What do YOU call the # sign?
J de Boyne Pollard
MB> where each program had four-letter name prefixed
MB> with a "#" (see lots of examples at
MB> <http://pink-mouse-productions.com/icl/1900.htm>).
MB>
MB> The "#" was always pronounced "hash", so for instance
MB> the console command "GO#XQMY" for labelling a tape
MB> would be spoken "go hash X Q MY". The console
MB> command pronunciation sticks in my mind because it was
MB> an essential part of the dialogue in the machine room.
MB>
MB> The "#" was also used in programming and I find it
MB> impossible to imagine how it might have been spoken,
MB> if not as "hash". But it didn't crop upmuch in
MB> conversation so I can't say I actually remember.
MB>
MB> At that time this was definitely specialist jargon so I'm not
surprised
MB> it's apparently invisible to the OED.
MB>
MB>NSOED says of "hash": "6. In full 'hash sign'. The symbol #, esp.
used
MB>before a numeral that is a number in a series.". I don't understand
the
MB>"esp. used before a numeral that is a number in a series".
RHD> "Who are you?"
RHD> "The new #2."
RHD> "Who is #1?"
RHD> "You are #6."
W> Yep, but that would be "number" not "hash", and in the UK
W> we'd write it as "No." rather than "#".
W> "You are hash 6" makes no sense at all.
Irrelevant. The dictionary is saying that that is the name of the
symbol that is used in those circumstances. It is not saying what
words one might replace the symbol with.
Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
> note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
> denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
> BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
> them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive.
| Lori Karkosky
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
William
wrote:
Not irrelevant - highly relevant. See my response to RH Draney. My
point is that when the symbol is named "Hash" (and thus in BrE usage),
it would not be used as a sequence indicator. If the symbol is named
"Number", and thus in AmE usage, then it could be so used.
--
WH
William
> J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboynepoll...@tesco.net> writes:
>
> > Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
> > note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
> > denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
> > BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
> > them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
>
> Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
> symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
> single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
> think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
> variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
> clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
I think you are right for AmE speakers, but (reinforcing my previous
posts), I think this could never be the case for BrE speakers. That
sign simply does not mean either of those things. Indeed, if I were to
read the above BASIC statements, I would read them as:
Input hash one comma a-dollar.
Close hash one.
--
WH
Michael Black
> J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboyn...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
>> note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
>> denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
>> BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
>> them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
>
> Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
> symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
> single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
> think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
> variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
> clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
I don't ever recall a reference to the symbol in the hobby computer
magazines.
But, I've known it as the "octothorpe" for at least thirty years.
That was what the Telephone Company apparently called it, when the
touch-tone phone came along. I'm certain that's why I know the term,
since the touch-tone pad was used in amateur radio circles for remote
control, and people were curious about what the symbol was called.
Michael
John Byrns
et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:
I agree, "octothorpe" is what I call it, although I am not sure of the
correct spelling.
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Shannon Jacobs
Fairly definitive, covers most characters. Not sure if this is the
latest version of the jargon file, but it's a fairly prominent website.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboyn...@tesco.net> writes:
>
>> Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
>> note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
>> denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
>> BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
>> them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
>
>Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
>symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
>single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
>think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
Correct. Also, A& is a LONG (32bit integer), and A@ is a CURRENCY,
which is a somewhat fubared 64bit int. Those are still true for MS
Basics, at least up thru VB 6, the last that I have.
>variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
>clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
>I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
--
ArarghMail711 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
I think of it the other way round. What I call the # sign depends on
context, when used in a programming environment I call it hash, when used
in a numbering context I call it number (I never call it pound though
that's £ or lb). When the context is unclear I'll probably call it hash or
perhaps octothorp. This is similar to naming ! - in text this is the
exclamation mark, in programming it's the bang or pling (used
interchangeably).
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Mike Barnes
>On 16 Nov, 01:18, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>> J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboynepoll...@tesco.net> writes:
>>
>> > Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
>> > note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
>> > denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
>> > BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
>> > them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
>>
>> Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
>> symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
>> single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
>> think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
>> variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
>> clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
>> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
>
>I think you are right for AmE speakers, but (reinforcing my previous
>posts), I think this could never be the case for BrE speakers. That
>sign simply does not mean either of those things.
Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
such as "\", "^", and "~". We occasionally see Americans using it for
numbers (#1 etc) but that's a distinctly foreign usage. So we don't call
it a "number sign", and for obvious reasons we don't call it a "pound
sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Peter Flass
> In article <fhivnt$psv$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
> et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:
>
>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum (kirsh...@hpl.hp.com) writes:
>>
>>>J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboyn...@tesco.net> writes:
>>>
Didn't this topic come up here a short while ago?
Mike Lyle
> In alt.usage.english, William wrote:
> >On 16 Nov, 01:18, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
>
> >I think you are right for AmE speakers, but (reinforcing my previous
> >posts), I think this could never be the case for BrE speakers. That
> >sign simply does not mean either of those things.
>
> Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
> average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
> such as "\", "^", and "~". We occasionally see Americans using it for
> numbers (#1 etc) but that's a distinctly foreign usage. So we don't call
> it a "number sign", and for obvious reasons we don't call it a "pound
> sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
Yes; most of us are quite familiar with it, but have never
internalized it, so we have to translate it every time we see it used
for "number". To make things worse, among medics I believe it means
"fracture". But what interests me about it --perhaps I've asked this
before --is /how/ what seems to me an inconvenient symbol took over
from the easily-written and (I'd have thought) internationally
recognized "no." in American use. It's not possible to write it
quickly, as it demands so much to-ing and fro-ing and lifting of the
pen, and has (as far as I know) no cursive form.
--
Mike.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
> average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
> such as "\", "^", and "~".
Though they're seen in maths...
> We occasionally see Americans using it for numbers (#1 etc) but that's a
> distinctly foreign usage. So we don't call it a "number sign", and for
> obvious reasons we don't call it a "pound sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because it then
looks like the sharp incidental in music.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
jmfb...@aol.com
<16fbead4-65ad-4d44...@a28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
And if you worked on an IBM 1620, you would speak the words,
"record mark" when you encountered it reading machine code.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
<dc54b861-d099-43c2...@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
The interpretation of the character is determined by its placement.
If the # prepends the number, then it is read as Number n.
If the # appends the number, then it is read as n pounds.
None of the above apply to how the computer biz uses it.
/BAH
J de Boyne Pollard
JdeBP> aspect, I note that in many dialects of the BASIC language,
JdeBP> file handles are denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$:
JdeBP> CLOSE #1 Such dialects of BASIC were common in the
JdeBP> late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about them are likely
JdeBP> sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
EK> Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among
EK> the typing symbols for variables. [...] I don't have a clear
EK> memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
EK> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
MB> I don't ever recall a reference to the symbol in the
MB> hobby computer magazines.
It's worth actually researching, rather than relying upon memory
alone. Certainly the symbol was named "hash sign" in other computing
publications at the time:
"How easy it would be to change that syntax slightly, so that
one didn't use the absence of a hash sign to mean one thing
and its presence to mean [something else]."
-- _Human Interaction with Computers_. Hugh T. Smith.
1980. Academic Press. ISBN 0126528527
"As much as possible of the project title in which the keyword
appeared is printed on either side of the keyword -- a slash
sign '/' is printed in the line to indicate from which point one
should start reading the title, while a hash sign '#' indicates
the end of a title."
-- Research Projects: Navorsingsprojekte, 1970/1971
"All other punctuation marks and symbols, such as the
exclamation point, the double quote, the hash (# or
number or pound sign), the $ (dollar) sign, [...]"
-- _A Structured Approach to General Basic_.
George Ledin. 1978. Boyd & Fraser. ISBN 0878350705
I haven't tracked the original of the following down, but it's
included in Angermüller's and Schneider's _Mozart-bibliographie (bis
1970)_, published in 1976:
"Accidentals are derived from standard computer characters:
the sharp sign is simply the English 'hash' sign (#), which is
italicised, and then rotated 20 degrees anti-clockwise in order
to bring the uprights vertical. Similarly, the flat sign is a
lower-
-case letter 'b' which is similarly italicised and rotated anti-
-clockwise by 20 degrees."
Donna Richoux
> Yes; most of us are quite familiar with it, but have never
> internalized it, so we have to translate it every time we see it used
> for "number". To make things worse, among medics I believe it means
> "fracture". But what interests me about it --perhaps I've asked this
> before --is /how/ what seems to me an inconvenient symbol took over
> from the easily-written and (I'd have thought) internationally
> recognized "no." in American use. It's not possible to write it
> quickly, as it demands so much to-ing and fro-ing and lifting of the
> pen, and has (as far as I know) no cursive form.
A year or two ago, Evan and I both hunted for the history on this. We
didn't get far, for several reasons: (1) Google and the like don't
search for punctuation marks and symbols, (2) optical character
recognition tends to err in both directions, seeing # where is it not
and failing to see it when it is, and (3) the history of marks and
symbols in general has not been gathered the way the history of words
has.
I found a post of mine that has some good stuff in it:
Subject: Re: pound, hash, number--state of play?
From: t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:55:44 +0200
Message-ID: <1hdbo7r.1ad1wlt1xpnux6N%tr...@euronet.nl>
In short, I used Making of America and found # used to number footnotes
and tests in documents from 1916 and 1917. I found "No." used in a
variety of settings before that. Then we moved on to try to find how
long the # symbol appeared in typefonts, keyboards, etc.
That post didn't even discuss # being used to mean "pound" in grades of
printing paper, roofing felt, or other goods. That may still have been
the link -- a product that weighed 15 pounds per hundred might
eventually have been called the "Number 15" product. It feels right to
suspect a tie to the rise in mass production and standardized goods.
I see we're crossposted to alt.folklore.computers -- are they interested
in this?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Eric Sosman
> [...]
> I agree, "octothorpe" is what I call it, although I am not sure of the
> correct spelling.
No, it's the "tic-tac-toe for people with very sharp pencils sign."
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
John Everett
Having an engineering background I've always called it a "pound" sign.
However the most unusual usage I've found was associated with an old
Cyphernetics shell called CL (command language). Note this was back
when a shell was something one found on a beach.
You could automate invocation of your CL session with a filed named
#START. This was commonly referred to as a "sharp-start" file. :-)
Sarr, are you still there? Can you verify this?
--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)
J de Boyne Pollard
RHD> "The new #2."
RHD> "Who is #1?"
RHD> "You are #6."
W> Yep, but that would be "number" not "hash", and in the UK
W> we'd write it as "No." rather than "#".
W> "You are hash 6" makes no sense at all.
JdeBP> Irrelevant. The dictionary is saying that that is the name
JdeBP> of the symbol that is used in those circumstances. It is
JdeBP> not saying what words one might replace the symbol with.
W> Not irrelevant - highly relevant.
False, for the reason already given.
W> See my response to RH Draney.
... which was also wrong. The NSOED says that the symbol is _named_
hash, not that it is (as you argued) _pronounced_ "hash". Indeed, if
the above were an actual excerpt from the script for _The Prisoner_,
you'd have an excellent example -- recorded on film, no less -- of the
symbol being pronounced "number" by British English speakers. (-:
W> My point is that when the symbol is named "Hash" (and thus
W> in BrE usage), it would not be used as a sequence indicator.
The NSOED as quoted ("The symbol #, esp. used before a numeral that is
a number in a series.") explicitly says otherwise. If you think that
the NSOED has British English wrong, please go and tell its editors.
Roland Hutchinson
It doesn't, actually. The vertical elements in a musical sharp are strictly
vertical (straight up-and-down), with the one on the right higher than the
one on the left. The horizontal elements run "uphill" from right to left,
and are heavier than the vertical elements.
Haven't I said that already recently?
ObUsage: not "incidental", but "accidental".
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> > I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because it
> > then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
>
> It doesn't, actually.
It does. Specifically it does look /like/ it. I agree it isn't exactly the
same. One also sees (pun) "C#" (computer programming) spoken of as "C
sharp".
> The vertical elements in a musical sharp are strictly vertical
Not in hand-written music; they're however the person wrote them.
> Haven't I said that already recently?
Who knows? Not everyone reads every newsgroup post on the planet before
writing their own replies.
> ObUsage: not "incidental", but "accidental".
Yes, I had a funny feeling as I was typing that there was something not
right somewhere. I've read/sung thousands of pages of music and should have
known better!
Perhaps I could persuade you that the incidental use of accidentals (as in
ficta in early music) makes 'incidental' not totally wrong? No? Oh well, I
gave it a shot.
Gerard Schildberger
|> William wrote:
|>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
|>>> J de Boyne Pollard wrote:
|>>> Combining the computing aspect and the listing numbering aspect, I
|>>> note that in many dialects of the BASIC language, file handles are
|>>> denoted by the hash sign: INPUT #1, A$: CLOSE #1 Such dialects of
|>>> BASIC were common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so books about
|>>> them are likely sources of occurrences of the name before 1981.
|>> Even earlier, some microcomputer BASICs used "#" among the typing
|>> symbols for variables. A$ was a string, A% was an integer, A! was a
|>> single precision number, and A# was a double precision number. (I
|>> think; it's been a long time.) I recall that we pronounced the
|>> variable as "A double" ("string", "int", "single"), but I don't have a
|>> clear memory for what we called the symbol itself in this context.
|>> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
|> I think you are right for AmE speakers, but (reinforcing my previous
|> posts), I think this could never be the case for BrE speakers. That
|> sign simply does not mean either of those things. Indeed, if I were to
|> read the above BASIC statements, I would read them as:
|> Input hash one comma a-dollar.
|> Close hash one.
| And if you worked on an IBM 1620, you would speak the words,
| "record mark" when you encountered it reading machine code.
No, there was no # character on the IBM 1620. There was,
however, a double dagger which was the record mark. Printers
that I knew of (at the time) didn't have the double dagger,
but the console (typewritter) did, however. The record mark
is a non-decimal digit with a C-8-2 or a F-8-2.
C=check digit, F=Flag. _________________________________Gerard S.
J de Boyne Pollard
JE> an old Cyphernetics shell called CL (command language). Note
JE> this was back when a shell was something one found on a beach.
JE>
JE> You could automate invocation of your CL session with a
JE> filed named #START. This was commonly referred to as
JE> a "sharp-start" file. :-)
JE>
JE> Sarr, are you still there? Can you verify this?
In LOGLAN '88, a descendent of SIMULA 67, literal constants in bases
2, 4, 8, and 16 begin with '#'. For examples: "#4_3333" is the
number 255 and "#X_ABCD:2" is the number 2882382797. The report on
the language by Kreczmar, Salwicki, and Warpechowski calls this the
"hash character".
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>> Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
>> average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
>> such as "\", "^", and "~".
>
>Though they're seen in maths...
Yes, but most maths is also devoid of meaning to the average Brit...
Mike Barnes
>RHD> "Who are you?"
>RHD> "The new #2."
>RHD> "Who is #1?"
>RHD> "You are #6."
>
>
>if
>the above were an actual excerpt from the script for _The Prisoner_,
>you'd have an excellent example -- recorded on film, no less -- of the
>symbol being pronounced "number" by British English speakers. (-:
But it isn't, and you don't. Feel free to provide actual examples of "#"
being pronounced "number" by British English speakers.
>
>W> My point is that when the symbol is named "Hash" (and thus
>W> in BrE usage), it would not be used as a sequence indicator.
>
>The NSOED as quoted ("The symbol #, esp. used before a numeral that is
>a number in a series.") explicitly says otherwise. If you think that
>the NSOED has British English wrong, please go and tell its editors.
The NSOED has British English wrong IMO. My interpretation of that entry
is that "#" is called a hash [sign] when it's used to indicate a number,
more often than when it's used for other purposes. That sounds like
nonsense to me.
But writing to the OUP is not going to help this debate. (I've done it
anyway.)
Eugene Miya
>> In article <fhivnt$psv$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca>,
>> et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:
>>>Evan Kirshenbaum (kirsh...@hpl.hp.com) writes:
>>>>J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboyn...@tesco.net> writes:
In article <473d84ff$0$32495$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Didn't this topic come up here a short while ago?
Sure, but Katie Hafner when she wrote Where Wizards Stay up Late
underwent the same questioning 10 years ago with '@'.
Get back to me when you guys need to pronounce FAQ, and
you'll get the same answer I gave the OED folk.
--
Eugene Miya
>>sign simply does not mean either of those things.
>
>Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
>average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
>such as "\", "^", and "~". We occasionally see Americans using it for
>numbers (#1 etc) but that's a distinctly foreign usage. So we don't call
>it a "number sign", and for obvious reasons we don't call it a "pound
>sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
That's OK, the saying in the US goes:
You'll learn something every day.
Or as the singer Joan Baez once spoke on a live album:
You'll adapt.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
>
>> I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because
>> it then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
>
> It doesn't, actually. The vertical elements in a musical sharp are
> strictly vertical (straight up-and-down), with the one on the right
> higher than the one on the left. The horizontal elements run
> "uphill" from right to left, and are heavier than the vertical
> elements.
So if you took a sharp sign and italicized it, you'd essentially get a
pound sign.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Nico de Jong
"Jeremy C B Nicoll" <jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:gemini.jrlon...@omba.demon.invalid...
Nico
Robert Bannister
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:32:33 -0800 (PST)
> William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 16 Nov, 00:36, J de Boyne Pollard <j.deboynepoll...@tesco.net>
>>wrote:
>
>
>>>Irrelevant. The dictionary is saying that that is the name of the
>>>symbol that is used in those circumstances. It is not saying what
>>>words one might replace the symbol with.
>>
>>Not irrelevant - highly relevant. See my response to RH Draney. My
>>point is that when the symbol is named "Hash" (and thus in BrE usage),
>>it would not be used as a sequence indicator. If the symbol is named
>>"Number", and thus in AmE usage, then it could be so used.
>
>
> I think of it the other way round. What I call the # sign depends on
> context, when used in a programming environment I call it hash, when used
> in a numbering context I call it number (I never call it pound though
> that's £ or lb). When the context is unclear I'll probably call it hash or
> perhaps octothorp. This is similar to naming ! - in text this is the
> exclamation mark, in programming it's the bang or pling (used
> interchangeably).
>
And in maths I learned it as "shriek".
--
Rob Bannister
Gerard Schildberger
|> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
|>> Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
|>> I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because
|>> it then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
|> It doesn't, actually. The vertical elements in a musical sharp are
|> strictly vertical (straight up-and-down), with the one on the right
|> higher than the one on the left. The horizontal elements run
|> "uphill" from right to left, and are heavier than the vertical
|> elements.
| So if you took a sharp sign and italicized it, you'd essentially get a
| pound sign.
Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
(This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
Hatunen
<Gera...@rrt.net> wrote:
>Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
>that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
>whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
>--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
>
>(This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
>
>As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
Which is what "asterisk" means...
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
William
wrote:
> RHD> "Who are you?"
> RHD> "The new #2."
> RHD> "Who is #1?"
> RHD> "You are #6."
>
> W> Yep, but that would be "number" not "hash", and in the UK
> W> we'd write it as "No." rather than "#".
> W> "You are hash 6" makes no sense at all.
>
> JdeBP> Irrelevant. The dictionary is saying that that is the name
> JdeBP> of the symbol that is used in those circumstances. It is
> JdeBP> not saying what words one might replace the symbol with.
>
> W> Not irrelevant - highly relevant.
>
> False, for the reason already given.
False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
but pronounced "number"?
> W> See my response to RH Draney.
>
> ... which was also wrong.
Not so. For the reasons already given.
> The NSOED says that the symbol is _named_
> hash, not that it is (as you argued) _pronounced_ "hash".
My point is it that is named many things, but the name "hash" is not
liked to sequence indication other than in this NSOED entry; and thus,
th entry itself is suspect.
> Indeed, if
> the above were an actual excerpt from the script for _The Prisoner_,
> you'd have an excellent example -- recorded on film, no less -- of the
> symbol being pronounced "number" by British English speakers. (-:
Mike Barnes has already anwered this. Suffice to say this statement
exists in the same universe as "If a pig had grey ears, it might be an
elephant".
> The NSOED as quoted ("The symbol #, esp. used before a numeral that is
> a number in a series.") explicitly says otherwise. If you think that
> the NSOED has British English wrong, please go and tell its editors.
Do you imagine that the editors of the NSOED have never had to correct
an entry?
--
WH
Gerard Schildberger
|> Gerard Schildberger wrote:
|>Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
|>that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
|>whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
|>--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
|>
|>(This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
|>
|>As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
| Which is what "asterisk" means...
No, asterisk is just a name for the "*" symbol, it's what some
people call it. Asterisk doesn't MEAN star, it's just another
name for it. But the point was, what do YOU call the # sign?
I was mentioning that all telephony scripts call the symbol
"pound" (at least, in North America). It would be interesting
what other English-speaking countries have their telephonys
(telephonies?) call it. _________________________________Gerard S.
Donna Richoux
> False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
> to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
> but pronounced "number"?
Logically, it's possible. & is named "ampersand" but is pronounced
"and", in the sense that y'all are using "pronounced." I think I'd say
"read as," myself.
Most symbols have names but aren't "read as" anything. You don't say a
particular word when you see a question mark at the end of a sentence
(though you probably change your intonation). Some symbols, like plus
signs, are read the same as their name.
However, most of the people who say "hash" (Brits) do not use the symbol
to mean "number" (a US practice), so the whole discussion is pointless.
R H Draney
>
>Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
>that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
>whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
>--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
Taking advantage of an opportunity to change the subject, I once took the better
part of a month to decide that "press" is the proper imperative in cases like
this...the draft presented to me kept telling people to "hit the ENTER key to
continue", and the author took some convincing before agreeing that turning
"hit" loose on a user population of unknown composition was asking for
trouble....
At one point he asked if he could say "depress the ENTER key"...I responded by
leaning down close to the keyboard and whispering "nobody likes you"....r
--
"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit
tony cooper
wrote:
I'm still trying to find a keyboard with an ANY key. I've programs I
can't use because I can't follow the instructions.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
William
> However, most of the people who say "hash" (Brits) do not use the symbol
> to mean "number" (a US practice), so the whole discussion is pointless.
Not entirely pointless, since what you have written above is the
point. Thank you for summarising it so succinctly.
--
WH
William
> I'm still trying to find a keyboard with an ANY key. I've programs I
> can't use because I can't follow the instructions.
I have the same problem with Windows programs that tell me to "Click
the Start button at the bottom right of the screen". I have no such
button.
--
WH
William
> > False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
> > to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
> > but pronounced "number"?
>
> Logically, it's possible. & is named "ampersand" but is pronounced
> "and", in the sense that y'all are using "pronounced." I think I'd say
> "read as," myself.
Agreed, but my comment was specific rather than generic. I believe
most BrE speakers call "#" by the name hash. They also read it as
"hash" and if speaking it, they say "hash". Few if any BrE speakers
would use "number" as any form of reference to the # symbol.
--
WH
tony cooper
I have yours. But it's at the bottom left.
John Holmes
>
> Quite so. The "#" sign was, and still is, as devoid of meaning to the
> average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on
> using it for numbers (#1 etc) but that's a distinctly foreign usage.
> So we don't call it a "number sign", and for obvious reasons we don't
> call it a "pound sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
About the only place I see it used consistently for 'number' in
Australia is in the signature on limited-edition numbered art prints: #
3 / 20, etc.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
krw
jmfb...@aol.com says...
> In article
> <dc54b861-d099-43c2...@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 9:37�am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.usage.english, William wrote:
> >[...]
> >> >> I'd guess either "number sign" or "pound sign".
> >>
> >> >I think you are right for AmE speakers, but (reinforcing my previous
> >> >sign simply does not mean either of those things.
> >>
> >> average Brit as some of those other weird symbols you find on computers,
> >> such as "\", "^", and "~". We occasionally see Americans using it for
> >> numbers (#1 etc) but that's a distinctly foreign usage. So we don't call
> >> it a "number sign", and for obvious reasons we don't call it a "pound
> >> sign" either. "Hash sign" it is.
> >
> >internalized it, so we have to translate it every time we see it used
> >for "number". To make things worse, among medics I believe it means
> >"fracture". But what interests me about it --perhaps I've asked this
> >before --is /how/ what seems to me an inconvenient symbol took over
> >from the easily-written and (I'd have thought) internationally
> >recognized "no." in American use. It's not possible to write it
> >quickly, as it demands so much to-ing and fro-ing and lifting of the
> >pen, and has (as far as I know) no cursive form.
>
> The interpretation of the character is determined by its placement.
> If the # prepends the number, then it is read as Number n.
> If the # appends the number, then it is read as n pounds.
And if it's after a letter A-G, it's a "sharp" and it it's on a phone
it's an "octathorpe".
> None of the above apply to how the computer biz uses it.
Which one?
--
Keith
Walter Bushell
Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:35 -0600, "Gerard Schildberger"
> <Gera...@rrt.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
> >that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
> >whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
> >--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
> >
> >(This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
> >
> >As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
>
> Which is what "asterisk" means...
Mary with her little friends,
Went on the ice to frisk.
Wasn't Mary being nice,
Here pretty *.
Michael Black
But I'm not sure that really counts as a definitive definition.
After all, if the real word is unknown by most, then it likely
doesn't work well if they tell you to "press the octothorpe button".
Most people would immediately get lost.
But if you use a descriptive term, of course they'll know what you mean.
Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
while "star" is immediately obvious.
Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
Michael
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
> while "star" is immediately obvious.
>
> Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
> say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left of
the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star" by
default for the telephone button.
YMMV.
Peter Moylan
> Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
>> I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because
>> it then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
>
> It doesn't, actually. The vertical elements in a musical sharp are
> strictly vertical (straight up-and-down), with the one on the right
> higher than the one on the left. The horizontal elements run
> "uphill" from right to left, and are heavier than the vertical
> elements.
ObWeirdness: I'm reading this thread in Thunderbird, and the sign in
question is very clearly a "sharp" in the Subject line, and equally
clearly a "hash" in the text bodies of all the postings in the thread.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you what fonts are being used. Thunderbird
organises its fonts by language rather than by MIME character set. (And
there's no documentation to say what "language" ISO-8859-1 is supposed
to correspond to, nor anything to say why header lines are displayed in
a different "language".) A rather stupid thing to do, you might think,
but it's all part of the mindset of designers who think that a
newsreader is just a special case of a web browser, and who therefore
haven't thought through the implications of the fact that NNTP headers
aren't the same as HTTP headers.
(I'm not really blaming the Thunderbird implementers for this, because
this particular idiocy was invented by Netscape, and I guess that the
Thunderbird people never got around to throwing it out. Besides, it's a
common misunderstanding. Google never figured out the difference between
newsreaders and web browsers, either.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
> As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard
> S.
I've just taken a look at my telephone, and the "star" is drawn with
four strokes, unlike an asterisk which always (AFAIK) uses three
strokes. The result looks more like something a spider might have
designed than an eight-pointed star.
My mobile phone does have the six-pointed version. Smaller keyboard.
ObAUE: can the * sign properly be called an asterisk when it doesn't
appear in a superscript position?
Peter Moylan
> But the point was, what do YOU call the # sign? I was mentioning
> that all telephony scripts call the symbol "pound" (at least, in
> North America). It would be interesting what other English-speaking
> countries have their telephonys (telephonies?) call it.
I was under the impression that this had already been answered upthread,
multiple times. To draw in the lurkers, let's rephrase the question. Is
there any country outside North American where it is NOT called "the
hash key"?
By the way, I continue to maintain that the # was called "hatch"
(outside North America) before the telephony people got hold of it.
Unfortunately it's tricky to track down evidence about technical terms
from times before the web was invented. Does anyone still have an ASR-33
manual?
Peter Moylan
> JE> However the most unusual usage I've found was associated with JE>
> an old Cyphernetics shell called CL (command language). Note JE> this
> was back when a shell was something one found on a beach. JE> JE> You
> could automate invocation of your CL session with a JE> filed named
> #START. This was commonly referred to as JE> a "sharp-start" file.
> :-) JE> JE> Sarr, are you still there? Can you verify this?
>
> In LOGLAN '88, a descendent of SIMULA 67, literal constants in bases
> 2, 4, 8, and 16 begin with '#'. For examples: "#4_3333" is the
> number 255 and "#X_ABCD:2" is the number 2882382797. The report on
> the language by Kreczmar, Salwicki, and Warpechowski calls this the
> "hash character".
Just for completeness, "#" meant "literal" in PDP-11 programming. For
example, the instruction
ADD #54, R3
meant "add the constant 54 to the contents of register R3". Without the
"#", it would be a reference to the contents of the memory location
whose address was 54.
As I recall it, though, the PDP-11 programming manuals never gave a
pronunciation guide, so different programmers would read the above
instruction differently, according to their own preferences.
Roland Hutchinson
> Taking advantage of an opportunity to change the subject, I once took the
> better part of a month to decide that "press" is the proper imperative in
> cases like this...the draft presented to me kept telling people to "hit
> the ENTER key to continue", and the author took some convincing before
> agreeing that turning "hit" loose on a user population of unknown
> composition was asking for trouble....
>
> At one point he asked if he could say "depress the ENTER key"...I
> responded by leaning down close to the keyboard and whispering "nobody
> likes you"....r
In the American South, it's "mash on the ENTER key". An admirable verb,
well suited to the purpose (it's also what you do to the pedals in your
car); but it will get you looked at funny elswhere.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> > I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because it
>> > then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
>>
>> It doesn't, actually.
>
> It does. Specifically it does look /like/ it. I agree it isn't exactly
> the
> same. One also sees (pun) "C#" (computer programming) spoken of as "C
> sharp".
>
>> The vertical elements in a musical sharp are strictly vertical
>
> Not in hand-written music; they're however the person wrote them.
In competently handwritten music using current notational conventions (as
opposed to, say, Renaissance manuscripts), they are vertical. Trained
musicians are (or ought to be) taught to write them that way; it makes for
easier reading if the established forms of musical symbols are followed.
In _really_ fussy handwritten music -- the kind that computer-generated
notation has replaced in recent decades -- they might be drawn with a
T-square and triangle to ensure that the lines are accurately vertical.
>> Haven't I said that already recently?
>
> Who knows? Not everyone reads every newsgroup post on the planet before
> writing their own replies.
Sorry; I hadn't noticed the crossposting.
>> ObUsage: not "incidental", but "accidental".
>
> Yes, I had a funny feeling as I was typing that there was something not
> right somewhere. I've read/sung thousands of pages of music and should
> have known better!
>
> Perhaps I could persuade you that the incidental use of accidentals (as in
> ficta in early music) makes 'incidental' not totally wrong? No? Oh well,
> I gave it a shot.
Nice try. Really. Shows imagination and initiative, even if I do remain
unpersuaded.
Roland Hutchinson
> William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>
>> False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
>> to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
>> but pronounced "number"?
>
> Logically, it's possible. & is named "ampersand" but is pronounced
> "and", in the sense that y'all are using "pronounced." I think I'd say
> "read as," myself.
>
> Most symbols have names but aren't "read as" anything. You don't say a
> particular word when you see a question mark at the end of a sentence
> (though you probably change your intonation). Some symbols, like plus
> signs, are read the same as their name.
Ah, but the plus sign is generally read "plus", whereas its name is "plus
sign". There must be a better example of a symbol whose name coincides
with its reading, but it isn't coming into my head just now.
(This is all getting to be a bit like the White Knight's song. Or rather,
the name of the song. Or what the name of the song is called. Or what the
song is called.)
> However, most of the people who say "hash" (Brits) do not use the symbol
> to mean "number" (a US practice), so the whole discussion is pointless.
There is, indeed, that.
Father Ignatius
> I've just taken a look at my telephone, and the "star" is
> drawn with four strokes, unlike an asterisk which always
> (AFAIK) uses three strokes. The result looks more like
> something a spider might have designed than an
> eight-pointed star.
Let me explain this to you: as you know, there is a
convention for crossing zeroes to distinguish them from
letter ohs[1]. So what you have here is a crossed
six-pointed star (or "star"), signifying that the key is
used in a logical or mathematical, as opposed to textual,
sense.
The need for doing this arises from the need to distinguish
the [textual] six-pointed star (or "star") from the
[logico-mathematical] crossed four-pointed star (or "star")
(which, you will readily discern, is a logico-mathematical
multiplication sign that has been crossed to distinguish it
from the letter "X" (or "x") in a sans-serif font (such as
handwriting).
[1] And, indeed, we fondly recall from the days of FORTRAN
<=[2] IV, an intersecting convention for crossing letter ohs
to distinguish them from zeroes; I once saw a FORTRAN text
with the O in FORTRAN crossed.
[2] .LE.?
Roland Hutchinson
> Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> I've seen 'sharp' too, especially if you see it italicised, because
>>> it then looks like the sharp incidental in music.
>>
>> It doesn't, actually. The vertical elements in a musical sharp are
>> strictly vertical (straight up-and-down), with the one on the right
>> higher than the one on the left. The horizontal elements run
>> "uphill" from right to left, and are heavier than the vertical
>> elements.
>
> So if you took a sharp sign and italicized it, you'd essentially get a
> pound sign.
Not too close. The horizontal elements still wouldn't be horizontal, and
the line weights wouldn't be right.
You could try rotating it slightly clockwise, but then the uprights wouldn't
sit on the baseline.
All in all, it's a good thing that Unicode provides different code points
for the musical sharp and the hash mark -- not just because the glyphs look
different, of course; also because the semantics are very different.
Bob Cunningham
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> said:
> Michael Black wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
> > while "star" is immediately obvious.
> >
> > Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
> > say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
>
> I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left of
> the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
> five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
> figure.
By whose tradition? I look at the "asterisk" entry in the
_New Shorter Oxford_ and the first thing I notice is that
they illustrate the definition with a five-pointed star.
Then I look at the Wikipedia article on punctuation, click
on "asterisk", and see the five-pointed star illustrated at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk .
The _American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition_ at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/10/A0481000.html also has a
five-pointer.
The only exception I've found is at m-w.com, where the
asterisk is six pointed. But the _11th Collegiate_, which
is a later edition of the _Collegiate_ than the one at
m-w.com has the five-pointed star.
At
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/002a/index.htm
there's an illustration of the "Unicode Character 'ASTERISK'
(U+002A)", It has five points.
Exactly what tradition do you think calls for the asterisk
to be six pointed.
> They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
> mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
> restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star" by
> default for the telephone button.
I just looked at three telephone instruments that I have
within arm's reach. Each of them has a six-pointed
asterisk.
I am content to believe that an asterisk is equally
correctly drawn with either five or six points. However, I
sorta like to call it a splat.
Bob Cunningham
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> said:
[...]
> ObAUE: can the * sign properly be called an asterisk when it doesn't
> appear in a superscript position?
For what it's worth, see "Unicode Character 'LOW ASTERISK'
(U+204E)" (six points) at
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/204e/index.htm
. `
By the way, I find it somewhat amusing to see that a
definition of the "Unicode Character 'ARABIC FIVE POINTED
STAR' (U+066D)" at
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/066d/index.htm
is illustrated with a six-pointed star.
Roland Hutchinson
> Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> het geskryf:
>
>> I've just taken a look at my telephone, and the "star" is
>> drawn with four strokes, unlike an asterisk which always
>> (AFAIK) uses three strokes. The result looks more like
>> something a spider might have designed than an
>> eight-pointed star.
>
> Let me explain this to you: as you know, there is a
> convention for crossing zeroes to distinguish them from
> letter ohs[1]. So what you have here is a crossed
> six-pointed star (or "star"), signifying that the key is
> used in a logical or mathematical, as opposed to textual,
> sense.
>
> The need for doing this arises from the need to distinguish
> the [textual] six-pointed star (or "star") from the
> [logico-mathematical] crossed four-pointed star (or "star")
> (which, you will readily discern, is a logico-mathematical
> multiplication sign that has been crossed to distinguish it
> from the letter "X" (or "x") in a sans-serif font (such as
> handwriting).
Padre, a mind like that is wasted on philosophy.
You should take up a more demanding hobby.
Charlie Gibbs
exw...@earthlink.net (Bob Cunningham) writes:
> I am content to believe that an asterisk is equally
> correctly drawn with either five or six points.
I've tended to reserve the term "star" for a five-pointed figure,
and "asterisk" for a six-pointed one. And now I'm finding
computer fonts that display a so-called "asterisk" with five
points. Sigh...
> However, I sorta like to call it a splat.
Yeah, that is sort of fun, especially when ridiculing marketroids'
spelling games. "Squeal splat Forms", for instance, sounds appropriately
silly, and a bit violent to boot.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Charlie Gibbs
(Gerard Schildberger) writes:
> Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/
> whatever that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account
> number (or whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the
> pound key --- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope
> key, POUND.
>
> (This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
>
> As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
One thing these have in common is that preference seems to be given
to the word with fewer syllables. As with the widespread incorrect
use of "baud" when the correct term is "bits per second", convenience
trumps accuracy.
Back in the 1200-bps BBS days, my .signature used to say:
"600 baud and proud of it!" When I moved up to a 2400-bps
modem, I didn't have to change my .sig... :-)
Charlie Gibbs
(R H Draney) writes:
> Taking advantage of an opportunity to change the subject, I once
> took the better part of a month to decide that "press" is the proper
> imperative in cases like this...the draft presented to me kept
> telling people to "hit the ENTER key to continue", and the author
> took some convincing before agreeing that turning "hit" loose on
> a user population of unknown composition was asking for trouble....
Like that n'th generation photocopy of someone taking aim at the
keyboard with a sledgehammer...
> At one point he asked if he could say "depress the ENTER key"...
> I responded by leaning down close to the keyboard and whispering
> "nobody likes you"....r
One day back in the mainframe era when I was having a bad day,
I modified a terminal's login screen, which bore the legend:
"Depress the TRANSMIT key to log on." Underneath I added:
"The TRANSMIT key is depressed. So am I."
Charlie Gibbs
(Robert Lieblich) writes:
> I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left
> of the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
> five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
> figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
> mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
> restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star"
> by default for the telephone button.
Now you've got me going. I looked at the phone on my desk and it
has a five-sided figure. The phone on my wife's desk, on the other
hand, has a six-sided figure. So does my cell phone.
Interestingly, the asterisk on my cell phone has a horizontal line, e.g.
\ /
-----
/ \
while the asterisks on my wife's cell phone and all the keyboards in
the house have a vertical line, e.g.
\|/
/|\
My computer screens display any of the three, depending on the font.
Go figure.
R H Draney
>
>In article <fhlcm...@drn.newsguy.com>, dado...@spamcop.net
>(R H Draney) writes:
>
>> At one point he asked if he could say "depress the ENTER key"...
>> I responded by leaning down close to the keyboard and whispering
>> "nobody likes you"....r
>
>One day back in the mainframe era when I was having a bad day,
>I modified a terminal's login screen, which bore the legend:
>"Depress the TRANSMIT key to log on." Underneath I added:
>
> "The TRANSMIT key is depressed. So am I."
"Life...don't talk to me about life"....r
--
"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit
R H Draney
>
>
>Interestingly, the asterisk on my cell phone has a horizontal line, e.g.
>
> \ /
> -----
> / \
>
>while the asterisks on my wife's cell phone and all the keyboards in
>the house have a vertical line, e.g.
>
> \|/
> /|\
>
>My computer screens display any of the three, depending on the font.
>
>Go figure.
Whichever way I learned to draw this character, the Graffiti "gesture" for it on
the Palm insists it be done the other way....r
R H Draney
Hmmm...it's at the top left of mine, but only when the mouse pointer is at or
near the left-hand edge of the screen....r
Steve O'Hara-Smith
William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 00:19, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> > William <will...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
> > > False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
> > > to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
> > > but pronounced "number"?
> >
> > Logically, it's possible. & is named "ampersand" but is pronounced
> > "and", in the sense that y'all are using "pronounced." I think I'd say
> > "read as," myself.
>
> Agreed, but my comment was specific rather than generic. I believe
> most BrE speakers call "#" by the name hash. They also read it as
> "hash" and if speaking it, they say "hash". Few if any BrE speakers
> would use "number" as any form of reference to the # symbol.
This BrE speaker will but only in the context where the symbol
precedes a number as in "Nightmare #6" (ObAfc who can name the computer
that ran this game). The usage may be originally American but it is
familiar on this side of the pond.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith
William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
> False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
> to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
> but pronounced "number"?
What's wrong with the concept that the symbol in question has
multiple names and which one is used depends on context ?
Father Ignatius
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0800 (PST)
> William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>
>> False, for the reasons already given; but are you
>> seriously asking us to believe that there exists a
>> symbol in English which is named "hash" but pronounced
>> "number"?
>
> What's wrong with the concept that the symbol in question
> has multiple names and which one is used depends on
> context ?
<sigh> Does not play well with others.
Jitze
wrote:
>tony cooper filted:
>>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:21:31 -0800 (PST), William
>><wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Nov, 00:54, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm still trying to find a keyboard with an ANY key. I've programs I
>>>> can't use because I can't follow the instructions.
>>>
>>>I have the same problem with Windows programs that tell me to "Click
>>>the Start button at the bottom right of the screen". I have no such
>>>button.
>>
>>I have yours. But it's at the bottom left.
>
>Hmmm...it's at the top left of mine, but only when the mouse pointer is at or
>near the left-hand edge of the screen....r
Your bloody screen is upside down - *that's* your problem you
silly....
Jitze
Jitze
<j.deboyn...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>In LOGLAN '88, a descendent of SIMULA 67, literal constants in bases
>2, 4, 8, and 16 begin with '#'. For examples: "#4_3333" is the
>number 255 and "#X_ABCD:2" is the number 2882382797. The report on
>the language by Kreczmar, Salwicki, and Warpechowski calls this the
>"hash character".
Yabbut - Polish notation always was another thing - you sort of have
to back into it to understand it if you know what I mean.
Jitze
HVS
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:21:31 -0800 (PST), William
>> <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Nov, 00:54, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I'm still trying to find a keyboard with an ANY key. I've
>>>> programs I can't use because I can't follow the instructions.
>>>
>>> I have the same problem with Windows programs that tell me to
>>> "Click the Start button at the bottom right of the screen". I
>>> have no such button.
>>
>> I have yours. But it's at the bottom left.
>
> Hmmm...it's at the top left of mine, but only when the mouse
> pointer is at or near the left-hand edge of the screen....r
Same here; I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to get to
things than down.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Mike Barnes
>However, most of the people who say "hash" (Brits) do not use the symbol
>to mean "number" (a US practice), so the whole discussion is pointless.
Are they mostly Brits? I suspect that "hash" is used much more widely
than that. I've yet to observe anyone from outside the USA (OK, North
America maybe) saying "pound sign".
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Alan Jones
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> wrote in message
news:13jsqh3...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 17/11/07 10:05, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
>
>> As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard
>> S.
>
> I've just taken a look at my telephone, and the "star" is drawn with
> four strokes, unlike an asterisk which always (AFAIK) uses three
> strokes. The result looks more like something a spider might have
> designed than an eight-pointed star.
>
> My mobile phone does have the six-pointed version. Smaller keyboard.
>
> ObAUE: can the * sign properly be called an asterisk when it doesn't
> appear in a superscript position?
I've skimmed through several dozen word-processing fonts to check the shape
of the "proper" asterisk, and can report that five spokes slightly beats
six. Some very "light" fonts have eight, all thin lines of uniform
thickness. Of the "5" and "6" designs, the spokes are usually tear-drops,
some very markedly tapered; they don't all meet at the centre. I found two
ultra-bold decorative fonts with spokeless asterisks: one has a fat
five-pointed star, the other a cluster of four separate diamonds in an
overall diamond layout.
Alan Jones
Stan Barr
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael Black wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
>> while "star" is immediately obvious.
>>
>> Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
>> say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
>
>the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
>five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
>figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
>mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
>restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star" by
>default for the telephone button.
All my (UK) phones, including my cellphone, have six pointed asterisks.
(From the Greek asteriskos - a little star...)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
Bob Cunningham
<cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> said:
> In article <dvvsj39a4estbeolj...@4ax.com>,
> exw...@earthlink.net (Bob Cunningham) writes:
>
> > I am content to believe that an asterisk is equally
> > correctly drawn with either five or six points.
>
> I've tended to reserve the term "star" for a five-pointed figure,
> and "asterisk" for a six-pointed one. And now I'm finding
> computer fonts that display a so-called "asterisk" with five
> points. Sigh...
After posting my previous message, I compared the
_Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_ on CD ROM and in the
print version. The entries for "asterisk" seem to be
identical except that the CD has a five-pointed star while
the print version's is six pointed.
Mike Barnes
>I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to get to
>things than down.
Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
Mike Barnes
>In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>>I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>>Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to get to
>>things than down.
>
>Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
...but there are a considerable number of applications that position
their windows incorrectly if the taskbar is at the top - that is to say,
they position their windows with the title bar *behind* the taskbar
instead of below it. So many applications do this that I'm drawn to the
conclusion that it's a mistake on the part of Microsoft rather on the
part of all the application writers concerned.
HVS
Yes -- I've noticed that a lot of applications progressively open new
windows higher up the screen. If you've got the taskbar set for
"always on top" they can tuck themselves up there with their menu
bars completely hidden.
I have "always on top" turned off precisely for this reason.
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:56:39 -0600:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:43:36 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Michael Black wrote:
> >
> >[ ... ]
> >
> >> Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
> >> while "star" is immediately obvious.
> >>
> >> Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
> >> say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
> >
> >I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left of
> >the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
> >five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
> >figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
> >mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
> >restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star" by
> >default for the telephone button.
>
> All my (UK) phones, including my cellphone, have six pointed asterisks.
>
> (From the Greek asteriskos - a little star...)
All six-pointed here too.
Two computer keyboards and my mobile phone vertical.
Laptop and two landline phones horizontal.
--
Nick Spalding
Roland Hutchinson
> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>>I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>>Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to get to
>>things than down.
>
> Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
The "down" position was chosen on the engineering principle of "better not
make this thing look _too_ much like a Mac."
Father Ignatius
>> Hmmm...it's at the top left of mine, but only when the
>> mouse pointer is at or near the left-hand edge of the
>> screen....r
>
> Same here; I moved the task bar to the top of the screen
> years ago. Somehow it just seemed more natural to move
> the pointer up to get to things than down.
Hmmmm. How to screw with a luser, contd.: move toolbar to
top of screen and engage auto-hide.
Nah. They'd only run around logging calls.
HVS
And make the pointer black, hide the icons, and make the desktop
plain black.
Neat.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>>>I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>>>Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to get to
>>>things than down.
>>
>> Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
>
>The "down" position was chosen on the engineering principle of "better not
>make this thing look _too_ much like a Mac."
Understood. I've never used a Mac so I wasn't previously aware of its
taskbar equivalent being at the top.
Mike Barnes
>On 17 Nov 2007, Mike Barnes wrote
>
>> In alt.usage.english, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>>>> I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>>>> Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up to
>>>> get to things than down.
>>>
>>> Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
>>
>> ...but there are a considerable number of applications that
>> position their windows incorrectly if the taskbar is at the top
>> - that is to say, they position their windows with the title bar
>> *behind* the taskbar instead of below it. So many applications
>> do this that I'm drawn to the conclusion that it's a mistake on
>> the part of Microsoft rather on the part of all the application
>> writers concerned.
>
>Yes -- I've noticed that a lot of applications progressively open new
>windows higher up the screen.
I only ever came across one program that did that (Visual Basic), and I
don't use that program any more. The programs that I have in mind always
open in the same place, but with the title bar and sometimes the menu
bar hidden. I have a double-height taskbar, btw. It's actually easy
enough to reposition the window when that happens.
>If you've got the taskbar set for
>"always on top" they can tuck themselves up there with their menu
>bars completely hidden.
>
>I have "always on top" turned off precisely for this reason.
I briefly tried unsetting "always on top" but I can't imagine wanting
that. A taskbar that isn't permanently visible would be useless to me.
Peter Flass
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:19:27 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
>
>
>>William <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>False, for the reasons already given; but are you seriously asking us
>>>to believe that there exists a symbol in English which is named "hash"
>>>but pronounced "number"?
>>
>>"and", in the sense that y'all are using "pronounced." I think I'd say
>>"read as," myself.
>>
>>particular word when you see a question mark at the end of a sentence
>>(though you probably change your intonation). Some symbols, like plus
>>signs, are read the same as their name.
>>
>>However, most of the people who say "hash" (Brits) do not use the symbol
>>to mean "number" (a US practice), so the whole discussion is pointless.
>
>
> can't use because I can't follow the instructions.
>
>
Isn't that the stupid windows-thingy next to Ctrl?
Bernd Felsche
>(Robert Lieblich) writes:
>> I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left
>> of the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
>> five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
>> figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
>> mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
>> restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star"
>> by default for the telephone button.
>Now you've got me going. I looked at the phone on my desk and it
>has a five-sided figure. The phone on my wife's desk, on the other
>hand, has a six-sided figure. So does my cell phone.
>Interestingly, the asterisk on my cell phone has a horizontal line, e.g.
> \ /
> -----
> / \
>while the asterisks on my wife's cell phone and all the keyboards in
>the house have a vertical line, e.g.
> \|/
> /|\
>My computer screens display any of the three, depending on the font.
Depends on the direction that the bug was moving when splattered.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The object of life is not to be on the side of
X against HTML mail | the majority but to escape finding oneself in
/ \ and postings | the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
HVS
> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2007, Mike Barnes wrote
>>
>>> In alt.usage.english, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>>>>> I moved the task bar to the top of the screen years ago.
>>>>> Somehow it just seemed more natural to move the pointer up
>>>>> to get to things than down.
>>>>
>>>> Me too, the first time I ever saw a taskbar.
>>>
>>> ...but there are a considerable number of applications that
>>> position their windows incorrectly if the taskbar is at the
>>> top - that is to say, they position their windows with the
>>> title bar *behind* the taskbar instead of below it. So many
>>> applications do this that I'm drawn to the conclusion that
>>> it's a mistake on the part of Microsoft rather on the part of
>>> all the application writers concerned.
>>
>> Yes -- I've noticed that a lot of applications progressively
>> open new windows higher up the screen.
>
> I only ever came across one program that did that (Visual
> Basic), and I don't use that program any more.
I find Firefox does, if you open a second instance of it. (Usually
done by mistake.)
> The programs that I have in mind always open in the same place,
> but with the title bar and sometimes the menu bar hidden. I have
> a double-height taskbar, btw. It's actually easy enough to
> reposition the window when that happens.
>
>> If you've got the taskbar set for "always on top" they can tuck
>> themselves up there with their menu bars completely hidden.
>>
>> I have "always on top" turned off precisely for this reason.
>
> I briefly tried unsetting "always on top" but I can't imagine
> wanting that. A taskbar that isn't permanently visible would be
> useless to me.
Yes, it takes some getting used to. My solution that is to use the
"activation follows mouse" setting (X-Mouse), using TweakUI. That
way, if I need access to the taskbar while it's covered, I just
move the pointer to one of its ends, and it re-claims focus.
(Auto-focussing with the pointer would undoubtedly drive some
people mad, but it's a horses 'n' courses thing -- works for me.)
Peter Moylan
It's not just Microsoft, I'm sorry to say. I run my OS/2 screen with a
task bar at the bottom and a widget bar (sort of like a "quick launch"
bar, but more flexible) at the top. This works well, except for one
little detail: far too many web pages open new windows whose title bar
is off the top of the screen. That forces me to go to the screen above
to shrink the window to a more manageable size, while thinking murderous
thoughts about web page designers who want to take over the entire screen.
For a while I was able to curb this anti-social behaviour by using the
Firefox option to open all popups in a new tab. For reasons that remain
a mystery to me, that option has been removed from the last few versions
of Firefox.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
John Holmes
> tony cooper filted:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:21:31 -0800 (PST), William
>> <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have the same problem with Windows programs that tell me to "Click
>>> the Start button at the bottom right of the screen". I have no such
>>> button.
>>
>> I have yours. But it's at the bottom left.
>
> Hmmm...it's at the top left of mine, but only when the mouse pointer
> is at or near the left-hand edge of the screen....r
You should try the Israeli version of Windows sometime. That normally
has the Start button at bottom right. That's not too bad, but the
disconcerting thing about it is watching the installation progress bars
going backwards.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Mike Barnes
>On 17 Nov 2007, Mike Barnes wrote
>
>>> I've noticed that a lot of applications progressively
>>> open new windows higher up the screen.
>>
>> I only ever came across one program that did that (Visual
>> Basic), and I don't use that program any more.
>
>I find Firefox does, if you open a second instance of it. (Usually
>done by mistake.)
I open all apps maximised by default so I hadn't noticed. I often have
two or more Firefox windows open, intentionally, with one of them
(unusually for me) not maximised because the page it's displaying was
designed for an 800x600 display.
The "title bar behind the taskbar" problem arises principally with
windows that are opened unmaximised by applications that I can't
influence, rather than by shortcuts that I can edit. An example is a
help file accessed from the application's menu (and there's one flavour
of Microsoft help file that *always* gets it wrong). Also some
applications disregard the "Maximized" setting in shortcuts.
>> The programs that I have in mind always open in the same place,
>> but with the title bar and sometimes the menu bar hidden. I have
>> a double-height taskbar, btw. It's actually easy enough to
>> reposition the window when that happens.
>>
>>> If you've got the taskbar set for "always on top" they can tuck
>>> themselves up there with their menu bars completely hidden.
>>>
>>> I have "always on top" turned off precisely for this reason.
>>
>> I briefly tried unsetting "always on top" but I can't imagine
>> wanting that. A taskbar that isn't permanently visible would be
>> useless to me.
>
>Yes, it takes some getting used to. My solution that is to use the
>"activation follows mouse" setting (X-Mouse), using TweakUI. That
>way, if I need access to the taskbar while it's covered, I just
>move the pointer to one of its ends, and it re-claims focus.
Much too much trouble for me, I'm afraid.
>(Auto-focussing with the pointer would undoubtedly drive some
>people mad,
[raises hand]
Don't you run out of desk space as the automatic repositionings of the
cursor occasionally accumulate all in the same direction?
Pat Durkin
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:ramtj3lacg6l7pv0r...@4ax.com...
I have a 10-year-old Packard Bell keyboard sitting right next to my main
keyboard. Both the number pad and the Shift-8 keys have 5-pointed
stars. All of my other keyboards and phone number-pads have the
6-pointed asterisk. I * think they all use the regular radial pattern,
however. (I mean--I can't distinguish H or V crossing on an X.
Robert Lieblich
[addressing moi]
> Exactly what tradition do you think calls for the asterisk
> to be six pointed.
Silly question. MY tradition, of course.
There may be further warrant for it, but it's likely that this thread
will develop that line or argument quite well without further
contributions from me.
[ ... ]
HVS
> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>> On 17 Nov 2007, Mike Barnes wrote
>>> wanting that. A taskbar that isn't permanently visible would
>>> be useless to me.
>>
>> Yes, it takes some getting used to. My solution that is to use
>> the "activation follows mouse" setting (X-Mouse), using
>> TweakUI. That way, if I need access to the taskbar while it's
>> covered, I just move the pointer to one of its ends, and it
>> re-claims focus.
>
> Much too much trouble for me, I'm afraid.
>
>> (Auto-focussing with the pointer would undoubtedly drive some
>> people mad,
>
> [raises hand]
>
> Don't you run out of desk space as the automatic repositionings
> of the cursor occasionally accumulate all in the same direction?
I'm not sure what you mean. The cursor doesn't automatically
reposition anything -- it just brings that window into focus where
the window happens to be. (There's an option in TweakUI to
automatically bring the window to the front as well as into focus,
but I don't use that feature.)
I've certainly not noticed the problem you describe -- but then
again, I seldom have more than 3 or 4 windows open at any one time,
and those are almost always being used one at a time rather than
side-by-side.
Pat Durkin
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@oanix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-E75479....@news.panix.com...
> In article <9m8sj3ljsib728pup...@4ax.com>,
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Which is what "asterisk" means...
>
> Mary with her little friends,
> Went on the ice to frisk.
> Wasn't Mary being nice,
> Here pretty *.
Aha! In an earlier thread (a month ago?) about asterisk, I could recall
the jingle's point but not the lyrics, though I suspect there are some
variations on this.
Hatunen
<Gera...@rrt.net> wrote:
>| Hatunen wrote:
>|> Gerard Schildberger wrote:
>|>Also, in America, when using telephony (those automated/computer/whatever
>|>that talks to you, and when "it" says, enter your account number (or
>|>whatever, SSN, ...) and then "it" says to press the pound key
>|>--- "it" never never says the hash key or the octothrope key, POUND.
>|>
>|>(This is for the American-type telephone touch-tone keypad.)
>|>
>|>As for the asterisk, "it" always says the "star" key. _______Gerard S.
>
>| Which is what "asterisk" means...
>
>No, asterisk is just a name for the "*" symbol, it's what some
>people call it. Asterisk doesn't MEAN star, it's just another
>name for it.
"Asterisk" means "little star". That's why it's the name for the
typographical symbol that looks like a little star.
Otherwise you are simply playing a "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
game. In which case, please note that "*" is not "asterisk".
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Michael Black wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Even an asterisk, I suspect there are plenty who don't know the term,
>> while "star" is immediately obvious.
>>
>> Of course, they could use the proper terms, and after an obvious delay,
>> say with a sigh "press the $#*&#%*# pound button".
>
>I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left of
>the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
>five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
>figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
>mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
>restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star" by
>default for the telephone button.
You must not be an American. An American would be aware that the
five-pointed star is THE star for Americans.
Hatunen
<cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <473E6368...@yahoo.com>, r_s_li...@yahoo.com
>(Robert Lieblich) writes:
>
>> I just looked at the phones in my house, and on the key to the left
>> of the zero is a five-pointed figure. To my recollection, the
>> five-pointer is standard. An asterisk traditionally is a six-pointed
>> figure. They aren't in the shapes, respectively, of pentagram and
>> mogen david, but there is a difference. Given the choice, I'd
>> restrict the use of "asterisk" to six-pointers. That leaves "star"
>> by default for the telephone button.
>
>Now you've got me going. I looked at the phone on my desk and it
>has a five-sided figure. The phone on my wife's desk, on the other
>hand, has a six-sided figure. So does my cell phone.
I looked at the Amrican and EU flags; they have lots of
five-pointed stars.
Father Ignatius
"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:473F0F5A...@yahoo.com...
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> [addressing moi]
>
>> Exactly what tradition do you think calls for the
>> asterisk
>> to be six pointed.
>
> Silly question. MY tradition, of course.
[Thinks: "Uh-oh... Here we go..."]
> There may be further warrant for it, but it's likely that
> this thread
> will develop that line or argument quite well without
> further
> contributions from me.
[Thinks: "Well pre-empted, that man. He's clearly dealt
with old Mr. Cunningham before. Respect."]
Lars Enderin
Philips phone, but my Sony Ericsson mobile phone has a six-pointed
asterisk. In the font I'm using to compose this, the on-screen * has six
points.