[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Keith Thompson]

John looks well today.

Adverb.

No, "well" is an adjective in this context.

John looks good today.

Same.

Again, "good" is an adjective here. Like "well" above, it modifies
"John", not "looks".

John is good today.

Adjective.

Yes.

 

[Christian Bau]

John looks well today.

Adverb.

John looks good today.

Same.

John is good today.

Adjective.

Beginners mistake. That sneaky bastard of a word "well" is not only the
adverb form of "good", it is also an adjective in its own right, usually
meaning "healthy". Completely different meaning.

"Well" is also an interjection, and a noun, and it is even used as a
verb. With different meanings again.

 

[Christian Bau]

I don't have to - you've already made the case for me. As you said
above, UseNet is an *informal* medium and, as such, the *only* issue
is whether or not the message is intelligible (assuming it's not
actually offensive, that is). I don't for one second believe that you
or anybody else will fail to understand a message because its author
wrote "u" instead of "you".

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, many people will
believe that the poster is not worth an answer, so using "u" in this
newsgroup results in failure in communication.

 

[Mark Gordon]

What you say is true, but misses the point. While there is
indeed the significant minority that you are speaking of, and
they do require and use different equipment and an entirely
different methodology to use Usenet, that methodology is *not*
what we've been discussing. We could discuss it, and it would
be very interesting to know just how idioms, as one example,
affect such users; but we have been discussing the typical means
of access where users read text written to a monitor screen.

One of my *real* example above was of a group of people using a monitor
to read the written text and having to internally vocalise it so such
things *are* relevant even without the hypothetical bind reader, who is
only hypothetical because the blind readers I have come across were on
other groups.

And that made Mr. Dovey's statement that "cw nt spch" (where he
meant to say that "telegraphy is not speech") a Non Sequitur.

However it is completely relevant. Sometimes the only way I can decode
such things is to literally sit down and try filling in the missing
letters at random and for someone using text to speech this would be
even worse. I never even attempt to read the stuff where numbers are
substituted for letters because in stead of minutes it would be more
like hours for any significant piece of text because I just do not see
the connections, numbers being processed differently from letters in my
mind.

Compared to things like the above using 'u' in place of 'you' is just
mildly jarring, although 'u' can still double the time it takes me to
read a sentence since it is a break from the patterns that were learnt
with great difficulty.

BTW, the last estimate I saw was that 10% of the general population are
dyslexic and anecdotal evidence suggests that dyslexics tend to be good
at computing so I would not be surprised if the percentage is higher
than 10% amongst C programmers.

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Letter, ISYM.

I'm bit curious.... What is ISYM?

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

Richard Bos wrote...

I'm bit curious.... What is ISYM?

Theory into practice... Given that "ITYM" means "I think
you mean," I first extrapolated that "ISYM" means "I see you
mean," "see" being the most common English word that fits the
sentence and given that Manish's mistake was elementary
enough to be "seen" immediately.
After you pointed out the abbreviation, it occurred to
me that the "S" in "ISYM" more likely stood for "suppose,"
a synonym of "think" in this context -- a minor variation
akin to those exhibited by "AFAIK/AFAICT/AFAICS." In any
event, it's meant to be read over quickly and not really
pondered too much. Guess I failed that test.

-Arthur

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Beginners mistake. That sneaky bastard of a word "well" is not only the
adverb form of "good", it is also an adjective in its own right, usually
meaning "healthy". Completely different meaning.

True, but that isn't the way it is used above. It is used as an
adverb. Look it up in virtualy *any* book on English grammar
that explains parts of speech, in partuclar the significance of
linking verbs.

"Well" is also an interjection, and a noun, and it is even used as a
verb. With different meanings again.

Christian you *still* haven't understood the significance of
*what* makes it an adverb. Consider this contrived example:

After the hangings, the Sheriff asked, "Which body are we
going to bury first, John or Dick?" The undertaker said,
"John looks good to me..."

Now, one of the more obvious things is that this does not mean
the same thing as "John is good.", because obviously John is not
so good. (John wasn't good while he was alive, and he isn't too
healthy at the moment because he is now dead.)

The fact is, "good" is an adverb in that sentence, and it
modifies the action expressed by the verb, "looks". It does not
change the definition of the subject John, and it is not
describing John, therefore it is not an adjective. And the verb
is not a linking verb, but is expressing an action.

It is the same as saying "John is looking good."

Here are other examples:

John runs good.
John eats good.
John writes good.
John shoots good.
John looks good.

None of them are the same as "John is good", which in fact does
use an adjective and also has a linking verb which indicates no
action.

Don't you think it is about time you ceased trying to use
insults like that crack about beginners? Instead you could
spend a little time learning how to diagram sentences. So far
all we've learned from your insults is that you haven't got a
clue (by *your* definition) and you make beginner's mistakes
(also by *your* definition).

 

[Floyd Davidson]

....

You are missing the point, which that one line states. Claiming
that telegraphy is not significant because it is not speech, is
illogical. Usenet is not speech either.

If anything, the fact that both of them (Usenet and telegraph)
can and commonly are converted to speech would support the
opposite of Mr. Dovey's original point. The fact is, there *is*
a comparison between the language used on Usenet and the
language used with telegraphy (and both also relate to the
language used in speech).

What you are posting does not support Mr. Dovey's claim, it proves
it false.

One of my *real* example above was of a group of people using a monitor
to read the written text and having to internally vocalise it so such
things *are* relevant even without the hypothetical bind reader, who is
only hypothetical because the blind readers I have come across were on
other groups.

You're still missing the point. Usenet is not speech. Telegraphy is
not speech. That doesn't mean that neither of them are ever converted
to speech. It also does not mean that there is no relationship between
the language usage patterns that develop on Usenet and on Telegraph
networks. (It does not mean they are not related to the patterns used
in speech either.)

However it is completely relevant.

Nothing you say below makes it relevant. The fact is that what you
describe would *also* be required if you were a telegraph operator.

His statement is simply true, but his point is false because the
logic he used was not valid. And your statements are exactly
what I said above, interesting; but you haven't shown any
validity to his claim that telegraphy is not speech has any
significance at all.

Sometimes the only way I can decode
such things is to literally sit down and try filling in the missing
letters at random and for someone using text to speech this would be
even worse. I never even attempt to read the stuff where numbers are
substituted for letters because in stead of minutes it would be more
like hours for any significant piece of text because I just do not see
the connections, numbers being processed differently from letters in my
mind.

So if you can show me where that would be different between
Usenet and telegraphy, you'll have a point which is indeed
significant.

Compared to things like the above using 'u' in place of 'you' is just
mildly jarring, although 'u' can still double the time it takes me to
read a sentence since it is a break from the patterns that were learnt
with great difficulty.

BTW, the last estimate I saw was that 10% of the general population are
dyslexic and anecdotal evidence suggests that dyslexics tend to be good
at computing so I would not be surprised if the percentage is higher
than 10% amongst C programmers.

Now, what I'd rather know is how idioms affect those who use
software to convert text (whether that is on Usenet or sent via
telegraphy) to speech? I highly suspect that the software works
just about like my brain does... my brain, which has a very
limited capacity, has only managed to "learn" a few of these
idioms. It recognizes 'u' quickly, which may be very different
than your experience. But when I see almost any of these kewl
spellings longer than maybe 4 letters, my brain has a very
*fast* method of handling them... it skips ahead one work and
continues on as if that "word" had not even been there. If the
context makes the meaning obvious, then I understand what was
said; otherwise I don't.

I just don't waste any time trying. That of course works
because, of the things that I'm missing, it is obvious that
99.9% are not worth catching. The percentages may be a very
different for you, which forces you to actually take the time
with many of them. And in the process, you may waste a lot of
time, but you also pick up on a small, but perhaps useful, 0.1%
that I miss entirely.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, many people will
believe that the poster is not worth an answer, so using "u" in this
newsgroup results in failure in communication.

Does anyone really want, or need, a response from someone who
thinks that way?

 

[CBFalconer]

No, "well" is an adjective in this context.


Again, "good" is an adjective here. Like "well" above, it modifies
"John", not "looks".

Consider the differences between these statements:

John looks well today
John looks good today
John looks carefully today
John is well today
John is good today
John is careful today

 

[Floyd Davidson]

No, "well" is an adjective in this context.

It's an adverb, which modifies the action of the verb "looks".
It has precisely the same meaning as a slightly different construction,

John is looking good.

Again, good is an adverb.

Again, "good" is an adjective here. Like "well" above, it modifies
"John", not "looks".

John may or not be good. The adverb in this case tells something about
the action involved in how he is looking (an action), not directly describing
him.

John runs good.
John writes good.
John looks good.

All are adverbs.

Yes.

And note that "to be" is a linking verb, which show no action.
That is different than the others listed above, none of which
are linking verbs in the context shown, and all of which express
an action which is modified by the adverb "good".

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Consider the differences between these statements:

John looks well today
John looks good today
John looks carefully today

A non-linking verb, which demonstrates action that is modified
by an adverb.

John is well today
John is good today
John is careful today

A linking verb, where no action is indicated, and a adjective
which describes or redefines the subject.

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

Just joking... Now, show me a dictionary that says "Thou", "Thy",
"Shalt"...as slangs. Obviously you can't. Believe it or not, every
language and it's vocabulary changes in every century. If you still
prefer Shakespeare's English, it's all because of personal preference
or some prejudice mentality as Slartibartfast said.

Being an informal medium is not the same as everything goes. See below.


No one ever claimed that such posts are unintelligible, merely that they
are less intelligible than they should be.

Again, the problem here is with *your* __standard__ about
intelligible Vs. unintelligible Vs. less intelligible.

And that is not to the
advantage of the respective posters.

Here, I strongly agree with Slartibartfast for his rational
thoughts.

Wrong. Over time (c.l.c was not born yesterday) each community develops
its own rules as well as inheriting others from the larger community to
which it belongs. Such rules are a lot more than anyone's personal
preference.

Hmmm.... yet I haven't come across such c.l.c rules... URLs
please? If even there is such rules, I'm sure it is based on personal
preference. In my college days, I opted a subject called "American
Studies"; we had some discussions with the American students and a
visiting English Professor from America. All of them said, that they
had panels and laws to force their own English (which is nothing but
broken or improved BrE)---all because to differentiate them. So, there
is no wonder about any "rules" that are based on personal preference.

To conclude my thoughts:
1. I agree with Joona that "u" is slang or should not be used in
c.l.c
2. But, at the same time, I can't accept the double-standards.
3. I doubt the "honesty" in c.l.c (harsh, but true) esp. in
discussions related to the word "every single".
4. I suspect Dan Pop's egoism or no-defeat mindset is playing in this
sub-thread
5. I can't accept any arguments that say abbreviations convey the
meaning, but "u" not conveys.
6. I still can't accept any opinions or rules based on personal
preference or prejudice mindsets or defending mindsets.

**P.s.: The above statements are *not* in rant tone. Just read it in
normal rational tone.

--
"He who created the god was a fool; he who spreads his name is a
scoundrel and he who worships him is a barbarian." -- Periyar, famous
Tamil Rationalist
http://guideme.itgo.com/atozofc/ - "A to Z of C" Project
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

(e-mail address removed) (Dan Pop) wrote in message


Hmmm.... yet I haven't come across such c.l.c rules... URLs
please?

Every society/community develops unwritten rules, that you just have to
learn by observing what others do and by observing their reaction when you
or someone else breaks these unwritten rules.

5. I can't accept any arguments that say abbreviations convey the
meaning, but "u" not conveys.

Beeing able to understad "u" "coz" and other shorthands doesn't mean that
they should be used. Reading a text with frequent use of these is slower
than reading a text in "correct" english. Especially for those whose
native language isn't english.

That's why everybody dislikes these shorthands.

People expect others to be intelligent enough to realize they are
inconveniencing others by using slang once this has been pointed out to
them, so they think it impolite when people continue to do so.

Also CLC and other newsgroups form their own subculture so they develop
kind of their own slang which is deemed acceptable, very often they are
the same across newsgroups (eg: IMHO HTH HAND) or specific to newsgroups
(eg: CLC, C&V, K&R, or comp.lang.perl.*-s TIMTOWTDI or
rec.games.rougelike-s YAAP, YKYHBPNHFTLW, YASD)

This group-slang is normally considered acceptable even though it isn't
written down anywhere, which is why many usenet FAQs advice people to
"lurk" a while before posting, so that they can learn what the unwritten
rules are.

6. I still can't accept any opinions or rules based on personal
preference or prejudice mindsets or defending mindsets.

Opinions are by personal preference.
Rules are made by people with opinions and are based on those opinions.
You can accept no rules - ever.

 

[Dan Pop]

Ok. You're invited. Tell 'em you'll be back (or not) in Spring.

You misinterpreted. I'd love to stay at home on the cold dark days here.
But thanks for your invitation, anyway.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

Theory into practice... Given that "ITYM" means "I think
you mean," I first extrapolated that "ISYM" means "I see you
mean," "see" being the most common English word that fits the
sentence and given that Manish's mistake was elementary
enough to be "seen" immediately.
After you pointed out the abbreviation, it occurred to
me that the "S" in "ISYM" more likely stood for "suppose,"
a synonym of "think" in this context -- a minor variation
akin to those exhibited by "AFAIK/AFAICT/AFAICS." In any
event, it's meant to be read over quickly and not really
pondered too much. Guess I failed that test.

I decoded it as "it seems you mean". It's certainly not an usual
Internet abbreviation.

Dan

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Also CLC and other newsgroups form their own subculture so they develop
kind of their own slang which is deemed acceptable, very often they are
the same across newsgroups (eg: IMHO HTH HAND) or specific to newsgroups
(eg: CLC, C&V, K&R, or comp.lang.perl.*-s TIMTOWTDI or
rec.games.rougelike-s YAAP, YKYHBPNHFTLW, YASD)

Hmm, I don't know what TIMTOWTDI means, but YKYHBPNHFTLW must mean "You
Know You Have Been Playing NetHack For Too Long When". What about YAAP
and YASD?

 

[Alan Balmer]

Theory into practice... Given that "ITYM" means "I think
you mean," I first extrapolated that "ISYM" means "I see you
mean," "see" being the most common English word that fits the
sentence and given that Manish's mistake was elementary
enough to be "seen" immediately.
After you pointed out the abbreviation, it occurred to
me that the "S" in "ISYM" more likely stood for "suppose,"
a synonym of "think" in this context -- a minor variation
akin to those exhibited by "AFAIK/AFAICT/AFAICS." In any
event, it's meant to be read over quickly and not really
pondered too much. Guess I failed that test.

-Arthur

Looks like you have provided evidence that non-standard abbreviations
cause less efficient communication. It's taken many words and
significant time to determine what you meant ;-)

 

[Dave Vandervies]

It's not a real world solution. And it doesn't work very well for the
biggest power consummer, which is the industry.

It seems to me that, while it's not a complete solution, it's a big part
of the solution, since the biggest power consumers will gain the most
from even small improvements.
(Spending a few billion dollars to get a few tenths of a percentage
point improvement in efficiency isn't something you'll be able to sell
to individuals, but I'd imagine that a lot of industrial energy users
would get back the initial investment rather quickly, especially if
there was a reasonable way for them to share the costs.)

In *any* kind of individual cars, as opposed to public transportation.
Good luck convincing anyone to give up his car.

Does it count if I've never had a car and don't plan to get one anytime
soon?
(This gets into my urban sprawl and public transportation rants pretty
quickly; I'd rather not live somewhere where I need a car to get anywhere,
which limits my options quite a bit. Fortunately I'm happy with an
apartment for the foreseeable future.)


dave

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

Hmm, I don't know what TIMTOWTDI means, but YKYHBPNHFTLW must mean "You
Know You Have Been Playing NetHack For Too Long When". What about YAAP
and YASD?

Yet Another Ascension Post or Stupid Death, respectively.
(Recently I ran across something in maybe r.g.r.dev, in the
context of Moria, and it took me quite a while to figure out
that YAWP meant "Yet Another Win(ning) Post" -- too much
Nethack for me! ;-)

-Arthur