 'you' as. Joona only said many
people who post here write 'you' as 'u'.

Nothing degrading about indians was said there.

Did you understand what he said?

I dont understand what made you respond with
your patriotic stuff.

If you are an Indian(note the capital I that denoted national pride
and good english) then you will never understand this.

I dont see joona's post offending,

Since Joona has already posted apologie(s) I wont make things clear
here.

it's your post
which i feel is odd.

Your post is irritating.

Regards
Nilesh

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

[snip]

Oh I assure you that he does. The choice is not between grammar and food
(which would be like choosing between a tractor and the President of
Italy), but between clear and unclear communication.

What about the tractor running over the president of Italy? *g*

[snip]

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

If it were, they would be making it in plenty of other words, too.
My mother tongue also uses a phonetical writing, yet I'm never tempted
to write English words in a phonetical manner.

That would be German? Phonetical? Give me a break
Words in your language are about as phonetical as words in mine never
end with a vowel. Well, maybe a bit more phonetical than that, it's
not English or French... but still.

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

.. > [snip]

I have learned, or I learnt. Either is permissible. Isn't this past
and past historic?

The difference being? I'd never heard of this distinction before.

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

[snip]

If English was less perverse, a verb would be either regular or irregular
but not both at the same time ;-)

That should be:

If English *were* less perverse...

[Of course, that's a usage that's disappearing. Where's an ISO
standard when you need it.]

Really? Good. I can never remember to use 'were' instead of 'was' in
the subjunctive, and I thought it was an evident error.

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Alex]

That would be German? Phonetical? Give me a break

IIRC, Romanian.

Alex

 

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

And to strengthen this POV: I'd never seen this particular misuse of
"doubt" anywhere until it suddenly started cropping up on Usenet, a
couple of years ago, used mainly by USAnians, and young non-native
speakers who also show an imperfect grasp of grammar. I suspect it is a
Californication common among a certain generation of wannabe-cool kids.

Maybe. But if you see me use "doubt" as a quasi-synonym of "question"
(which I am likely to do), rest assured that it's not because I have
been Californicated by wannabe-cool kids.
I use "doubt" with that meaning almost daily in Italian (and no, it's
not spelled "doubt" in Italian).

Of *course* the fact that of "having a doubt about something" is not
the same as "having a question about something".
A doubt is something you don't know (or aren't sure about, or
mistrust, or disbelieve... but, basically, something you don't know).
A question is something you don't know *and* you'd like someone to
explain for you.

Obviously, if you are *expressing* the fact that you have a doubt to
someone, if follows that you would like that someone to clarify for
you. Thus using "doubt" becomes equivalent to using "question".

You say: "I have a doubt about these two lines of C" (quoted from
previous article). With a "strict" interpretation of the word "doubt",
I would reply: "So what? What do you expect from me by stating this
fact?".
But the answer is evident: you expect that I clarify. You expect an
answer.

Now, maybe this usage isn't common in some variants of English, but it
seems that it is common in others; I can state that it is common in
Italian; and I can guess that it's common in many other European
languages.

In any case, the problem is *only* about it being common or now; as I
hope I have demonstrated above, it *does not matter* whether your
favourite dictionary defines "doubt" as a synonym of "question" or
not. It can define it as a synonym of "elephant" for all I care, as
long as it also means "an uncertainty about something specific".

by LjL
(e-mail address removed)

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

What is your first language Mark? You do very good at

^^^^

English for somebody who isn't a native speaker...

And you did fairly well at illustrating misuse of the language.