Bastard of a week - already!
Paul Tomblin
>Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril
>that Giles Todd did write:
>>ma...@netizen.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
>>
>>> eventuate
>>
>><*BOGGLE*>
>>
>>You do need another job.
>
>Where's the problem with the "e" word?
What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
--
Paul Tomblin, not speaking for anybody.
"NEW! Microsoft(R) Knees97(tm) - now walking will be more fun, jumping will be
more productive, etc etc. ... I think I'll wait for Gnees instead" - John Dow
Matt McLeod
Last Friday I was offered a nice job - part sysadmin, part
programmer (Perl!), part QA, and with the possibility of
doing some tech writing thrown in for kicks. Oh, and it involved
a nice pay rise, my own office (I work for an ISP at the moment,
and we're all in one fairly large office), and a pretty good
location (in the city instead of out in the sticks as the
current one is).
The fact that I wasn't going to be around much longer made me
not mind so much that the boss had decided we need an NT server
in the Melbourne office (which would inevitably have become
my responsibility).
So, I go out for drinks with a few friends on Monday night
to celebrate, and have a really good night. Get home, and for
some reason I decide to check my mail before falling asleep,
and find out that the new job is on ice until February at
least, and might not eventuate at all (they're waiting on
a government grant of some sort).
(This, incidentally, also means that I won't be getting a
place to myself quite so soon after all - I've been sharing
a flat for the last two months, and quite frankly it's
driving me up the wall. If the new gig had come through
then my flatmate probably would've picked up my job,
at which point there's no guilt-trip about either
turfing him out or leaving him to pay the not-exactly-low
rent on his lonesome. This is the bit which is
making me really pissed off).
I get in to work on Tuesday, only to find out that the boss
has now skipped state early, and that the fscking customer database
(which is why we're getting an NT server down here) hasn't yet
been moved from Sydney. This is not good, as it is inevitable
that the guaranteed fuckup will be heaped upon me.
Looking on the bright side (such as it is), the delay on the
new job means I can go see my folks over Christmas/New Years,
and I suppose that when the pressure to actually learn some NT
becomes irresistable I'll at least end up with a backup
"trade" should the Unix sysadmin market somehow disappear
overnight.
Oh, and because the boss has left the state, he'll miss
the company Christmas party tomorrow afternoon - so it
should be quite good fun.
Matt
--
Matt McLeod "In those days he was wiser than he is now --
A BOFH for all seasons he used to frequently take my advice."
<ma...@netizen.com.au> Winston Churchill
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Giles Todd
> eventuate
<*BOGGLE*>
You do need another job.
Giles.
--
Quis est qui inquit?
Matt McLeod
that Giles Todd did write:
Where's the problem with the "e" word?
(Perhaps it's just the beer I had with lunch which is
making me a little slow this afternoon?)
--
Matt McLeod "I prefer rogues to imbeciles,
A BOFH for all seasons because they sometimes take a rest."
<ma...@netizen.com.au> Alexandre Dumas (fils)
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Giles Todd
> Where's the problem with the "e" word?
Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
My comment about needing another job referred to your clearly having
spent too much time with your current PHBs. You really, really do
need to leave these people. Among other things, they're damaging your
ability to write in English.
Matt McLeod
that Giles Todd did write:
>
>> Where's the problem with the "e" word?
>
>Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
>others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
Ah, of course. Sorry. I'd say it's probably the bogons coming
out of that NT server out the back starting to have an effect.
>My comment about needing another job referred to your clearly having
>spent too much time with your current PHBs. You really, really do
>need to leave these people. Among other things, they're damaging your
>ability to write in English.
I already know I need to leave - I've been trying to do that
for a while now. If the place is starting to itnerfere with
my prose, then I'd definately better get out quickly.
Unfortunately, the number of non-NT jobs available around
here seems pretty slim.
ObASR: fscking radius server losing track of the clients.
more accurately, the authentication server is fine and
dandy, letting the punters login, but the accounting
server seems to spontaneously start rejecting the
accounting data being pumped at it by the very same
access servers...
--
Matt McLeod "I'd love to go out with you,
A BOFH for all seasons but I've been scheduled for
<ma...@netizen.com.au> a karma transplant."
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Matt McLeod
>>that Giles Todd did write:
>>>ma...@netizen.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>><*BOGGLE*>
>>>
>>>You do need another job.
>>
>
>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
Now that's a little unfair. OK, so Webster's is not the most
authoritative possible choice, but:
Main Entry: even7tu7ate
Pronunciation: i-'ven-ch&-"wAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at7ed; -at7ing
Date: 1789
: to come out finally : RESULT, COME ABOUT
Unfortunately I don't have an OED or Macuqarie on me at the
moment.
So - while it may not have been the best possible choice of word,
it certainly wasn't incorrect or made up.
--
Matt McLeod "I'd love to go out with you,
A BOFH for all seasons but I'm having all my plants neutered."
<ma...@netizen.com.au>
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Peter da Silva
>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' "Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid?"
'U`
"Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
Peter da Silva
>Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
>others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
Is that a word?
Eric The Read
> Now that's a little unfair. OK, so Webster's is not the most
> authoritative possible choice, but:
Er, IDNTTWMWYTIM.
Specifically, "Webster's" (at least in the US) means absolutely nothing.
I could release my own dictionary today, call it "Webster's Dictionary of
Eric's Language", and nobody could sue me for anything. It's a no-op.
Do you mean Merriam-Webster, Random House, or any of a thousand other
companies that produce dictionaries with "Webster's" on the cover?
> So - while it may not have been the best possible choice of word,
> it certainly wasn't incorrect or made up.
Don't feel too bad, people are still complaining about the singular
"they", even though it's been around for about a hundred years longer
than "eventuate".
-=Eric
Marshall McGowan
: On 16 Dec 1998 00:04:21 GMT, Matt McLeod <ma...@netizen.com.au> wrote:
: >
: >Yesterday was not a good day. But I did learn one useful thing -
: >if I want something I post to asr to be totally ignored, I need
: >only include the word "evntuate" and my wish will be granted. :-)
:
: Did you folks hear something?
Thorfy misspelled it, so, yes.
Marshall
--
Marshall McGowan | Heisenberg slept here, or somewhere else nearby.
mars...@sonic.net | W J Williams, Atonement Days.
Patrick Evans
> In article <ufww3uj...@click.bofh.org>, Giles Todd <g...@bofh.org> wrote:
> >Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
> >see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
> Is that a word?
He's just making proactive use of the English language.
--
Patrick Evans - Sysadmin, code grinder and caffeine addict
pre at pre dot org www dot pre dot org
You're not entitled to any opinion, neither is my employer
Marshall McGowan
: In alt.sysadmin.recovery, on 15 Dec 1998 20:58:43 -0800
: Marshall McGowan <mars...@sonic.net> wrote:
: >void (fl...@interport.net) wrote:
: >: Did you folks hear something?
: >Thorfy misspelled it, so, yes.
: What did I misspell? Oh. "it". Yes. And "is". :)
:
: We is often unsure about the plurality of thing.
:
: Yours Schizophrenically,
:
: Thorf, thorf, thorfy, throffy, thorfinn, Thorfinn.
Oh, well, fooey. That was Matt McLeod who said that, not thorfinn the
wonder-thorf.
"Me bad."
Nix
> people are still complaining about the singular
> "they"
You what?
I don't know *what* that is, but it sounds hideous.
`They' is plural. My experientially derived mental parsing algorithms
say so. ;)
--
`Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack
away on a complicated piece of code and avoid total anarchy has never
managed a software project.' - Andy Tanenbaum in 1992 on comp.os.minix
Matt McLeod
>ma...@netizen.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
>> Now that's a little unfair. OK, so Webster's is not the most
>> authoritative possible choice, but:
>
>Er, IDNTTWMWYTIM.
>
>Specifically, "Webster's" (at least in the US) means absolutely nothing.
>I could release my own dictionary today, call it "Webster's Dictionary of
>Eric's Language", and nobody could sue me for anything. It's a no-op.
>
>Do you mean Merriam-Webster, Random House, or any of a thousand other
>companies that produce dictionaries with "Webster's" on the cover?
Merriam-Webster, as in http://www.m-w.com/
(Thanks for the correction - I'm used to just using a handy
OED or Macquarie, but when I'm in the office I don't usually
have access to such a beast - but then I don't often need
to use a dictionary at work anyway).
>> So - while it may not have been the best possible choice of word,
>> it certainly wasn't incorrect or made up.
>
>Don't feel too bad, people are still complaining about the singular
>"they", even though it's been around for about a hundred years longer
>than "eventuate".
Yesterday was not a good day. But I did learn one useful thing -
if I want something I post to asr to be totally ignored, I need
only include the word "evntuate" and my wish will be granted. :-)
Matt
--
Matt McLeod "I have been meditating on the very
A BOFH for all seasons great pleasure which a pair of
<ma...@netizen.com.au> fine eyes in the face of a pretty
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/ woman can bestow."
Zebee Johnstone
Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>
>Note: I am *not* saying that we should all revert to the days before
>standardised spelling, or forget totally about common "rules" of
>grammar... Quite the opposite. Standardised spelling and grammar is
^^^^
>*important* because it aids communication. However, if a standardised
^^^
>word-form or grammar construct starts to get in the *way* of
>communication, then it should and *will* be, rightly and rapidly,
>thrown out of use.
Like pronouns agreeing with the number of things they refer to you
mean?
Yes, I understood you, but I could say "Umm, which of spelling or
grammar get in the way?"
If I was being a grammar pedant which I usually am not.
Especially as some law or other states that this posting will have
a grammar error in it.
Zebee
void
>if I want something I post to asr to be totally ignored, I need
>only include the word "evntuate" and my wish will be granted. :-)
Did you folks hear something?
--
Ben
"You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Giles Todd
> Note: I am *not* saying that we should all revert to the days before
> standardised spelling, or forget totally about common "rules" of
> grammar... Quite the opposite. Standardised spelling and grammar is
> *important* because it aids communication. However, if a standardised
> word-form or grammar construct starts to get in the *way* of
> communication, then it should and *will* be, rightly and rapidly,
> thrown out of use.
Gotcha back.
> Ook,
Ik ook.
Caton Little
>
> >What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
> >synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
>
> Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
Excessent thinkerizing confusates de-imaginificated listenators.
--
Caton Little
Code-monkey for DSMTP/DLIST/DPOP, Netwin Ltd.
DMail documentation can be found at: http://www.netwinsite.com/dmail/
Please join our DMail mailing list, dm...@netwin.co.nz
void
>
>Yes, I understood you, but I could say "Umm, which of spelling or
>grammar get in the way?"
>Especially as some law or other states that this posting will have
>a grammar error in it.
Isn't it 'which of spelling or grammar get*s* in the way?'
Giles Todd
> Yesterday was not a good day. But I did learn one useful thing -
> if I want something I post to asr to be totally ignored, I need
> only include the word "evntuate" and my wish will be granted. :-)
Are you kidding? Thousands of people will pop up to point out that
you misspelled "eventuate" and then the cycle will repeat...
Giles Todd
> If I was being a grammar pedant which I usually am not.
^^^
were
> Especially as some law or other states that this posting will have
> a grammar error in it.
Shit, shit, shit. I need recovery from this.
Matt McLeod
spin or rinse?
ObRecovery: was anyone else as annoyed as I was about the
errors in Carpe Jugulum? The odd speeling error can be
overlooked (just), but putting Agnes where she clearly
couldn't have been is just plain silly.
--
Matt McLeod "Don't tell my momma I'm a sysadmin,
A BOFH for all seasons she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse."
<ma...@netizen.com.au> Alan J Rosenthal, ASR
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Caton Little
Giles Todd wrote:
>
> ma...@netizen.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
>
> > Where's the problem with the "e" word?
>
> Try "happen".
That one needs a subject.
> See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
> see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
> others.
So does that one... and WTF is 'perceived comprehensibility'?
> You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
>
> My comment about needing another job referred to your clearly having
> spent too much time with your current PHBs.
The first clause needs a subject and the comment wasn't a reference, it
was a recommendation based on an inference.
> You really, really do need to leave these people.
The second 'really' is redundant.
> Among other things, they're damaging your ability to write in English.
'Among' should be amongst and ITYM 'good English'...
</NITPICK>
Giles Todd
> <NICKPICK mode="First-class anal-retentive">
Here, have a suppository:
> Giles Todd wrote:
> >
> > ma...@netizen.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
> >
> > > Where's the problem with the "e" word?
> >
> > Try "happen".
>
> That one needs a subject.
It had one in the original post. I was offering a substitute. Please
try to keep up.
> > See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
> > see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
> > others.
>
> So does that one... and WTF is 'perceived comprehensibility'?
It's what other people understand by what you say or write. You can
look it up for yourself if you are in doubt.
> > You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
> >
> > My comment about needing another job referred to your clearly having
> > spent too much time with your current PHBs.
>
> The first clause needs a subject and the comment wasn't a reference, it
> was a recommendation based on an inference.
<*DINK*>
You're right about both of those. Sigh. I shall try to do better
next time.
> > You really, really do need to leave these people.
>
> The second 'really' is redundant.
But it was deliberate!
> > Among other things, they're damaging your ability to write in English.
>
> 'Among' should be amongst and ITYM 'good English'...
Ballocks to both of those.
> </NITPICK>
<*PUSH*>
Ben Aveling
> >Standardised spelling and grammar is
> ^^^^
> >*important* because it aids communication.
> ^^
> Like pronouns agreeing with the number of things they refer to you
Complete the following sentence:
Rock and roll ___ dead.
Regards, BenA
--
"It's not my job to teach you how to read or to think. If you have a
critical failing in either of those abilities, you will find yourself in
situations where you will look foolish because of it." -Sean K. Reynolds
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
>a grammar error in it.
grammatical
(Is grammar bad or just less good?)
--
Jeff Vinocur : je...@foad.org ::: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert in the Monastary:
"I managed to out-cool even the disgustingly cool people normally found
at the cafe I went to, without trying. I'm assuming it was the IETF
draft I was reading, because nothing else really accounts for it."
Lionel Lauer
>In article <ufww3uj...@click.bofh.org>, Giles Todd <g...@bofh.org> wrote:
>>Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>>see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
>
>Is that a word?
Besides, shouldn't he have used 'clarity'[0] instead? - It's /much/
simpler!
;^)
[0] Better yet: s/comprehensibility to others/clarity/
Lionel.
--
Grep bait: qmail, Archimedes Plutonium, turkey, Kibo, Wollmann, HipCrime.
Perna condita delenda est.
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
Ryan Tucker
>Complete the following sentence:
>
> Rock and roll ___ dead.
... Friday night continues this evening, with new rock from *mumble* and
*glarf* and classic rock from *fooble* and the grateful ... -rt
--
Ryan Tucker <rtuck...@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
GSM/VM/Fax: +15157712865 Box 57083, Pleasant Hill IA 50317-0002
Matt McLeod
>void (fl...@interport.net) wrote:
>: On 16 Dec 1998 00:04:21 GMT, Matt McLeod <ma...@netizen.com.au> wrote:
>: >
>: >Yesterday was not a good day. But I did learn one useful thing -
>: >only include the word "evntuate" and my wish will be granted. :-)
>: Did you folks hear something?
>
>Thorfy misspelled it, so, yes.
So now I'm being mistaken for Thorfy? Geeze. I'm not
quite *that* perverted (yet).
Matt
--
Matt McLeod "A satisfied customer?
A BOFH for all seasons We ought to have him stuffed!"
<ma...@netizen.com.au> Basil Fawlty
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/
Peter da Silva
>> >Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>> >see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
>> Is that a word?
>He's just making proactive use of the English language.
You mean "proactivising verbogeny"? That's so cogno-intellectual.
Peter da Silva
Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>In alt.sysadmin.recovery, on 15 Dec 1998 16:02:47 GMT
>Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>In article <ufww3uj...@click.bofh.org>, Giles Todd <g...@bofh.org> wrote:
>>>Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>>>see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
>>Is that a word?
>Yes. You understood it, didn't you?
Isn't that the point?
Buggrit. Hand me the bloody smileys. I give up.
void
>
>Complete the following sentence:
>
> Rock and roll ___ dead.
Let ___ equal "'til you're".
Joseph Zeff
>In article <jan657...@ferret.pre.org>,
>Patrick Evans <p...@nospam.pre.org> wrote:
>>Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
>>> In article <ufww3uj...@click.bofh.org>, Giles Todd <g...@bofh.org> wrote:
>>> >Try "happen". See what damage it does to your intended meaning and
>>> >see what benefit it gives to your perceived comprehensibility to
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> >others. You get to rate the cost/benefit equation yourself.
>
>>> Is that a word?
>
>>He's just making proactive use of the English language.
>
>You mean "proactivising verbogeny"? That's so cogno-intellectual.
Takes one to know one...
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Zeff Earthlink Network
jo...@earthlink.net Senior Support JOAT
(800) 395-8410
LART them all and let sysadmin sort it out!
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zeff
>Twas brillig, and Zebee Johnstone scrobe:
>> In alt.sysadmin.recovery on 16 Dec 1998 01:51:59 GMT
>> Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>
>> >Standardised spelling and grammar is
>> ^^^^
>> >*important* because it aids communication.
>> ^^
>
>> Like pronouns agreeing with the number of things they refer to you
>
>Complete the following sentence:
>
> Rock and roll ___ dead.
>
"Rock and Roll" is dead.
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Zeff Earthlink Network
jo...@earthlink.net Senior Support JOAT
(800) 395-8410
Computers work in weird and wonderful ways,
Their marvels to avoid performing.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Riddoch
>> "they"
>
>
>I don't know *what* that is, but it sounds hideous.
>
>`They' is plural. My experientially derived mental parsing algorithms
>say so. ;)
I have heard and used "they" in reference to an individual, but I can't
for the life of me remember the context.
Mind you, this is in Doric, which takes huge liberties with English.
--
Jake Riddoch http://www.larien.demon.co.uk/
"Oh, and I once came *this* close to being sigquoted...damn." Erik in ASR.
Karl A. Krueger
: I was taught that the use of 'they' as a singular was horribly
: incorrect, and in the case of an individual person, the phrase 'he or
: she' should be substituted. Randomly varying with 'she or he' was also
: encouraged. The way in which I have misused 'they' above stems from a
: fear of attaching a gender to a figure; this is how I most frequently
: see it used incorrectly.
I have become increasingly annoyed at this failure of the English
language. When I wish to specify an individual person of either sex, I
have to either break number (by using "they"), be incredibly verbose
(by using "he or she"), or render my sentence difficult to read aloud
(by using "s/he").
Imagine if, when referring to an array element in C, you had to use
[these] brackets if the array had an even number of elements and
<these> if it had an odd number of elements; using the wrong one would
generate a run-time error.
Or if, on the command line, there was no * --- only @ to glob strings
that began with vowels, and # to glob strings that began with
consonants.
These would be universally recognized as broken syntaxes. Syntaces?
English's singular pronouns for referring to people are similarly
broken.
--
Karl A. Krueger -- ka...@simons-rock.edu
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
Gary Barnes <g...@ntli.net> wrote:
>
>Double plus ungood.
I need recovery (vacation will be good). I read that and
wondered what you'd have to do to cast an instance of ungood into
something that could be added to a double.
Giles Todd
> I was taught that the use of 'they' as a singular was horribly
> incorrect, and in the case of an individual person, the phrase 'he or
> she' should be substituted. Randomly varying with 'she or he' was also
> encouraged. The way in which I have misused 'they' above stems from a
> fear of attaching a gender to a figure; this is how I most frequently
> see it used incorrectly.
That use has now been approved by the new Concise Oxford English
Dictionary. I have to say that I deplore it.
The problem is that there is not a singular common gender pronoun in
English. There is, however, a plural common gender pronoun
(i.e. "they" and its declension) and its use has been transferred to
the singular. One can nearly always avoid the problem by recasting
the sentence into the plural but people often don't bother. Hey ho.
To my ear, it grates and I don't like it. But it is comprehensible
and I can't find a really good argument as to why it should not be
used. I guess that it is just an example of language evolution.
I am buggered if I use it though.
Giles Todd
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:26:26 +1300, Caton Little
> <d...@netwin.co.nz> wrote:
> :Peter da Silva wrote:
> :Excessent thinkerizing confusates de-imaginificated listenators.
>
> Double plus ungood.
Rubbish. That rated "ungood" at best. For a "plus ungood", I offer
the following:
Profligate extrospection tumultuarizes fatuitous durbars.
Better offerings are welcomed and if anyone actually manages to hit
"double plus ungood" then I shall be happy to offer a bottle of fizzy
wine as recognition of the achievement.
Giles Todd
> In alt.sysadmin.recovery, on 17 Dec 1998 05:00:12 +0100
> Giles Todd <gi...@click.bofh.org> wrote:
> >That use has now been approved by the new Concise Oxford English
> >Dictionary. I have to say that I deplore it.
>
> Bleah.
Damned right.
> >The problem is that there is not a singular common gender pronoun in
> >English. There is, however, a plural common gender pronoun
> >(i.e. "they" and its declension) and its use has been transferred to
> >the singular. One can nearly always avoid the problem by recasting
> >the sentence into the plural but people often don't bother. Hey ho.
>
> "It" is the correct singular *non* gendered third-person pronoun.
> People don't like it[0] because it[0] *connotes* lack of humanity.
Non-gendered is not the same as common gendered. If you ask me to
explain what I mean by that then I shall probably fail to provide a
satisfactory explanation. But anyway... "It" just doesn't fit the
bill, to my taste at any rate.
> >To my ear, it grates and I don't like it. But it is comprehensible
> >and I can't find a really good argument as to why it should not be
> >used. I guess that it is just an example of language evolution.
>
> *nod* It is, to an extent. I don't like it, because doubling up a
> word's meaning is ugly. It works, but, yech.
Quite.
> >I am buggered if I use it though.
>
> I actually use "it", frequently. But that's because I consider the
> vast majority of homo-sapiens to be non-human. :)
That's not what I meant. But you knew that already.
> Sie, or Hir, or something like that has been used lots and lots
> before. No need to use "they".
Assuming that everyone else knows what you mean by "Sie" or "Hir". I
had not encountered them before this post and I still don't know what
they mean.
> Personally, I want to use a meta-tagging syntax, which avoids
> confusion entirely...
Oh fuck. We're doomed.
> Something like:
>
> Skudly[1]foo went to the airport to meet Rebecca[1]bar and
> Cael[1]baz yesterday. Bar[2] managed to sneak baz[2]'s portable nuclear
> weapon off the plane without setting off any alarms. Foo[2] was amazed.
>
> *grin* Of course, it's pretty insane, and definitely needs the
> listener to have *good* tag memory... Definitely not something the
> general populace would ever manage.
Thank you kindly.
Adam J. Thornton
Karl A. Krueger <ka...@simons-rock.edu> wrote:
>Gus Hartmann (hart...@cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: I was taught that the use of 'they' as a singular was horribly
>: incorrect.
>
>I have become increasingly annoyed at this failure of the English
>language. When I wish to specify an individual person of either sex, I
>have to either break number (by using "they"), be incredibly verbose
>(by using "he or she"), or render my sentence difficult to read aloud
>(by using "s/he").
"thon". Unfortunately, not UI.
>Imagine if, when referring to an array element in C, you had to use
>[these] brackets if the array had an even number of elements and
><these> if it had an odd number of elements; using the wrong one would
>generate a run-time error.
Tried INTERCAL lately? PLEASE.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
Peter da Silva
Karl A. Krueger <ka...@simons-rock.edu> wrote:
>I have become increasingly annoyed at this failure of the English
>language. When I wish to specify an individual person of either sex, I
>have to either break number (by using "they"), be incredibly verbose
>(by using "he or she"), or render my sentence difficult to read aloud
>(by using "s/he").
If you're talking about a real induhvidual, the correct usage is "it".
>English's singular pronouns for referring to people are similarly
>broken.
The printing press was invented too soon. Given another couple of hundred
years it'd have mutated again and you'd have something else to worry about
(probably have absorbed bushman and we'd be complaining about when the
apostrophe was supposed to be pronounced as a click or when it still meant
elision).
Peter da Silva
Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> wrote:
>Personally, I want to use a meta-tagging syntax, which avoids
>confusion entirely...
>Skudly[1]foo went to the airport to meet Rebecca[1]bar and
>Cael[1]baz yesterday. Bar[2] managed to sneak baz[2]'s portable nuclear
>weapon off the plane without setting off any alarms. Foo[2] was amazed.
I'm pretty sure I've seen Wodehouse or some similar BAFH do this, and the
syntax goes like this:
>Skudly ("foo") went to the airport to meet Rebecca ("bar") and
>Cael ("baz") yesterday. "Bar" managed to sneak "baz"'s portable nuclear
>weapon off the plane without setting off any alarms. "Foo" was amazed.
I'm struggling with the question of whether you should elide the quotation
marks, and if so which ones.
Simon Fraser
>> I have heard and used "they" in reference to an individual, but I can't
>> for the life of me remember the context.
> This is an example of an incorrect usage of 'they' as a
> singular:
You're[0] assuming that a language is static. Languages are never static,
but constantly adapting to the needs of the people using it. This is
especially true of English.
If you need examples, walk out of your building and speak to someone.
Simon.
[0] s/'/ a/ if it pleases you.
--
Simon Fraser si...@surfers.org
-
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
Peter da Silva
Jeffrey M. Vinocur <je...@ucan.foad.org> wrote:
>In article <slrn77fr6...@wolfskin.fbh.private.cableol.net>,
>Gary Barnes <g...@ntli.net> wrote:
>>Double plus ungood.
>I need recovery (vacation will be good). I read that and
>wondered what you'd have to do to cast an instance of ungood into
>something that could be added to a double.
I was thinking it was an increment operator myself, though ANSI C allows
unary plus in this context. It would make more sense as "plus double ungood",
of course, unless "ungood" is a macro, though in that case I'd want to
pound-define "ungood" with the unary plus in the macro definition.
cd skogsberg
>Giles Todd <gi...@click.bofh.org> wrote:
>>The problem is that there is not a singular common gender pronoun in
>>English.
[Elided]
>"It" is the correct singular *non* gendered third-person pronoun.
>People don't like it[0] because it[0] *connotes* lack of humanity.
[Elided]
>Sie, or Hir, or something like that has been used lots and lots
>before. No need to use "they".
Someone in rec.arts.sf.written suggested the Finnish pronoun "hänet"[1]
for third-person, gender-neutral pronoun. Greg Egans' ve/ver is nice,
too.
/cd
[1]: h a-with-diaresis n e t.
--
"Minun motorisaha son saunasa."
-- Ingvar Mattsson
Lionel Lauer
>I actually use "it", frequently. But that's because I consider the
>vast majority of homo-sapiens to be non-human. :)
Or at least non-sapient, but the obvious contraction would then insult a
large group of people who I happen (on the whole) to have great deal
more respect for.
Chris Suslowicz
pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>>What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
>>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
>
>Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
Placey-wacey's buggy-wuggied. Stoppy-toppy deez guys spladdiblledey-dey-da
more cluettes on da lingo offering, righty? [1] [2]
HTH
Chris.
[1] STR
[2] No, I have *not* speil-chequed this post. 8-)>
--
I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files.
I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have
a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby.
-- Fritz Anderson
Paul Tomko
Simon Fraser <si...@surfers.org> wrote:
>Gus Hartmann mumbled:
>
>>> I have heard and used "they" in reference to an individual, but I can't
>>> for the life of me remember the context.
>
>> This is an example of an incorrect usage of 'they' as a
>> singular:
>
>You're[0] assuming that a language is static. Languages are never static,
>but constantly adapting to the needs of the people using it. This is
>especially true of English.
>
>If you need examples, walk out of your building and speak to someone.
"Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it
sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes
through their pockets." - Eddy Peters
Paul
--
Paul Tomko to...@xnet.com http://www.tomkoinc.com
7500+ Humorous Quotes http://www.tomkoinc.com/quotes.html
"Divorce is painful. There's an easy way to save yourself a lot of trouble.
Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house." - Pat Paulsen
Phil Adamson
: I was taught that the use of 'they' as a singular was horribly
: incorrect, and in the case of an individual person, the phrase 'he or
: she' should be substituted. Randomly varying with 'she or he' was also
: encouraged.
What's wrong with "he"? It's far less clumsy than "he or she" or "she or
he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
contrary to popular opinion usually refers to both sexes. Objecting to the
use of "he" as the generic pronoun is as bad as objecting to "manhole"
because of those three letters. It's "man" as in "mankind". How difficult
can that be?
Christian Bauernfeind
Jake Riddoch <ja...@larien.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> I have heard and used "they" in reference to an individual, but I can't
> for the life of me remember the context.
>
Actually, I habitually use "they" as the PC genderless pronoun, but
always with the correct[1] plural grammar.
Where I picked it up, nobody seemed to have a problem.
Christian
[1] YMMV
[2] Hi, Jorvik!
--
Christian Bauernfeind
Not speaking for Siemens
Not even working for IBM
e-mail: v2ba...@fishkill.ibm.com
void
>In article <75a1tn$6a2$1...@ucan.foad.org>,
>Jeffrey M. Vinocur <je...@ucan.foad.org> wrote:
>
>>I need recovery (vacation will be good). I read that and
>>wondered what you'd have to do to cast an instance of ungood into
>>something that could be added to a double.
>
>I was thinking it was an increment operator myself
oO(ungood is an excrement operator) *THWAP*
Simon Fraser
>>You're[0] assuming that a language is static. Languages are never static,
>>but constantly adapting to the needs of the people using it. This is
>>especially true of English.
>>
>>If you need examples, walk out of your building and speak to someone.
> "Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it
> sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes
> through their pockets." - Eddy Peters
That could easily be describing Ankh-Morpork, but if it is treated that
way, it becomes a gratuitous thread-crossover.
Simon.
Christian Bauernfeind
Gus Hartmann <hart...@cs.wisc.edu> writes:
> ..., 'chairperson' (sometimes shortened to
> 'chair'), ...
>
But they complain about 'it' being to inhuman as a pronoun ...
Christian
Peter van Hooft
>ka...@news.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger) writes:
> I have become increasingly annoyed at this failure of the English
> language. When I wish to specify an individual person of either sex, I
> have to either break number (by using "they"), be incredibly verbose
> (by using "he or she"), or render my sentence difficult to read aloud
> (by using "s/he").
>This is due for revision in English++, due out next year if the ISO
>standardization committee finishes squabbling.
You can just use something like:
`That..., that..., that... *person* called me for the zillionth time
today with a stupid question.'
Where `person' is synonymous with `luser' of course. Come to think
of it, `luser' is gender neutral and therefore PC, isn't it?
INAIOC (I'm Not An Inhibitant Of California), though.
peter
Joseph Zeff
>What's wrong with "he"? It's far less clumsy than "he or she" or "she or
>he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
>contrary to popular opinion usually refers to both sexes.
There are some cases where you want to make sure that you're not
referring to either gender. Using either "he" or "she" might make it
look like you were writing about that gender, not both. I've always
been fond of "hesh," after finding it in The Rebel Worlds, by Poul
Anderson.
Eric The Read
> What's wrong with "he"? It's far less clumsy than "he or she" or "she or
> he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
> contrary to popular opinion usually refers to both sexes.
What's wrong with it is that there exist a sizable number of people
(mostly women, in my experience) who feel that "he" means "that male
person". If you don't wish them to feel excluded, then you shouldn't use
the generic "he". In formal writing, this generally means recasting your
sentences to avoid the need, but in informal writing, there's a number of
options available to you. I happen to like the centuries-old singular
"they", but YMM(and obviously does)V.
Now, you can claim, as you do below, that they shouldn't be offended, or
excluded, or upset, but they are. You can either rant about how unfair
the world is, or acknowledge it, and move on.
> Objecting to the use of "he" as the generic pronoun is as bad as
> objecting to "manhole" because of those three letters.
Not really. Nearly everyone I've asked thinks of a male person when "he"
is used, even if it's intentionally stated that it's a generic "he".
Whether or not they *should*, it's what they do. And I seem to recall
(can't remember my source here, take this with a large grain of salt)
that "he" was chosen explicitly as a pronoun to refer to males in the
generic case.
> It's "man" as in "mankind". How difficult can that be?
But to a great many people, it's not.
Hie thee on over to alt.usage.english via DejaNews, and read the many
threads this has spawned on that newsgroup. You'll get a fairly clear
picture, I hope, of why people object to the generic "he", and ideally,
we can bypass a fair amount of unnecessary unpleasantness in the
monastery.
-=Eric
Karl A. Krueger
: What's wrong with "he"? It's far less clumsy than "he or she" or "she or
: he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
: use of "he" as the generic pronoun is as bad as objecting to "manhole"
: can that be?
For the political argument expressed clearly, see Douglas Hofstadter's
"Person Paper" on the subject, in _Metamagical Themas_.
My argument is simply that "he" *does* imply masculinity, even if you
claim that in some structures it does not *denote* masculinity. I
don't wish to imply gender at all when I speak of an arbitrary user's
actions in documentation I'm writing. I would as lief imply that all
users were using Macintoshes, or were reading the documentation in the
library, or had annoying roommates --- or any other irrelevancy.
I find the P.C. extensions to English of "tey/tem/ter", "co/cos", etc.
to fail because they are non-portable extensions: they're not
universally recognized among English-speaking sites. Nor do I need the
overtones of "language reform kookery" and general confusion which
using them in documentation would yield.
And hence I end up using the plural a lot: "All users must move their
Web pages" instead of "Every user must move his/her Web page". The
plural seems slightly wrong, as moving Web pages isn't a collective
activity --- it's an activity which each user must personally engage
in. The set of all users isn't moving the set of all Web pages; each
element in the first set is moving one element in the second.
(Though what might be better is "Any user who wishes to still have Web
pages up after the Sun fries its remaining drive should read the flyer
about moving Web pages" --- with the flyer being written in the second
person.)
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<jo...@corp.earthlink.net> scrobe:
>>he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
>>contrary to popular opinion usually refers to both sexes.
>
>referring to either gender. Using either "he" or "she" might make it
>look like you were writing about that gender, not both. I've always
>been fond of "hesh," after finding it in The Rebel Worlds, by Poul
>Anderson.
I've always admired the Finns and Hungarians for having,
essentially, no articles (definite or indefinite) and no
grammatical gender. Using the pronoun "hän" for both 'he'
and 'she' neatly sidesteps the problem.
The fifteen cases are a touch tricky though...
--
!Raised Tails! -:Tanuki:-
http://www.canismajor.demon.co.uk/index.htm
"I'll arrange to have these winos moved to where they will no longer
endanger the off-licence."
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert
>
>Shaniel's Institute De Beaute And House Of Floor Removal (SIDBAHOFR) is
YM Chenille. As in the furry fabric they make bedspreads out of, and
(to my horror) clothes, last season.
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - http://www.netizen.com.au/
Non ex transverso sed deorsum.
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert
<armag...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>In article <756140$q...@web.nmti.com>,
>pe...@baileynm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>
>>>What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
>>>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
>>
>>Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
>
>Placey-wacey's buggy-wuggied. Stoppy-toppy deez guys spladdiblledey-dey-da
>more cluettes on da lingo offering, righty? [1] [2]
"bork bork bork!"
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - http://www.netizen.com.au/
"Even had to open up the case and gaze upon the hallowed peace that
graced the helpdesk that day." -- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
Ewen McNeill
>to fail because they are non-portable extensions: they're not
>universally recognized among English-speaking sites.
But one can usually pick up from the syntax the role they're playing in
the sentence. The ones I've come across most often are sie/hir and
zie/zir, but the others aren't that much more difficult to cope with.
>Nor do I need the overtones of "language reform kookery" and general
>confusion which using them in documentation would yield.
If it were someone from on high saying "thou shalt..." I'd agree with
you; but if it's just people doing it 'cause it works for them, then,
well, natural languages evolve. This is IMHO a feature.
I duck and dive between recasting the sentence, using they in the
singular, and using zie/zir, depending on what feels best at the time.
There's times that a third person gender neutral singular pronoun is a
handy thing to have; more so than the alternatives. No doubt if
there're enough of those times for enough people eventually there'll be a
"standard" one.
>(Though what might be better is "Any user who wishes to still have Web
>pages up after the Sun fries its remaining drive should read the flyer
>about moving Web pages" --- with the flyer being written in the second
>person.)
Why not:
Attention:
If you have a web page now, and you still want to have it later, then
you...
It's an instance where second person will do the job just fine for all of
it. And depending on how BOFHish you're feeling what you say after the
"then you" needed necessarily correspond to what will actually be
required; the "Attention:" can also be omitted to taste (it's not like
it'll make a difference).
Ewen
--
Ewen McNeill, ew...@naos.co.nz
Onno Hovers
>> "It" is the correct singular *non* gendered third-person pronoun.
>> People don't like it[0] because it[0] *connotes* lack of humanity.
> Non-gendered is not the same as common gendered. If you ask me to
> explain what I mean by that then I shall probably fail to provide a
> satisfactory explanation. But anyway... "It" just doesn't fit the
> bill, to my taste at any rate.
This sounds like the Dutch situation. In Dutch each noun has a specific
gender that can *officially* be either neutral, feminine or masculine,
like in German and Latin. The gender of the noun has little to with the
gender of whatever object it refers to. Whenever refering to a noun a
speaker should use 'hij' (=he), 'zij' (=she) or 'het' (=it) depending on
the gender of the noun.
However that is the only difference between feminine and masculine
nouns in Dutch. Even native Dutch speakers generally do not know
if a particular noun is either feminine or masculine. So in reality
Dutch has two genders for nouns: neutral and not-neutral.
Regards, Onno
--
Onno Hovers (on...@surfer.xs4all.nl)
"If you combine con and insult you get consult" -- Dogbert
Ben Coleman
>This is due for revision in English++, due out next year if the ISO
>standardization committee finishes squabbling.
This will be immediately followed by Microsoft's trying to 'embrace and
extend' it in such a way that criticism of Microsoft will be
syntactically impossible.
Ben
--
Ben Coleman NJ8J http://bcoleman.home.mindspring.com/
"I think the US Government has been going about this all wrong. It's not
the DoJ that needs to investigate Microsoft; this is a job for the DEA."
Anthony DeBoer
Rich Lafferty
>Gus Hartmann <hart...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>: I was taught that the use of 'they' as a singular was horribly
>: incorrect, and in the case of an individual person, the phrase 'he or
>: she' should be substituted. Randomly varying with 'she or he' was also
>: encouraged.
>
>he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
>contrary to popular opinion usually refers to both sexes.
While it's commonly *used* in that manner, there's been legion of
studies that tend to indicate that it's not *perceived* in that manner.
For example:
"The postmaster at foo.com is useless -- he doesn't respond to *any*
abuse mail."
Now, how many of us visualised a female postmaster[1]?
(The canonical example switches 'doctor' and 'nurse' as the role;
ISTR about 3x as many respondents considered the generic 'he' to
include women with 'nurse' than with 'doctor'.)
>Objecting to the use of "he" as the generic pronoun is as bad as
>objecting to "manhole" because of those three letters. It's "man" as
>in "mankind". How difficult can that be?
Manhole and mankind lead in different directions; the former refers to
a nongendered and inanimate object, while the latter refers to
variously gendered, sentient objects. Objecting to "he", "man" the
species, "chairman", "mankind" *are* different from objecting to
"manhole", [2], although the former does arguably support the latter.
We won't even *talk* about "hysterical" and "disseminate", nor what
pronouns to use for those who are not at the extremes of the gender
spectrum..
-Rich "They said we wouldn't have to
talk about pronoun gender here" Lafferty
[1] Interestingly, I realized I'd done a double example -- "he" and
"postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
[2] Neither I nor /usr/dict/words could come up with any other
nongendered, inanimate objects represented by compound words
beginning with 'man'.
--
Rich Lafferty ---------------------------------------------------------
IITS/Computing Services | "Oderint dum metuant."
Concordia University | -- Lucius Accius (170-90 BC).
ri...@vax2.concordia.ca -----------------------------------------[McQ]--
Rich Lafferty
>Phil Adamson (p.ad...@susx.ac.uk) wrote:
>: What's wrong with "he"?
[...]
>For the political argument expressed clearly, see Douglas Hofstadter's
>"Person Paper" on the subject, in _Metamagical Themas_.
Thanks for a reference I couldn't find.
>And hence I end up using the plural a lot: "All users must move their
>Web pages" instead of "Every user must move his/her Web page". The
>plural seems slightly wrong, as moving Web pages isn't a collective
>activity --- it's an activity which each user must personally engage
>in. The set of all users isn't moving the set of all Web pages; each
>element in the first set is moving one element in the second.
Not as much "wrong" as "relatively new". You've illustrated a specific
example (using the plural) of what I find to be the optimal solution
for pronoun gender -- expressing oneself more accurately using existing
methods. The proper use of "one" is useful in a formal setting, for
instance; one can also move around clauses to accomplish one's goals.
Unfortunately, for people like me who already lean towards the practice,
it leads to a maze of twisty passives.
>(Though what might be better is "Any user who wishes to still have Web
>pages up after the Sun fries its remaining drive should read the flyer
>about moving Web pages" --- with the flyer being written in the second
>person.)
And another useful one.
-Rich
Simon Fraser
>> "The luser should enter the room and turn on the computer. They
>>will immediately proceed to ask lots of stupid questions."
> "The luser rubs the lotion all over its body..."
Give the luser the hose again, anyway. They probably deserve it.
Simon.
Rob Morton
: Not really. Nearly everyone I've asked thinks of a male person when "he"
: Whether or not they *should*, it's what they do. And I seem to recall
: (can't remember my source here, take this with a large grain of salt)
: that "he" was chosen explicitly as a pronoun to refer to males in the
: generic case.
A friend did her thesis for a psych degree on gender in language (with Tony Sanford
at Glasgow FWIW). She presented people with sets of 3 sentences, 1 at a time, press
space bar to continue, and measured how long it took to read each sentence.
For themes like
"The doctor had finished work. "
"It had been a long day "
"(she/he) was tired. "
you could argue that the significant difference between times to parse the sentence
for the "she" and "he" cases was based on experience- ie more male doctors than female
hence probability favours a male doctor. However she also did one about
the "martian emerged from the ship" and found people expected the martian to be male.
--
Rob Morton
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert
>
>While it's commonly *used* in that manner, there's been legion of
>studies that tend to indicate that it's not *perceived* in that manner.
>For example:
>
>"The postmaster at foo.com is useless -- he doesn't respond to *any*
>abuse mail."
>
>Now, how many of us visualised a female postmaster[1]?
>
>(The canonical example switches 'doctor' and 'nurse' as the role;
>ISTR about 3x as many respondents considered the generic 'he' to
>include women with 'nurse' than with 'doctor'.)
I did a similar experiment in high school. I asked six different
people to draw pictures of the following:
an englishman
God creating man
a postman
man overboard
...
and two others, which I can't recall at the moment.
Of the 36 drawings produced, 35 showed males, and the 36th showed a
mixed group being created by God.
Not deeply scientific, but telling.
As part of the same assignment, I put together a long list of gender
specific words and asked people to tell me a non-gender-specific
alternative. I was quite astounded at the horrendous things they
came up with:
fireman => fireperson ("fire fighter" is better)
policeman => policeperson ("police officer" usually works)
manhole => personhole ("access hole" or whatever)
to man a station => person a station (what's wrong with "staff"?)
Also, nobody seemed to recognise the difference between man as in male,
and man as in "manus" for hand. So I got some abominations like
"personufacture". People are stupid.
>[1] Interestingly, I realized I'd done a double example -- "he" and
> "postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
> intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
I'm webmistress@netizen :) I've always wanted to have that alias, but
my old work wouldn't let me :(
>[2] Neither I nor /usr/dict/words could come up with any other
> nongendered, inanimate objects represented by compound words
> beginning with 'man'.
Well, I can't give you inanimate objects, but I can offer these nouns:
man-hours
manpower
mythical man-months
and a few non-nouns:
man-made
man-eating
man-sized (we have man-sized tissues/kleenex here, would you believe)
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - http://www.netizen.com.au/
Collect raw data and throw away the expected; what remains challenges
your theories.
Patrick Evans
> "The postmaster at foo.com is useless -- he doesn't respond to *any*
> abuse mail."
> Now, how many of us visualised a female postmaster[1]?
I think it's Livingston/Lucent that use spider@ instead of webmaster@
as their web site contact type person. I think it's a woman now, but
IIRC it was originally a bloke. What a nice bicker-free solution.
--
Patrick Evans - Sysadmin, code grinder and caffeine addict
pre at pre dot org www dot pre dot org
You're not entitled to any opinion, neither is my employer
ing...@bofh.se
And now for a date and place tag, eh? ;) At least you managed to get
my surname right... that's always a bonus point.
//Ingvar (now appearing in at least two .sigs)
--
Why is it that people insist on comforting you?
Me, roughly early 1997, to myself, at least
ing...@bofh.se
> g...@ntli.net (Gary Barnes) writes:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 16:26:26 +1300, Caton Little
> > <d...@netwin.co.nz> wrote:
> > :Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> > :Excessent thinkerizing confusates de-imaginificated listenators.
> >
> > Double plus ungood.
>
> Rubbish. That rated "ungood" at best. For a "plus ungood", I offer
> the following:
>
> Profligate extrospection tumultuarizes fatuitous durbars.
>
> Better offerings are welcomed and if anyone actually manages to hit
> "double plus ungood" then I shall be happy to offer a bottle of fizzy
> wine as recognition of the achievement.
"The male parent unit of the household facilitates eating utensil
cleaning in the room for the food preparation function"
The translation is probably fscked up, but what can you expect for a
45s translation hack?
//Ingvar
Rich Lafferty
>
>Also, nobody seemed to recognise the difference between man as in male,
>and man as in "manus" for hand. So I got some abominations like
>"personufacture". People are stupid.
My first thought was "but it's all maya!" This, of course, gives far
too much credit to the people in question, who are in all probability
indeed stupid.
>>[1] Interestingly, I realized I'd done a double example -- "he" and
>> "postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
>> intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
>
>I'm webmistress@netizen :) I've always wanted to have that alias, but
>my old work wouldn't let me :(
We've always had -mistress to go with -master aliases here. It's
notably amusing at the present time in that all of them, with the
exception of postmi...@concordia.ca, currently are taken care of
by men. :-)
>Well, I can't give you inanimate objects, but I can offer these nouns:
Ya, there's plenty of noninanimate objects. "Manhole" appears to be
a one-off, though.
Carl Schelin
Gus Hartmann <hart...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Phil Adamson <p.ad...@susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with "he"? It's far less clumsy than "he or she" or "she or
>> he", doesn't jar then way "they" does when used in a singular context, and
>> use of "he" as the generic pronoun is as bad as objecting to "manhole"
>> because of those three letters. It's "man" as in "mankind". How difficult
>> can that be?
> In contemporary American culture, the use of the word 'man' as you
>suggest is considered offensive to many. 'manhole' is usually met with
>objection, as is 'chairman', and even 'mankind'. They have been replaced
>with 'access hole cover', 'chairperson' (sometimes shortened to
>'chair'), and 'humankind', respectively.
> A similar phenomenon can be seen among certain organizations of
>females who replace the last vowel in 'women' and 'woman' with the
>letter 'y', so as not to contain the word 'man' in any form.
I suspect you'll find a womyn jumping up and down on your access hole cover
RSN :-)
Carl
--
Carl Schelin (BOFH, Badlife, DNRC, Sun CSA and CNA) | My Cat Sucked
finger csch...@x500.hq.nasa.gov for phone and address | The Breath Out
http://dc.jones.com/~cschelin | Of Your Kid
cd skogsberg
>d97...@dtek.chalmers.se (cd skogsberg) writes:
>> "Minun motorisaha son saunasa."
>> -- Ingvar Mattsson
>
>And now for a date and place tag, eh? ;) At least you managed to get
>my surname right... that's always a bonus point.
Ok...
"Minun motorisaha son saunasa."
-- Ingvar Mattsson
on #afp, 981217
Better?
/cd (and for the surname, I looked it up)
--
"I can bloody well see your excremental slaverings dripping down my
screen without having them thrown at me." -- Daniel Demus
Joseph Zeff
>And hence I end up using the plural a lot: "All users must move their
>Web pages" instead of "Every user must move his/her Web page".
"Every user must move their Web page." If your lusers object, they're
bigger gits than I think they are.
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Zeff Earthlink Network
jo...@earthlink.net Senior Support JOAT
(800) 395-8410
LART them all and let sysadmin sort it out!
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zeff
>"The male parent unit of the household facilitates eating utensil
> cleaning in the room for the food preparation function"
The male parental unit of the household facilitates consumption
utensil cleansing in the room designated for the food preparation
functions.
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Zeff Earthlink Network
jo...@earthlink.net Senior Support JOAT
(800) 395-8410
"If you can measure a computer's rate of error,
it's too high." Jerry Pournelle
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Thompson
"Ben Coleman" <bcol...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 1998 22:56:31 -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> >This is due for revision in English++, due out next year if the ISO
> >standardization committee finishes squabbling.
>
> This will be immediately followed by Microsoft's trying to 'embrace and
> extend' it in such a way that criticism of Microsoft will be
> syntactically impossible.
...a version originally known as "Microsoft English 1984", but which had
to be renamed to avoid embarrassment over the release date. -- Joe
--
Joe Thompson | http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/
$spam$@orion-com.com | O- He-Who-Grinds-the-Unworthy
Charlottesville, VA | "I'd like to take this time to formally
thank you for bringing back a lot of bad memories." -- ADB on ASR
Peter da Silva
Joseph Zeff <jo...@corp.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Thus sprake ing...@bofh.se:
>>"The male parent unit of the household facilitates eating utensil
>> cleaning in the room for the food preparation function"
>The male parental unit of the household facilitates consumption
>utensil cleansing in the room designated for the food preparation
>functions.
The non-natal parental unit of the familial agglomeration facilitates
post-consumption utensil re-initialization in the conventional domicile
subdivision designated for preparation of organic and artificial biological
energy sources.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
`-_-' "Heb jij vandaag je wolf al geaaid?"
'U`
"Tell init(8) to lock-n-load, we're goin' zombie slaying!"
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
Rich Lafferty <ri...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>[...]
>For example:
>
>"The postmaster at foo.com is useless -- he doesn't respond to *any*
>abuse mail."
>
>Now, how many of us visualised a female postmaster[1]?
>[1] Interestingly, I realized I'd done a double example -- "he" and
> "postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
> intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
Well, IIRC, one of our near-and-dear is webmi...@netizen.com.au...
--
Jeff Vinocur : je...@foad.org ::: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert in the Monastary:
"I managed to out-cool even the disgustingly cool people normally found
at the cafe I went to, without trying. I'm assuming it was the IETF
draft I was reading, because nothing else really accounts for it."
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
>> "postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
>> intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
>
>my old work wouldn't let me :(
Blast. I'm going to claim that this article hadn't arrived when
I followed-up (although I remember thinking "Hmm, has Skud posted
yet", which you'd expect would trigger a look-through-thread
action, I have this sinking feeling that my brain decided
vacation had started already). Apologies for trying to steal
your thunder, Skud.
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert
>In article <slrn77ki5b.je...@hiro.netizen.com.au>,
>Kirrily 'Skud' Robert <skud+...@netizen.com.au> wrote:
>>On 18 Dec 1998 08:58:43 GMT, Rich Lafferty <ri...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>[1] Interestingly, I realized I'd done a double example -- "he" and
>>> "postmaster", both supposedly in their "nongendered" form. I'd
>>> intended to only plant the "he". Postmistress?
>>
>>I'm webmistress@netizen :) I've always wanted to have that alias, but
>>my old work wouldn't let me :(
>
>Blast. I'm going to claim that this article hadn't arrived when
>I followed-up (although I remember thinking "Hmm, has Skud posted
>yet", which you'd expect would trigger a look-through-thread
>action, I have this sinking feeling that my brain decided
>vacation had started already). Apologies for trying to steal
>your thunder, Skud.
Apology accepted - I don't really have any thunder anyway.
And you know what they say: notoriety isn't as good as fame, but it's
better than obscurity.
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - http://www.netizen.com.au/
"Surely the 4 sysadmins of the apocalypse should be:
edquota, rm -rf, kill -9, and shutdown" -- Rob Blake
David Jacoby
>And you know what they say: notoriety isn't as good as fame, but it's
>better than obscurity.
I like this quote from Bill Murray better:
People talk about wanting fame and fortune. You should work on
fortune first, and if that doesn't do everything you want it to,
the work on the fame part.
--
Dave Jacoby - jac...@ecn.purdue.edu - http://pier.ecn.purdue.edu/~jacoby/
Lamport's Law:
A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer
you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable.
void
<ho...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
>
>INAIOC (I'm Not An Inhibitant Of California), though.
Hmm. I am. Maybe it's my sardonic sense of humor, or my geographic
location.
--
Ben
"You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Rich Lafferty
>vacation had started already). Apologies for trying to steal your
>thunder, Skud.
Well, if that's the case...
>--
>Jeff Vinocur : je...@foad.org ::: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert in the Monastary:
..you should stop signing as her :-)
I seem to recall you asking eons ago if the quote compression was
readable -- here's a delayed answer. It seemed fine at the time,
mind you, but that one line is exactly what appeared in my newsreader
(the rest needing scrolling-down). Perhaps if you started the quote
there, and put the attribution at the end of the quote, it'd avoid
that particular parsing.
-Rich "Or, it could be the Rebecca syndrome again." L.
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
Rich Lafferty <ri...@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>Jeffrey M. Vinocur <je...@ucan.foad.org> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Vinocur : je...@foad.org ::: Kirrily 'Skud' Robert in the Monastary:
>
>readable -- here's a delayed answer. It seemed fine at the time,
>mind you, but that one line is exactly what appeared in my newsreader
>(the rest needing scrolling-down). Perhaps if you started the quote
>there, and put the attribution at the end of the quote, it'd avoid
>that particular parsing.
I hadn't ever considered that. Doh. I humbly submit the below
(I had to kill everything but the nickname, but I'm much
happier--there was always something I didn't like about the
previous layout.)
(Maybe I should just get cron to send Skud a generic apology
hourly and save me the trouble ;-))
--
Jeff Vinocur "I managed to out-cool even the disgustingly cool people
<je...@foad.org> normally found at the cafe I went to, without trying. I'm
assuming it was the IETF draft I was reading, because nothing
else really accounts for it." --'Skud' in the Monastary
Ben Coleman
>I'm Not An Inhibitant Of California
Oh, great. Now you've got me pondering how one would go about
inhibiting California.
Nix
> Use he and she randomly, or alternatly.
> ``If a user rings and winges that her web page doesn't work anymore,
> tell him to look at http://x.y/z like we told her to last week, unless
> you fancy him, in which case invite her out for lunch.''.
Unfortunately English has two separate referential contexts; one for
`he' and one for `she'.[2] This could cause *great* confusion if
either context had anything in it, and it confuses my parser so much I
had to do s/she/he/g[1] to actually work out what it meant.
[1] solely because going the other way would have meant slightly more
complexity, you see why. I'm a lazy bastard ;)
[2] ignoring the one for `it' and all the others
--
`Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack
away on a complicated piece of code and avoid total anarchy has never
managed a software project.' - Andy Tanenbaum in 1992 on comp.os.minix
Georg Bauer
(Christian Bauernfeind) wrote:
>But they complain about 'it' being to inhuman as a pronoun ...
ITYM inhuperson. HTH. HAND.
bye, Georg
Peter van Hooft
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:55:00 GMT, Peter van Hooft wrote:
>>I'm Not An Inhibitant Of California
>Oh, great. Now you've got me pondering how one would go about
>inhibiting California.
Well, the Andreas fault will take care of that in due course, I
suppose.
I could blame this spelling error on having a bad day. You know, like,
when you're using a helpdesk tool which doesn't remedy a fscking
thing. Or when you're installing a peecee with a raid-interface it
seems it likes only _some_ of the fscking scsi cables, _some_ of the
time (of course failing after you are halfway through installing The
Monstrosity From Redmond (thank your favorite deities for bootable
cdroms, it makes re-installing shitware so much faster, shortening the
grievance time), but obviously, I'm not a spellign wander.
One of these days I'll get ispell. Or restart the other neuron. It's
too late now to stop drinking. Cheers!
peter
--
--
Peter van Hooft
The God of Thunder went for a ride
Paul Tomblin
>On 14 Dec 1998 22:52:48 -0500, ptom...@canoe.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin)
>spake thusly:
>>>>> eventuate
>>What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
>>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
>
>What's the problem with trying to get another word added to the English
>language (if it doesn't already - haven't checked the latest
>dictionaries)? After all dictionaries are made up exclusively of words
So we're adding words just for the sake of adding words now? What's wrong
with waiting until we actually have a need for a new word? Sure, new words
are added to English all the time, either because they describe a shade of
meaning that the existing words didn't, or because the new word "sounds
better", or because it describes something that didn't exist. None of those
reasons apply to the grating neologism "eventuate".
--
Paul Tomblin, not speaking for anybody.
"But I heard him exclaim, as he climbed in the night
Merry Christmas to all, I have traffic in sight" - Phyllis Moses
Christian Bauernfeind
don...@dial.pipex.com (Marc Donovan) writes:
> language? German seems to me to be just obtuse in its refusal to create
> new words other than by gluing older words together.
>
I wouldn't say so. We got the wonderful "trialogue"[1] a few years back,
and they are busy implementing a new standard as we type.
It may not be improvement, but it certainly is progress.
Christian
[1] The "di" in dialogue has nothing whatsoever to do with "two".
--
Christian Bauernfeind
Not speaking for Siemens
Not even working for IBM
e-mail: v2ba...@fishkill.ibm.com
Acid Rainbow
violence to a keyboard and sent:
>In a previous article, don...@dial.pipex.com said:
>>On 14 Dec 1998 22:52:48 -0500, ptom...@canoe.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin)
>>spake thusly:
>>>>>> eventuate
>>>What's the problem with using "happen"? "occur"? Or any number of a thousand
>>>synonyms that are already pre-existing words so you don't have to make up one.
>>
>>What's the problem with trying to get another word added to the English
>>language (if it doesn't already - haven't checked the latest
>>dictionaries)? After all dictionaries are made up exclusively of words
>
>So we're adding words just for the sake of adding words now? What's wrong
>with waiting until we actually have a need for a new word? Sure, new words
>are added to English all the time, either because they describe a shade of
>meaning that the existing words didn't, or because the new word "sounds
>better", or because it describes something that didn't exist. None of those
>reasons apply to the grating neologism "eventuate".
</Lurk>
I respectfully submit that the word eventuate appears in the 1913
edition of the Webster's dictionary, (found at
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html )
which suggests that said word has been in use for most of this century. I
believe that is reasonable proof that the aforementioned word is not a
neologism.
<Lurk>
**********************************************************************
*Lissajous patterns and windmills and don't ask about the connection.*
* Acid Rainbow: Semi-professional windmill-tilter. *
**********************************************************************
Martin J. Laubach
Can I get a bialogue? Pretty please?
mjl
Alistair J. R. Young
Thorfinn <thor...@tertius.net.au> (== thorfinn)
praised Shub-Internet thus:
> "It" is the correct singular *non* gendered third-person pronoun.
> People don't like it[0] because it[0] *connotes* lack of humanity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And is therefore the most appropriate pronoun in many cases?
> Sie, or Hir, or something like that has been used lots and lots
> before. No need to use "they".
Ugh. Not merely neologisms, but ugly-as-fsck neologisms.
Why not, one might wonder, use the word 'one', which one may observe
in occasional use, and offers one the opportunity to speak in a
sex-neutral manner without imposing the need to distort one's wording
or resort to invention of new words upon one. Doesn't one agree?
Alistair "closet prescriptivist" Y
--
Computational Thaumaturge -- Sysimperator, dominus retis deusque machinarum.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
Wanted: Interested parties to join development of a free, non-Unixalike OO
operating system. Email <laura-...@arkane.demon.co.uk>.
Kai Henningsen
> German seems to me to be just obtuse in its refusal to create
> new words other than by gluing older words together.
That's a common myth, about as valid as claiming that all new English
words are verbed nouns.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
>time
Last week I was (don't ask) explaining SCSI to a reasonably clued
(in certain areas) but inexperienced Windows guy, and it finally
hit me[1] just how amazingly, unbelievably screwy SCSI is.
[1] when I answered a question[2] with "magic" and didn't find
anything odd about the response
[2] (he inquired into how one decided if something should be
terminated)
--
Jeff Vinocur "I managed to out-cool even the disgustingly cool people
<je...@foad.org> normally found at the cafe I went to, without trying. I'm
assuming it was the IETF draft I was reading, because nothing
else really accounts for it." --'Skud' in the Monastery
Matt McLeod
>>So we're adding words just for the sake of adding words now? What's wrong
>>with waiting until we actually have a need for a new word?
>
>
>> Sure, new words
>>are added to English all the time, either because they describe a shade of
>>meaning that the existing words didn't, or because the new word "sounds
>>better", or because it describes something that didn't exist. None of those
>>reasons apply to the grating neologism "eventuate".
>
>someone in marketing or who wants to be". This may be what the person
>using the word might have had in mind. "happen" just doesn't have the
>same connotation, does it? So it's served it's purpose already - it has
>revealed latent PHB tendencies in the speaker. This person needs more
>than recovery, obviously. So obviously the word was carefully chosen
>and therefore adding the word to the english language (which, as it has
>already been pointed out, had already been done anyway) was useful.
I would hope that what it actually means is:
1) I've spent way too long working for a bloody stupid company,
occasionally even trying to clean up the far-more-mangled
prose of our sales manager and PHB when they do mass-mailouts
to the punters, and
2) I'm not exactly a language purist.
Oh, and
3) It'd been a bloody shitful week, which as it happens only got
worse. I'm now theoretically having something they call a
"holiday" (first time in years), but what with having chosen
to go see my family rather than hide gibbering in a cave
somewhere, the inevitable fuckup on the part of Our
Glorious Leader has led to me spending the best part of
two days dealing with the fallout. Plus the sodding
bottleshops around here don't have enough suitable beer.
Matt
--
Matt McLeod "Is it wrong not to always be glad?
A BOFH for all seasons No it's not wrong - but I must add,
<ma...@netizen.com.au> How can someone so young,
http://www.netizen.com.au/~matt/ Sing words so sad?"
Lionel Lauer
that:
>Last week I was (don't ask) explaining SCSI to a reasonably clued
>(in certain areas) but inexperienced Windows guy, and it finally
>hit me[1] just how amazingly, unbelievably screwy SCSI is.
Rubbish! - It's only screwy if you don't grok transmission lines, which
is vital to understanding *any*[0] kind of high speed signalling system.
>[1] when I answered a question[2] with "magic" and didn't find
> anything odd about the response
>[2] (he inquired into how one decided if something should be
> terminated)
Pah!
Kids today... mumblemmuttermumble...
[0] Thinnet has exactly the same sort of characteristics & associated
side-effects[3], but I never hear anyone here talking about it being
especially difficult.
[3] For much the same reasons.
Lionel.
--
Grep bait: qmail, Archimedes Plutonium, turkey, Kibo, Wollmann, HipCrime.
Perna condita delenda est.
"Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."