a verb from rectangle
Wallace Chigona
am working in Computer graphics, and we have a new concept in which we
have to change a shape of a polygon into a rectangle (don't ask me
why). We need a name for such an action and we decided to call it
"Rectanglisation". However, we are not sure of the spelling: Should
there be an "i" between the "g" and the "l", i.e. "Rectangilisation" or
without (i.e. "Rectanglisation").
What could the correct spellings be for verb forms of the word:
"rectanglising", "rectanglise", "rectanglised"?
I hope I am making sense.
regards,
Jon Miller
The correct term is "rectify". Once upon a time rectification of plane
figures was important, but, due to advances in technology (occurring over a
long time span but codified in 1665-6, although the results weren't
published until about 1685), it is now considered trivial.
Jon Miller
perchprism
"Wallace Chigona" <chi...@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message
news:3BF38CBD...@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de...
> I need to make a verb from the word "rectangle". A bit of background: I
> am working in Computer graphics, and we have a new concept in which we
> have to change a shape of a polygon into a rectangle (don't ask me
> why). We need a name for such an action and we decided to call it
> "Rectanglisation". However, we are not sure of the spelling: Should
> there be an "i" between the "g" and the "l", i.e. "Rectangilisation" or
> without (i.e. "Rectanglisation").
rectanglisation (rectanglization, U.S.)
> What could the correct spellings be for verb forms of the word:
> "rectanglising", "rectanglise", "rectanglised"?
Yes.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Richard Chambers
To me, rectify means (in this context) "to make straight", or "to
straighten". My answer to Jon's question would be "rectangulise", with a
"u". This suggestion is based on the fact that the "u" form already exists
in the adjective "rectangular". While "rectangulise" is not listed in my
dictionary, I am sure that everyone will understand the intended meaning. As
technology advances, you often find that you have to make a small step
beyond the constraints of what the dictionary says.
Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
LarryLard
news:3BF396EC...@home.com...
I thought rectification was *specifically* using straight-edge and compasses
to construct a square with the same area as a given object; the process that
would be involved in 'squaring the circle'.
For the OP, I would prefer 'rectangulate' by analogy with 'triangulate',
which already exists. Hence 'rectangulation'.
ObAUE: 'triangulate' from 'triangle' inserts a 'u' for euphony. Anything
else like this?
--
Larry Lard. Replies to group please.
Wallace Chigona
>
> I thought rectification was *specifically* using straight-edge and compasses
> to construct a square with the same area as a given object; the process that
> would be involved in 'squaring the circle'.
>
> For the OP, I would prefer 'rectangulate' by analogy with 'triangulate',
> which already exists. Hence 'rectangulation'.
>
> ObAUE: 'triangulate' from 'triangle' inserts a 'u' for euphony. Anything
> else like this?
>
Take note that "triangulate" means dividing a polygon, or an object into
triangles. i.e the shape remains unchanged but what you have is that the
inside is subdivided. Following from this, "rectangulate" would mean
dividing the polygon into rectangles.
Fabian
"Wallace Chigona" <chi...@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message
news:3BF38CBD...@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de...
How about "transform it in to a rectangle"?
Just because a concept exists, it does not follow that a single word for
that concept exists. I suppose "re-shape" would also work in this context,
but that isn't specific to rectangles.
--
Fabian
To find out what makes paranoiacs tic, follow them around and watch them
for a while.
LarryLard
There is also its use in surveying isn't there, which oh I've just realised
that's the same.
Donna Richoux
I like "rectangularize," based on the adjective "rectangular." There are
51 uses of it on Google, so you would not be totally alone. (2 for the
spelling with -ise.) Nothing about it in Merriam-Webster or Onelook,
though.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
John O'Flaherty
From AHD:
triangulate 1. To divide into triangles. 2. To survey by triangulation. 3. To make triangular. 4.
To measure by using trigonometry.
Meaning 3 seems to fit shape transformation. I'd vote for 'rectangulate'.
--
john
Mark Brader
> I like "rectangularize" ...
Yes. While most of the suggested forms are comprehensible, to me this
is clearly the natural choice.
--
Mark Brader "`char **' parameters are packaged in GREEN
Toronto envelopes and placed on the FIFTH shelf."
m...@vex.net -- Chris Torek
Jerry Friedman
> "Jon Miller" <jonatha...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3BF396EC...@home.com...
> > Wallace Chigona wrote:
> >
> > > I need to make a verb from the word "rectangle". A bit of background: I
> > > am working in Computer graphics, and we have a new concept in which we
> > > have to change a shape of a polygon into a rectangle (don't ask me
> > > why). We need a name for such an action and we decided to call it
> > > "Rectanglisation". However, we are not sure of the spelling: Should
> > > there be an "i" between the "g" and the "l", i.e. "Rectangilisation" or
> > > without (i.e. "Rectanglisation").
> > >
> > > What could the correct spellings be for verb forms of the word:
> > > "rectanglising", "rectanglise", "rectanglised"?
I like "rectangulise" better than "rectanglise", and I like
"rectangularise" even better. I suppose you've already rejected the
Fabian idea of calling your menu item something like "Make Rectangle",
which would be my favorite.
...
> For the OP, I would prefer 'rectangulate' by analogy with 'triangulate',
> which already exists. Hence 'rectangulation'.
>
> ObAUE: 'triangulate' from 'triangle' inserts a 'u' for euphony. Anything
> else like this?
It's the other way: "angle" and its compounds (triangle, rectangle...)
lost the u in Latin "angulus", but the derivatives (angular,
triangulate...) retain it. There are many other examples:
circle/circular/circulate, particle/particular/particulate,
table/tabular/tabulate, single/singular, etc. A more drastic example
is funnel/infundibular. Also cf. stable/stability.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ray Heindl
news:1f2x9rb.1kxwkolhxf9vvN%tr...@euronet.nl:
>> What could the correct spellings be for verb forms of the word:
>> "rectanglising", "rectanglise", "rectanglised"?
>>
>> I hope I am making sense.
>
> I like "rectangularize," based on the adjective "rectangular."
> There are 51 uses of it on Google, so you would not be totally
> alone. (2 for the spelling with -ise.) Nothing about it in
> Merriam-Webster or Onelook, though.
'Rectangulate' avoids the transpondian ise/ize issue, and it's shorter,
to boot. Google finds 48 uses of 'rectangulate', including at least
one where it seems to be used in a geometry paper to mean "to make
rectangular". The most common non-pornographic usage seems to be as an
adjective among biologists. It doesn't appear in Onelook or either,
however. I guess it boils down to which (if either) sounds better to
the person using it.
--
Ray Heindl
Ray Heindl
news:_xNI7.7104$k55.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net:
> ObAUE: 'triangulate' from 'triangle' inserts a 'u' for euphony.
> Anything else like this?
What a singular observation. But according to my dictionary,
'triangulate' is not derived from 'triangle', but from the Latin
'triangulatus'. It's not a case of adding the 'u' in 'triangulate',
but losing it in 'triangle'.
--
Ray Heindl
Andy Averill
I would go for "rectangularize." Don't ask me why, it just sounds better to
me.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Wallace Chigona <chi...@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote:
>> What could the correct spellings be for verb forms of the word:
>> "rectanglising", "rectanglise", "rectanglised"?
>>
>> I hope I am making sense.
>
>I like "rectangularize," based on the adjective "rectangular." There are
>51 uses of it on Google, so you would not be totally alone. (2 for the
>spelling with -ise.) Nothing about it in Merriam-Webster or Onelook,
>though.
You'd be 256 times less alone by using "our's" if you went by the
13,100 appearances shown for it by Google. Once again we see that
Google is no substitute for common sense, a good dictionary, knowledge
of English usage, or reliance on experience and the little grey cells.
Charles Riggs
John Holmes
"Richard Chambers" <dick.no_spam_p...@cwcom.net> wrote in
message news:SqNI7.1044$BU5.11590@news2-hme0...
>
> To me, rectify means (in this context) "to make straight", or "to
> straighten".
It means to make the angles into right angles. One usage of it is in
relation to map projections. A rectified projection is one in which the
grid lines were originally skewed at some angle, but a correction has
been applied to bring them back to right angles. Like straightening out
a section of folding trellis.
> My answer to Jon's question would be "rectangulise", with a
> "u". This suggestion is based on the fact that the "u" form already
exists
> in the adjective "rectangular". While "rectangulise" is not listed in
my
> dictionary, I am sure that everyone will understand the intended
meaning. As
> technology advances, you often find that you have to make a small step
> beyond the constraints of what the dictionary says.
I would have gone for rectangularise, by analogy with
regular/regularise. Something about '...gulise' doesn't look right, but
I'm not sure why.
--
Regards
John
Wallace Chigona
"Rectangularise"/"Rectangularize".
Now what would be the proper name for the reverse of the process. i.e.
after a polygon is "rectangularised" it may be necessary to reverse the
process to achieve the original shape. Would this be called
"unrectangularising" or "derectangularising".
Regards,
Robert Lieblich
"De-" This prefix implies undoing something (deprogrammed,
deloused, deified[1]). 'Un-" (notwithstanding "undo") tends to
imply never having been in the indicated state. So something
"derectangularized" (that's a hard word to type) would have been a
rectangle and then made no longer a rectangle, but something
"unrectangularized" most likely would never have been a rectangle.
I was a little surprised that no one (as best I could tell)
suggested using "rectangle" as a verb. Maybe, like me, anyone who
thought of it decided that "rectangularize" or some other formation
was better.
[1] Having had one's "if"s removed. The ands and buts remain.)
Richard Chambers
Dick Chambers Leeds UK.
R H Draney
"Undo Rectangulari(z/s)e"....
Or if you want to screw with people's heads, "disenrectangularize"....
(There really needs to be *some* kind of a limit)....r
John O'Flaherty
Revert.
--
john
Rich Ulrich
>
> Thanks very much for the assistance. We will go for
> "Rectangularise"/"Rectangularize".
>
> Now what would be the proper name for the reverse of the process. i.e.
> after a polygon is "rectangularised" it may be necessary to reverse the
> process to achieve the original shape. Would this be called
> "unrectangularising" or "derectangularising".
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "De-" This prefix implies undoing something (deprogrammed,
> deloused, deified[1]). 'Un-" (notwithstanding "undo") tends to
> imply never having been in the indicated state.
Not always, and there are many common exceptions. If there's an
"inverse" action that doesn't have its own word (like "close" for
"open" or "empty" for "fill"), it's likely to be "un-". Consider
"untie", "unlock", "unfasten", "unbuckle", "unload". Even when this
isn't the case, it's often not "never having been in the indicated
state", but rather "needing to be transformed into the indicated
state". Consider an "unmade bed" or an "unswept floor". They might
have been made and swept yesterday, but they're not now.
> So something "derectangularized" (that's a hard word to type) would
> have been a rectangle and then made no longer a rectangle, but
> something "unrectangularized" most likely would never have been a
> rectangle.
Here I agree, unless the operation is known to be called
"unrectangularizing", in which case it's ambiguous, but probably often
not confusingly in context.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |quite another to be willfully
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
David Tomkins
>
> I need to make a verb from the word "rectangle".
How about "oblangate" (formed from oblong and elongate)?
DT
John Holmes
This puts a slightly different complexion on things, if you want the
reverse of the process too. The simplest terminology might be to say:
Transform to rectangle
and then
Reverse transform.
That would also readily accommodate to shapes other than rectangles (if
you ever need to do that), such as
Transform to square
Transform to triangle
Transform to circle, or whatever.
I don't like de- or un-rectangularise because, once you have made
something rectangular, there may be many possible ways to make it
non-rectangular but only one way of reversing the original process to
regain the starting shape. Also, I don't think it is a good idea to
introduce too many long and unfamiliar words, especially if this is to
appear on a GUI menu or something like that.
--
Regards
John
Skitt
"David Tomkins" <dtom...@pnc.com.au> wrote in message
news:3BF5FE2C...@pnc.com.au...
> Thus spake Wallace Chigona:
> >
> > I need to make a verb from the word "rectangle".
>
> How about "oblangate" (formed from oblong and elongate)?
You appear to have used "oblang", though.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
David Tomkins
>
> "David Tomkins" <dtom...@pnc.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3BF5FE2C...@pnc.com.au...
> > Thus spake Wallace Chigona:
> > >
> > > I need to make a verb from the word "rectangle".
> >
> > How about "oblangate" (formed from oblong and elongate)?
>
> You appear to have used "oblang", though.
Typo. Sorry.
Bob Stahl
>...Also, I don't think it is a good idea to introduce too
>many long and unfamiliar words, especially if this is to
>appear on a GUI menu or something like that.
"Transform" works for me. Consider using English that will
translate to other languages easily, and avoid applying
bizarre meanings to existing words (what John said).
---
Bob Stahl
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
>There are 51 uses of it on Google
Speaking of Google, I was surprised to learn from the Jeopardy TV show
yesterday that the originator of that search engine chose the name with
the mathematical "googol" in mind. The idea was that the search engine
would have a vast coverage, reminiscent of the magnitude of a googol.
I wonder why he didn't just go ahead and use the correct spelling while he
was at it.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
[obrjv]Perhaps because a sense of humour makes cents.
Bob Cunningham
>>[ . . . ]
Okay, if I understand you, which I seldom do, you're implying that the
reader with a sense of humor will see the word "Google", will immediately
perceive that some relationship with the word "googol" is intended, will
be seized with life-threatening paroxysms of laughter, and upon beginning
to recover will thank heaven that the writer didn't dare to be as funny as
he knew how to be.
(Apologies to Oliver Wendell Holmes, the elder.)
Mike Oliver
> Speaking of Google, I was surprised to learn from the Jeopardy TV show
> yesterday that the originator of that search engine chose the name with
> the mathematical "googol" in mind. The idea was that the search engine
> would have a vast coverage, reminiscent of the magnitude of a googol.
>
> I wonder why he didn't just go ahead and use the correct spelling while he
> was at it.
I seem to recall that there's a principle of trademark law that says
you can't protect a correctly-spelled common noun. This may be the
reason for all the Krispy Kremes and so on.
On the other hand this could be completely wrong.
Skitt
"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3BF71CFB...@math.ucla.edu...
Well, it's not the spelling but the implied claim a correct spelling might
make.
From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1052.html
=============
US Code, Title 15
Sec. 1052. Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent
registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from
the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register
on account of its nature unless it -
[...]
e) Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods
of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them
...
=============
Mike Oliver
> From http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1052.html
> =============
> US Code, Title 15
>
> Sec. 1052. Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent
> registration
Wow, weird stuff! I especially like paragraph (c). I wonder if it would
apply to a deceased female president, during the life of her husband.
Richard Fontana
Yes, that is not correct. There's a sort of hierarchical
analysis of the nature of terms that you'd want to trademark. "Generic
terms", like "search engine" or "donut", which just describe the type of
good, are completely unprotectable. Next are "descriptive terms", which I
think include things like "crispy" and I think it would probably include
variant spellings like "krispy". These can be protected if "secondary
meaning" can be shown. "Secondary meaning" is something like an
identification in the buyer's mind between the term and the maker of the
product. So "Crispy Cream Donuts" or "Krispy Kreme Donuts" would be
protectable to the extent that the consumer, seeing the name, identifies
it as being a product of a known producer. If the consumer's reaction is
"<homer> Mmm... Krispy Kreme doughnuts ... those sound like they'd be good
and crispy and creamy; I wonder who makes them</homer>?", then there's no
'secondary meaning'. I suspect that a stylized spelling of a suggestive
word can be advisable as a way to establish 'secondary meaning' in the
minds of the buying public, but the mere fact of a a stylized spelling
probably wouldn't be dispositive of anything.
Then there are "suggestive" terms, which suggest rather than describe a
characteristic of the goods and which require the observer to use his
imagination and perception to determine the nature of the goods. I think
that, at least by design, this is the category that "Google" falls into,
based on what Bob said. Suggestive terms are stronger than descriptive
terms and don't require proof of secondary meaning.
The strongest kinds of marks are fanciful or arbitrary ones. I think that
this is actually what "Google" belongs to, because I think even for most
people who know what a "googol" is there's no obvious connection between
"googol" and the idea of Google being a particularly comprehensive search
engine (at least that's how I see it). But there's lots of examples of
protected trademarks in this category which are of the form of correctly
spelled generic English words: consider "Apple [Computer]" or "Camel
[Cigarettes]".
There are no doubt non-legal reasons for adopting a stylized spelling like
"Krispy Kreme" or "Google" (if we are to regard "Google" as being based on
the word "googol"), relating to marketing and so forth.
Richard Fontana
That has to do with registering a trademark, which is not the same thing
as having a trademark. I don't know to what extent spelling is relevant
there; if you're some unknown startup donut eatery company and you want to
name your product "Crispy Cream Donuts" and trademark the name, I don't
think the startup donut chain which instead uses "Krispy Kreme" is going
to have an easier time, since until people have something to associate the
stylized spelling with, it's just a stylized spelling of a purely
descriptive term. It may be that for seemingly descriptive names like
either "Krispy Kreme" or "Crispy Cream" it takes more time or effort to
successfully register the name as a trademark than for
"non-descriptive" names, however spelled. To take a simpler example, if I
want to start selling some doughnuts and I want to call them "Tastee
Donuts", that name is no more or less descriptive of the product than
"Tasty Donuts". (I wonder if the 'donut' spelling began as a stylized
spelling by some doughnut marketer.)
Donna Richoux
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Speaking of Google, I was surprised to learn from the Jeopardy TV show
> > yesterday that the originator of that search engine chose the name with
> > the mathematical "googol" in mind. The idea was that the search engine
> > would have a vast coverage, reminiscent of the magnitude of a googol.
> >
> > I wonder why he didn't just go ahead and use the correct spelling while he
> > was at it
I imagine they figured people would remember and type the spelling
"google" more often than "googol."
>
> I seem to recall that there's a principle of trademark law that says
> you can't protect a correctly-spelled common noun. This may be the
> reason for all the Krispy Kremes and so on.
>
> On the other hand this could be completely wrong.
No, it's not true, but there are limits on what sorts of trademarks you
can register and expect the protection of law. You can't register just
any old thing.
A good site that explains the basics of these US laws in plain English
is Nolo -- they give away on the website the same info they sell in
their books. For their FAQ on trademarks, see:
http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/faqs/tc_ency.html
Especially, Types of Trademarks, How the Law Protects Trademarks, and
How Federal Trademark Registration Works.
Somewhere they make the point that what makes a good domain name is not
necessarily the same as what makes a good (register-able, protectable)
trademark.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
BV
> I wonder why he didn't just go ahead and use the correct spelling while he
> was at it.
www.googol.com has been registered since April 1995.. Seems to me that
anybody starting up a new business now has to give it a name which is not yet
registered in .com
--
BV
The email address is valid but rarely read. If you want to write to me, try
decoding this: david.dot.j.dot.rowley.att.ntlworld.dot.com
R H Draney
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Yes, that is not correct. There's a sort of hierarchical
>analysis of the nature of terms that you'd want to trademark. "Generic
>terms", like "search engine" or "donut", which just describe the type of
>good, are completely unprotectable.
Somebody want to set up a test-case for "personal computer"?...
>The strongest kinds of marks are fanciful or arbitrary ones. I think that
>this is actually what "Google" belongs to, because I think even for most
>people who know what a "googol" is there's no obvious connection between
>"googol" and the idea of Google being a particularly comprehensive search
>engine (at least that's how I see it). But there's lots of examples of
>protected trademarks in this category which are of the form of correctly
>spelled generic English words: consider "Apple [Computer]" or "Camel
>[Cigarettes]".
>
>There are no doubt non-legal reasons for adopting a stylized spelling like
>"Krispy Kreme" or "Google" (if we are to regard "Google" as being based on
>the word "googol"), relating to marketing and so forth.
I'm sure I've heard the story that "Google" came from "googol", and
heard it attributed to the people who started the search engine...I
also have a vague recollection that it was misspelled because they
didn't *know* the correct spelling of the name....
That may or may not have been the case...what's more likely is that
they realized that most people, unfamiliar with the mathematical term
and hearing "look for it on googol" would tend to type "google"
instead...so this may be a case of inadvertent shrewdness....
(Hmmm, random thought...have heard that all English words are now
registered by *somebody* as domain names; is "googol" in fact
taken?...and if so, is there an obvious connection to the owners of
Google"?)...r
--
"We have lost everything in our download file,
as well as everything stored in our favorite places."
- Tamex
perchprism
"Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.011117...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
<snip>
> There are no doubt non-legal reasons for adopting a stylized spelling like
> "Krispy Kreme" or "Google" (if we are to regard "Google" as being based on
> the word "googol"), relating to marketing and so forth.
Maybe Donovan's Principle can be applied here. "To google" makes "googled"
and "googling," but "googol" makes the even uglier "googolled" and
"googolling."
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Richard Fontana
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> > I wonder why he didn't just go ahead and use the correct spelling while he
> > was at it.
>
> www.googol.com has been registered since April 1995.. Seems to me that
> anybody starting up a new business now has to give it a name which is not yet
> registered in .com
Or buy out or sue the owner of the desired registered name.
Tony Cooper
>
> I'm sure I've heard the story that "Google" came from "googol", and
> heard it attributed to the people who started the search engine...I
> also have a vague recollection that it was misspelled because they
> didn't *know* the correct spelling of the name....
>
According to Larry Page and Sergey Brin - the developers of
the Google Search engine - the name was taken deliberately
as a play on the word "googol". Google says it uses the term
to reflect the "company's mission to organize the immense
amount of information available on the Web and in the
world."
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Mark Barratt
wrote:
I don't know, but I think somebody should warn the Ford motor company.
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure I've heard the story that "Google" came from "googol", and
>> heard it attributed to the people who started the search engine...I
>> also have a vague recollection that it was misspelled because they
>> didn't *know* the correct spelling of the name....
>>
>
>According to Larry Page and Sergey Brin - the developers of
>the Google Search engine - the name was taken deliberately
>as a play on the word "googol". Google says it uses the term
>to reflect the "company's mission to organize the immense
>amount of information available on the Web and in the
>world."
...an admirable mission and one which serves a useful purpose. I'm
quite sure they never intended it to be a reference work to the
English language though, allowing people to come to usage conclusions
based on Google hits.
Charles Riggs
R H Draney
Still, when you're trying to find out the relative distribution of two
allomorphs of a fairly obscure phrase, the web makes a convenient
corpus within which to search....r
--
It ain't over till the fat lady chokes on a chicken bone.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Looking up allomorph caused the need to look up three more related
words and I still don't have a clear understanding of the word.
Perhaps I need to do a Web search.
Charles Riggs
R H Draney
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:49:05 GMT, dado...@earthlink.net (R H Draney)
>wrote:
>
>>Still, when you're trying to find out the relative distribution of two
>>allomorphs of a fairly obscure phrase, the web makes a convenient
>>corpus within which to search....r
>
>Looking up allomorph caused the need to look up three more related
>words and I still don't have a clear understanding of the word.
>Perhaps I need to do a Web search.
It's a good job I didn't go with my *first* impulse and use
"enantiomorph" then....
To a first approximation:
"isomorph" = "same shape"
"allomorph" = "different shape"
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:56:45 +0000, Charles Riggs
><chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:49:05 GMT, dado...@earthlink.net (R H Draney)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Still, when you're trying to find out the relative distribution of two
>>>allomorphs of a fairly obscure phrase, the web makes a convenient
>>>corpus within which to search....r
>>
>>Looking up allomorph caused the need to look up three more related
>>words and I still don't have a clear understanding of the word.
>>Perhaps I need to do a Web search.
>
>It's a good job I didn't go with my *first* impulse and use
>"enantiomorph" then....
>
>To a first approximation:
> "isomorph" = "same shape"
> "allomorph" = "different shape"
After that explanation, I concur with your original statement, with
the reservation that you'll learn the distribution of two different
phrases on the Web, but not in literature in general or in people's
speech, not to imply you said one would.
Charles Riggs