[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Christian Bau]

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).

Beginner. Check this out:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/linkingverb.htm

"Then you have a list of verbs with multiple personalities: appear,
feel, grow, look, prove, remain, smell, sound, taste, and turn.
Sometimes these verbs are linking verbs; sometimes they are action
verbs. Their function in every individual sentence determines what you
call them. "

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Beginner. Check this out:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/linkingverb.htm

"Then you have a list of verbs with multiple personalities: appear,
feel, grow, look, prove, remain, smell, sound, taste, and turn.
Sometimes these verbs are linking verbs; sometimes they are action
verbs. Their function in every individual sentence determines what you
call them. "

Keep trying Christian, you'll figure it out sooner or later.

 

[Christian Bau]

Keep trying Christian, you'll figure it out sooner or later.

I've figured it out long time ago, but this one might help you:

http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

It states quite clearly that "to look" is a linking verb, and it is
followed by a reference to you:

Verb type: Linking

Explanation: A linking verb is followed by a noun or adjective which
refers to the subject of the verb.

Example: The meal looked wonderful. He felt embarrassed.

Hope you don't feel too embarassed. As far as insults are concerned: I
didn't show everyone that you are a fool, you did that very nicely
yourself, without help from anyone.

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

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?

Fortunately, all meanings except the one you know (YKYHBPNHFTLW)
are available in the online dictionaries
<http://www.onelook.com/?w=TIMTOWTDI> I just added YKYHBPNHFTLW to
AcronymFinder.com and STANDS4.com; thanks for the meaning.

 

[Mark Gordon]

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.

Telegraphy is done (usually) by professionals in telegraphy on behalf of
others, although I know that morse code is (or has been) also used by
armatures who choose to use an encoded form of communication for various
reasons. Usenet is used by the great unwashed masses who do not, in
general, choose to use an encoded form of communication, therefor
telegraphy is irrelevant.

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.

No, telegraphy is used by specialists in that form of communication,
Usenet is not.

You're still missing the point. Usenet is not speech.

To me, and a significant minority, Usenet IS speech because we have no
other way of processing it.

Telegraphy is
not speech.

Telegraph operators are not the general public. Telegraph operators are
paid to learn how to use telegraphs and the encoding used to save
bandwidth or whatever other reasons they have for the encodings they
use.

That doesn't mean that neither of them are ever converted
to speech.

If, in the days when telegraphs were sometimes sent be the general
public, a telegraph was delivered with the abbreviations shown then I
doubt that the person who paid to have the telegraph sent would be happy
about it.

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.)

The vast majority of the posts I see do not use anything like the
examples shown of the compression used in telegraphy and similar forms
of communication. Instead it shows a combination of the contractions
used in general speech (which are not appropriate in many forms of
writing) and a number of acronyms that have evolved. Apart from acronyms
used to deliberately be obscure (normally used as a joke or to make a
point) they are generally easy to derive, the contractions used in
telegraphy, as shown by Mr Dovey, are all pervasive making it impossible
to extract meaning from the text unless you can decode the majority of
them, so you don't get the context to decode until you have already
started the process.

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

OK, I failed to point out that telegraph operators were a select group
(often explicitly trained in telegraphy) just as is the case with those
who use morse code and unlike those who use Usenet.

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.

I thought you would know that telegraph operators are a select group
unlike Usenet users.

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

I have now done so, therefor my points are valid and significant.

Now, what I'd rather know is how idioms affect those who use
software to convert text

I don't use the software, I just know that such software is used by
members of at least two groups of people.

(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.

At least some of the SW in the past would have said something like
"letter u" so that the user would know it was not the word you. I don't
know the current state of the art.

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.

A speech to text processor cannot do that, it has to try to handle the
word without understanding the meaning of the sentence. I cannot do that
quickly, and if multiple such contractions are used (If u, then why not
wh, nt, pls and all the rest) then it takes a lot longer.

Speech to text software would have to be explicitly programmed to handle
a lot of this stuff, and since it is not common in general I somehow
doubt this has been done thus placing a significant burden on whose who
use it, just as it probably does on those who are not native English
speakers.

If the
context makes the meaning obvious, then I understand what was
said; otherwise I don't.

Which is why any post with a significant amount of contractions just
gets skipped.

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.

So you agree that it is reasonable to ignore posts using a significant
number of contractions. The logical inference from this is that if
someone wants help (the main reason for newbies posting here) then they
should avoid using contractions, which is what people have been saying.

By the way, I also find abbreviations are often a hinderance and an
annoyance and sometimes skip posts of parts of posts with a
preponderance of abbreviations, but I don't complain about them because
unlike the contractions this discussion is about such abbreviations are
a long standing tradition on Usenet.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

I've figured it out long time ago, but this one might help you:

http://esl.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

It states quite clearly that "to look" is a linking verb, and it is
followed by a reference to you:

Verb type: Linking

Explanation: A linking verb is followed by a noun or adjective which
refers to the subject of the verb.

Example: The meal looked wonderful. He felt embarrassed.

Hope you don't feel too embarassed. As far as insults are concerned: I
didn't show everyone that you are a fool, you did that very nicely
yourself, without help from anyone.

Your attempts at insults do not embarass me in the slightest.

In fact, this has been quite enlightening. You *do* have a point
as to that particular example, which the above links clarified
quite well.

They also proved my original point rather well too! The sentence
that I originally used, "You do very good at ..." is shown just
as clearly to be correct.

Looks to me like we break even. I got one right and one wrong, you
got one correct and acted incorrectly.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Telegraphy is done (usually) by professionals in telegraphy on behalf of
others, although I know that morse code is (or has been) also used by

You've repeated the same basic statement several times in this
article, and have used it as the basis for most of the
interesting opinion that you provided. Unfortunately it is not
correct, nor is it even close! Even if it were, I fail to see
how that affects the correctness of the quoted statement it
follows.

The history of telegraphy is quite interesting, and while I
won't go into detail, let me point out two or three things of
significance to your statements.

Between 1840 and perhaps 1920, personal use of telegraphy was
very common, and many people learned morse code almost as a
matter of course. Businessmen had a wire between their homes
and their offices, for example, and did their own telegraphy.

The advent of radio telegraphy in the early part of the last
century changed that, and use of wire telegraphy slowly
disappeared... to be taken up by radio telegraphy. The virtual
disappearance of wire telegraphy was finalized by the invention
of automatic mechanical telegraphy devices, such as Kleinsmidt
and Teletype. Even at that, it remained (albeit only as the
commercial telegraphy that you seem to be aware of) until well
into the 1970's! (Sprint is today known as a national long
distance company in the US, but began life as the communications
arm of the Southern Pacific railroad... which was still using
wire telegraphy and manual operators into the 1970's.)

In the place of wire telegraph, beginning in the 1920, radio
telegraphy was what the public began to use. I don't know the
relative numbers, but today the *vast* majority of people who
can send and receive morse code use International Morse and
learned it either in the military or as Amateur Radio operators,
and virtually all use today is in the last category. They are
*not* professional and do usually use that form of
communications on behalf of others.

The evolution has continued... and radio telegraphy is much less
in common use by the public (Amateur Radio) today than it was in
the past. Most people familiar with it agree that the advent of
The Internet has been the single most influential reason for the
decline.

armatures who choose to use an encoded form of communication for various
reasons. Usenet is used by the great unwashed masses who do not, in
general, choose to use an encoded form of communication, therefor
telegraphy is irrelevant.

But we are indeed using "an encoded" form of communications. We
tend to rant and rave when anyone posts binaries, or even so
much as includes HTML in a Usenet post. That is because all we
will accept is ASCII encoded text.

No, telegraphy is used by specialists in that form of communication,
Usenet is not.

Not true, nor would it be relevant if it were.

To me, and a significant minority, Usenet IS speech because we have no
other way of processing it.

Look, you _convert_ it to speech. That is fine. But it, in
itself, is written text just as much a telegraphy is.

Telegraph operators are not the general public. Telegraph operators are
paid to learn how to use telegraphs and the encoding used to save
bandwidth or whatever other reasons they have for the encodings they
use.

Telegraph operators are indeed the general public, or they are
to the same extent that Usenet posters are. Of course the
encoding is different. That is the whole point!

The original statement was that there is no history for the use
of 'u' to mean 'you', and that is not true. Now, whether that
means it should be used on Usenet, or in opinions written by the
Justices of the US Supreme Court is an entirely separate matter!

We don't need to adopt the language of the courts here either...

If, in the days when telegraphs were sometimes sent be the general
public, a telegraph was delivered with the abbreviations shown then I
doubt that the person who paid to have the telegraph sent would be happy
about it.

The *average* telegraph communications, over the history of wire
and radio telegraph (which is not the entire history of
telegraph either, because it existed *long* before wireline
telegraph or Morse code was developed), has been received
directly by the person it was intended for, abbreviations and
all.

The vast majority of the posts I see do not use anything like the
examples shown of the compression used in telegraphy and similar forms
of communication.

So? Nobody has said that they are the same, or that what was good for
one would be directly transplantable into the other.

The only question was, has there ever been an acceptable common
use of a dialect of written English which used "u" commonly to
mean mean "you", and in fact there has been, and it has many
commonalities with Usenet.

I have now done so, therefor my points are valid and significant.

I've just reviewed your entire post, and I cannot detect where it is
that you've shown "where that would be different".

 

[CBFalconer]

.... big snip ...

So you agree that it is reasonable to ignore posts using a significant
number of contractions. The logical inference from this is that if
someone wants help (the main reason for newbies posting here) then they
should avoid using contractions, which is what people have been saying.

By the way, I also find abbreviations are often a hinderance and an
annoyance and sometimes skip posts of parts of posts with a
preponderance of abbreviations, but I don't complain about them because
unlike the contractions this discussion is about such abbreviations are
a long standing tradition on Usenet.

Similarly I almost invariably ignore posts that exceed 100 lines
or so.

 

[Mark Gordon]

You've repeated the same basic statement several times in this
article, and have used it as the basis for most of the
interesting opinion that you provided. Unfortunately it is not
correct, nor is it even close! Even if it were, I fail to see
how that affects the correctness of the quoted statement it
follows.

The history of telegraphy is quite interesting, and while I
won't go into detail, let me point out two or three things of
significance to your statements.

Between 1840 and perhaps 1920, personal use of telegraphy was
very common, and many people learned morse code almost as a
matter of course. Businessmen had a wire between their homes
and their offices, for example, and did their own telegraphy.

The first electric telegraph line was constructed between Washington and
Baltimore in 1844, and the highways of Europe and America were soon
lined by poles and crossarms carrying wires through which the silent
electric messages streamed in ever-increasing numbers.

The above, or similar is quoted in many places, so it's use cannot have
been common in 1840 before the first line was constructed.

It's also amazing how little is written about ordinary people using the
telegraph machines if it was as common as you suggest.

But we are indeed using "an encoded" form of communications. We
tend to rant and rave when anyone posts binaries, or even so
much as includes HTML in a Usenet post. That is because all we
will accept is ASCII encoded text.

In terms of what is presented to the user it is NOT encoded. At no point
in any of these posts have I needed to know the ASCII code for "A" or
how to correctly specify the MIME type for this post. I know these
things, but most people who use Usenet do not, so from the users
perspective it is NOT encoded.

Not true, nor would it be relevant if it were.

I've seen no evidence that it is not true, and I *have* searched for it.
Ordinary people used it by going to company offices. Some businessmen
may have been an exception, but since most houses did not have wires
going to them until some time after the invention of the electric
telephone and all references I can find refer to trained telegraph
operators, I believe it to be true.

Therefor Telegraphy and Usenet are different both in terms of Usenet not
being encoded where presented to the user (the computer handles
encoding/decoding) and in terms of access to actually operate the
equipment ones self.

Look, you _convert_ it to speech. That is fine. But it, in
itself, is written text just as much a telegraphy is.

However, if it cannot be pronounced because it is presented to me
encoded then I (and a significant minority of other people) cannot do
this translation.

Telegraph operators are indeed the general public, or they are
to the same extent that Usenet posters are.

Not according to any reference I can find.

Of course the
encoding is different. That is the whole point!

Usenet is NOT encoded when presented to the user. It is plain text
(possibly with bold etc applied) when presented to the user even if it
is transmitted base64 encoded.

The original statement was that there is no history for the use
of 'u' to mean 'you', and that is not true.

I doubt that was exactly what was said since most people know it (and
similar) is common on SMS. However, it has only been in use as far as I
can see by small segments of the community (such as people who do a lot
of SMSing and telegraph operators) and even then it was due to slow
input mechanisms.

I've just reviewed your entire post, and I cannot detect where it is
that you've shown "where that would be different".

It's not my fault you use the only news reader that forces you to enter
posts in binary and presents the posts to you in binary. Although I'm
sure the last time I looked at GNUS it had the ability to desplay
messages as unencoded text and to accept normal typing as input.

Since this is OT and you seem unable to understand the points made I'm
dropping this hear.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

The first electric telegraph line was constructed between Washington and
Baltimore in 1844, and the highways of Europe and America were soon
lined by poles and crossarms carrying wires through which the silent
electric messages streamed in ever-increasing numbers.

I just as well could have said between 1800 and 1920, and it
would *still* be correct. I did not say anything about what
existed, or not, between 1840 and 1844.

Regardless, several types of electric telegraph machines were
demonstrated in Europe in the early thirties, which is how
Samual F.B. Morse became interested in it. He demonstrated his
telegraph machine on January 24, 1838 over a ten mile circuit at
New York University.

By 1840 both the London & Birmingham and Great Western Railroads
in England where using electric telegraph.

Morse also installed a submarine cable in New York, between
Castle Garden and Governor's Island, in 1842.

The above, or similar is quoted in many places, so it's use cannot have
been common in 1840 before the first line was constructed.

On the other hand, *most* electric telegraph in the US prior to
1844 was in fact private, and not for hire.


Whatever, you aren't interested.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Similarly I almost invariably ignore posts that exceed 100 lines
or so.

I don't even see them (except for the subject and author.). My usenet
client is set to not download long messages. Occasionally, I'll
consider the title and the author and decide to download the post on
the next pass, but that's rare.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Fortunately, all meanings except the one you know (YKYHBPNHFTLW)
are available in the online dictionaries
<http://www.onelook.com/?w=TIMTOWTDI> I just added YKYHBPNHFTLW to
AcronymFinder.com and STANDS4.com; thanks for the meaning.

I suppose that's OK for those who collect such things as a hobby, but
if I saw it in a message, it's very doubtful that I'd bother looking
it up, because contributors who are worth reading don't use such
things in serious posts.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

I suppose that's OK for those who collect such things as a hobby, but
if I saw it in a message, it's very doubtful that I'd bother looking
it up, because contributors who are worth reading don't use such
things in serious posts.

You shouldn't use them in CLC but in some groups there are _some_ ETLAs
that are part of the group language. In comp.lang.perl.misc you're kind of
expected to know what TIMTOWTDI means "There Is More Than One Way To Do
It" because it pretty much sums up the approach to programming in perl. In
reg.games.rougelike.nethack YKYHBPNHFTLW "You Know You Have Been Playing
Nethack For To Long When" is (was? it's a while since I read r.g.r.n) kind
of a standing joke, a post with the acronym as the subject and a one liner
as the body is (was?) the norm.

 

[John Smith]

But the US sadly seems to have a tendency to think
that the lives of civilians in other countries are worth less than the
life of US soldiers.

Please explain why American lives should have been sacrificed to
save the lives of Japanese. Do you recall that the Japanese
started the war against the Americans with a treacherous sneak
attack while peace negotioations were underway? Do you recall
that years earlier the Japanese began a war of agression against
their Asian neighbors and prosecuted it with the worst kind of
atrocious brutality against helpless non-combatants and
prisoners? Do you recall that by 1945 they had become responsible
for the deaths of many more civilians than were killed in the
atom bomb attacks? They got what they deserved. As bad as it was,
it could have been much worse had the Americans selected more
strategic (e.g. Tokyo) targets.

What is most sad is apologies for the Japanese as the victims of
the war -- usually by the very young and very naive.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

Please explain why American lives should have been sacrificed to
save the lives of Japanese.

Principle.

The moment we start to accept that civilians are legitimate targets in a
war we lose the right to call a lot of other things wrong.

If you think it is acceptable to kill japanese (the attacker) civilians,
then you must by extension also think it acceptable to kill israeli (the
attacker/occupant) civilians by blowing up school busses.

Question1: Is it acceptable for the attacker to be killing civilians?
Question2: Do you have to be a country to be allowed to kill civilians?
Question3: Is the geneva convention Protocol I (addition to the geneva
convention 1977) Article 57 point 2aIII wrong. Or was bombing of civilians
only wrong after 1977?

Do you recall that the Japanese
started the war against the Americans with a treacherous sneak
attack while peace negotioations were underway?

Yes. Has I ever said the japanses were right to do so?

Do you recall
that years earlier the Japanese began a war of agression against
their Asian neighbors and prosecuted it with the worst kind of
atrocious brutality against helpless non-combatants and
prisoners?

Yes: Has I ever said that it was acceptable?

Do you recall that by 1945 they had become responsible
for the deaths of many more civilians than were killed in the
atom bomb attacks?

Oh, so youre with the two wrongs make a right crowd.

They got what they deserved.

Who, those japanese civilans, they were _civilians_ which means that by
definition they didn't take part in the fighting. So unless you can tell
me that each individual was somehow responsible for the war your argument
doesn't hold.

As bad as it was,
it could have been much worse had the Americans selected more
strategic (e.g. Tokyo) targets.

You'r right on that.

What is most sad is apologies for the Japanese as the victims of
the war.

Did I ever say the japanese wasn't to blame too? They were wrong to start
the war, but that doesn't make the bombing less wrong.

-- usually by the very young and very naive.

Young perhaps, depending on where you draw the line between young and old
but I don't think myself naive.

This is a question about what is right and what is wrong, and I personally
think that bombing civilians is wrong, no matter why.

Now beeing more cynical than you give me credit for I know that when
it comes to a making decision of "us" against "them" principle goes out
the window. Had I been part of the decision makers at the time's it's not
unlikely that I had participated in nuking japan, but I wouldn't delude
myself afterwards into believing it was right to do so.

 

[Les Cargill]

Who, those japanese civilans, they were _civilians_ which means that by
definition they didn't take part in the fighting. So unless you can tell
me that each individual was somehow responsible for the war your argument
doesn't hold.

All Japanese were pressed into service as war industry workers ( even
children! ) so the lines were even further blurred.

If the bombings were sloppy and hit areas adjacent to military
targets, them's breaks. That this cheat was exploited mercilessly
in that war is pretty well known.

The nice thing about total war like that is that it is so ugly
that it makes it harder to justify doing it again.

You'r right on that.

Tokyo was next, had a surrender not been effected.

This is a question about what is right and what is wrong, and I personally
think that bombing civilians is wrong, no matter why.

In total war, there are no civilians. This is a paraphrase of
one of Sherman's letters.

Now beeing more cynical than you give me credit for I know that when
it comes to a making decision of "us" against "them" principle goes out
the window.

Of course it does. s/principle/plaudible deniablity/ and you
got the mechanism.

Had I been part of the decision makers at the time's it's not
unlikely that I had participated in nuking japan, but I wouldn't delude
myself afterwards into believing it was right to do so.

It probably saved Japan as a nation and culture, though. Amphibious
invasions are ugly, uglier even than atomic bombs.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

The nice thing about total war like that is that it is so ugly
that it makes it harder to justify doing it again.

I think it was in one of the footnotes to one of the dicworld books that
this rallying call was explained:

"Remember <name of last battle we lost>"

The real full meaning beeing:

"Remember the atrocities that were comitted against us last time, to
justify the atrocities we're going to commit this time"

(quote from memory so probably not accurate)

 

[Ken Asbury]

I think it was in one of the footnotes to one of the dicworld books that
this rallying call was explained:

"Remember <name of last battle we lost>"

The real full meaning beeing:

"Remember the atrocities that were comitted against us last time, to
justify the atrocities we're going to commit this time"

(quote from memory so probably not accurate)

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm
Probably not accurate either, but a starting point for a
history lesson.

 

[John Smith]

Young perhaps, depending on where you draw the line between young and old
but I don't think myself naive.

The naive never do. Perhaps unfortunately, your views and
"principles" will change as you live longer in the real world.

Trust me.

Best regards,
JS

 

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

The naive never do. Perhaps unfortunately, your views and
"principles" will change as you live longer in the real world.

It will *never* happen if you live in a "real world" that has
"humanbeings"; but it will happen __only__ if you live in a place/city
which you think (or want it to be) "super-power" (aka, Jingoism)