Malvertizing

[Tony Cooper]

In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
following:

"Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
insert affiliate links into webpages."

It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
someone else's computer.

As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
corruption.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Lionel Edwards]

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 5:46:05 PM UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
> following:
>
> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>
> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
> someone else's computer.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
> corruption.

Or just a bit of fun. To malversise English a bit:

"A weasel is weaselly distinguished. A stoat is stoatally different."

[occam]

On 28/10/2022 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
> following:
>
> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>
> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
> someone else's computer.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
> corruption.
>

Just language corruption? The extensions are nothing short of criminal
deception - a Trojan horse of an extension.

[David Kleinecke]

Evolution in action. Most innovations are not viable.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <sf1olhtjbrl3r33p2...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
>corruption.

It's called a "blend" and is a perfectly normal mechanism of word
formation in English and many other languages. Much as "malware"
itself was originally a blend of "malicious" and "software".

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 22:19:52 -0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <sf1olhtjbrl3r33p2...@4ax.com>,
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
>>corruption.
>
>It's called a "blend" and is a perfectly normal mechanism of word
>formation in English and many other languages. Much as "malware"
>itself was originally a blend of "malicious" and "software".
>

Restoring the quote:

"Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
insert affiliate links into webpages."

I can see your point that it's a "blending" of "advertising" and
"malware", but I don't think the word needed to be coined or used.

The above could be written "Researchers at Guardio Labs have
discovered a new campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack

searches and insert affiliate links into webpages."

This presents the discovery just as effectively.

[Rich Ulrich]

Well, you could as easily say that saying 'malware' is no more
effective than 'malicious software'. But I disagree. I sort of don't
like 'malvertising' because (as of yet) it seems awkward, but that
is a different matter.

Having a single word helps to make it a sticky 'thing', cognitively
speaking.

What I don't gather from what has been reported is whether
this malware (which it looks like, to me) is being pushed only by
outside sources, or if it is somehow coming from Google.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Tony Cooper]

As I understand it, Google's Chrome is offering Chrome extensions that
are vulnerable to infections of malware. The infections would be
inserted by other sources, not from Google. Extensions are developed
by third-party sources.

As a Google Chrome user I have not noticed them"pushing" any
extensions. Extensions are available to add, but I'd have to go look
for them.

The only extensions I've added are the TinyURL one, my LastPass
password manager, and MalwareBytes Browser Guard. These just give me
quicker access to those programs.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 22:57:23 -0400, Tony Cooper

Right after posting this, the source who sent me the first mailing
followed it up with a second email with a link to the full article:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chrome-extensions-with-1-million-installs-hijack-targets-browsers/

Evidently, it is not just Google's Chrome, but also Microsoft's Edge
that the extensions are used by.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 29.10.2022 kl. 01.10 skrev Tony Cooper:

> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
> insert affiliate links into webpages."

> I can see your point that it's a "blending" of "advertising" and
> "malware", but I don't think the word needed to be coined or used.

> The above could be written "Researchers at Guardio Labs have
> discovered a new campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack
> searches and insert affiliate links into webpages."

> This presents the discovery just as effectively.

Absolutely. In the specific quote the word is unnecessary. But once
introduced it will save the explanation in future conversation.

Like Rich Ulrich, I don't like the word, but that has to do with the
word itself and not by its new construction. The question to me is if
the procedure will be so common as to deserve a specific term. Again
"malware" is a good example. We see that all the time.

--
Bertel

[lar3ryca]

So both evil empires, then?

--
"I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices
with great satisfaction."
-Clarence Darrow

[Hibou]

Le 29/10/2022 à 03:29, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
>
> Well, you could as easily say that saying 'malware' is no more
> effective than 'malicious software'. But I disagree. I sort of don't
> like 'malvertising' because (as of yet) it seems awkward, but that
> is a different matter.

As of yet?

[Rich Ulrich]

I might get used to it, like I got used to malware.

I wasn't sure I would get used to 'malware' when it first
appeared. Right now, I want to emphasize the L in
'malvertising' and the V is not the easiest sound to follow
it. Seems awkward.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 12:33:19 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> I might get used to it, like I got used to malware.
>
> I wasn't sure I would get used to 'malware' when it first
> appeared. Right now, I want to emphasize the L in
> 'malvertising' and the V is not the easiest sound to follow
> it. Seems awkward.

pulverize, Calvary (=/= cavalry).

Vulva is less relevant. (aka revelant.)

The opposite stress in "alveolar" fixes the problem.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 29.10.2022 kl. 18.33 skrev Rich Ulrich:

> I wasn't sure I would get used to 'malware' when it first
> appeared. Right now, I want to emphasize the L in
> 'malvertising' and the V is not the easiest sound to follow
> it. Seems awkward.

I'm surprised. I find it easy to pronounce. How about "velvet"?

--
Bertel

[Rich Ulrich]

I under-stress the L in velvet or the words that Peter mentions,
without loss of meaning.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Hibou]

Le 29/10/2022 à 17:33, Rich Ulrich a écrit :

> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 08:02:34 +0100, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 29/10/2022 à 03:29, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
>>>
>>> Well, you could as easily say that saying 'malware' is no more
>>> effective than 'malicious software'. But I disagree. I sort of don't
>>> like 'malvertising' because (as of yet) it seems awkward, but that
>>> is a different matter.
>>
>> As of yet?
>
> I might get used to it, like I got used to malware.
>
> I wasn't sure I would get used to 'malware' when it first
> appeared. Right now, I want to emphasize the L in
> 'malvertising' and the V is not the easiest sound to follow
> it. Seems awkward.

It was the "as of yet" that surprised me. Does it mean "as yet"? If so,
why the 'of'? If not, what does it mean?

Seems awkward. ;-)

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <226plhhabg80odgjr...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Evidently, it is not just Google's Chrome, but also Microsoft's Edge
>that the extensions are used by.

Chrome and Edge are both branded versions of the same browser,
Google's Chromium. It has something like a 90% market share on the
desktop and only less on mobile because of Apple's market share in the
US and their hostility to third-party browsers.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 10:46:05 AM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
> following:
>
> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>
> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
> someone else's computer.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
> corruption.

...

But it's a better spelling than "malvertizing".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Rich Ulrich]

On reflection, I stick with it, and "as yet" seems wanting.

I would say, As of today; as of yesterday; as of 5 years ago.
I could have written, as of now.

In my dialect, the time reference for "as" seems to demand
"as of". Five minutes of reflection don't change my mind.

When I try out a simple "As yet" ... my mind wants a further
phrase, like, "as yet to be determined."

--
Rich Ulrich

[Tak To]

On 10/28/2022 12:46 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
> following:
>
> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>
> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
> someone else's computer.

I am not sure this is a reference to "malware". It is more likely
just a contraction of "malicious advertising"; and the fact that
the product being pushed (openly or secretly) is malware
is coincidental.

> As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
> corruption.

I don't know why you think that away.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Hibou]

Le 30/10/2022 à 22:31, Rich Ulrich a écrit :

OK. I confess I dislike 'as of', since it often (perhaps always) seems
clumsy, wordy, and woolly. Let me see if I can find some examples of
what I mean (pause for Googling here)...

I'm out of a job as of now.
(I'm now out of a job.)

As of last December, our meetings....
(Since last December....)

The contract comes into force as of 1st January.
(The contract comes into force on 1st January.)

As of April 2014, the town had a population of....
(In April 2014....)

I'm afraid the further step to 'as of yet' makes me shudder - but I
shouldn't say that unless I can improve on it. Let me see...

I don't like 'malvertising' because it's new¹, unfamiliar,
and seems awkward....

What do you think?


¹Google Ngram Viewer tells me it dates from ~2006, but remains rare.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:58:20 -0400, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 10/28/2022 12:46 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
>> following:
>>
>> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
>> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
>> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>>
>> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
>> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
>> someone else's computer.
>
>I am not sure this is a reference to "malware". It is more likely
>just a contraction of "malicious advertising"; and the fact that
>the product being pushed (openly or secretly) is malware
>is coincidental.
>

No, not "malicious advertising" because it is specifically about
promoting software that can have malware inserted.

Political advertising that suggests false facts or dirt about
opponents could be called "malicious advertising".

>> As far as I'm concerned, "malvertising" is an instance of language
>> corruption.
>
>I don't know why you think that away.

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

Ok.

> As of last December, our meetings....
> (Since last December....)

Nearly opposite meanings! "As of" refers to the period before
December, "Since" the period after December.

> The contract comes into force as of 1st January.
> (The contract comes into force on 1st January.)

On the holiday itself? Seems unlikely.

> As of April 2014, the town had a population of....
> (In April 2014....)

Same as the December opposites.

> I'm afraid the further step to 'as of yet' makes me shudder - but I
> shouldn't say that unless I can improve on it. Let me see...
>
> I don't like 'malvertising' because it's new¹, unfamiliar,
> and seems awkward....
>
> What do you think?

How abut "because (at this point in time)"?

He was saying that with familiarity it might grow on him.

[Rich Ulrich]

I don't mind any of those "as of" examples.

>
>
>¹Google Ngram Viewer tells me it dates from ~2006, but remains rare.

Google Ngram tells me that it was 1972 when "as of yet" hit 1%
of "as yet" in AmE, and 30 years later in BrE. The curve goes UP
in both corpi, achieving a recent maximum just above 3% in BrE,
and twice that in AmE.

"as of yet" is also rare, but gaining? I suppose, from the Ngram,
that what I've heard most has probably been "as yet" unless I
picked it up from some single person. It's been a bunch more
hours. I've slept on it. As yet, "as yet" still sounds unduly
truncated to me.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Madhu]

* Rich Ulrich <ogutlh91a07p9c441g5v0e919glpjut8vb @4ax.com> :
Wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 18:31:39 -0400:

> On reflection, I stick with it, and "as yet" seems wanting.
>
> I would say, As of today; as of yesterday; as of 5 years ago.
> I could have written, as of now.
>
> In my dialect, the time reference for "as" seems to demand
> "as of". Five minutes of reflection don't change my mind.

I expected "Five minutes of reflection doesn't change my mind." but
then it's the reflection and not the minutes, which come from "Five
minutes of reflection do not change my mind"

[lar3ryca]

I would take that to mean 'until last December'.

>     The contract comes into force as of 1st January.
>     (The contract comes into force on 1st January.)
>
>     As of April 2014, the town had a population of....
>     (In April 2014....)

All these are fine with me, modulo my correction.

> I'm afraid the further step to 'as of yet' makes me shudder - but I
> shouldn't say that unless I can improve on it. Let me see...
>
>     I don't like 'malvertising' because it's new¹, unfamiliar,
>     and seems awkward....
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> ¹Google Ngram Viewer tells me it  dates from ~2006, but remains rare.
>
>

--
I want to die in my sleep, like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

[Peter Moylan]

On 01/11/22 06:56, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-10-31 02:23, Hibou wrote:

>> I'm out of a job as of now.
>> (I'm now out of a job.)
>>
>> As of last December, our meetings....
>> (Since last December....)
>
> I would take that to mean 'until last December'.

The rest of the sentence will make it clear whether December was the
starting point or the stopping point. Either is possible.

"As of" does, in any case, make it clear that the time mentioned is a
transition point. "Since" doesn't carry that information as unambiguously.

(That's why "as of yet" doesn't work. "Yet" is not a clearly defined time.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[lar3ryca]

It carries the same meaning as 'as yet', or 'now', or as modern
semi-literate folks are wont to say 'at this point in time'.

--
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons.

[Hibou]

Le 31/10/2022 à 17:44, Rich Ulrich a écrit :
>
> Google Ngram tells me that it was 1972 when "as of yet" hit 1%
> of "as yet" in AmE, and 30 years later in BrE. The curve goes UP
> in both corpi, achieving a recent maximum just above 3% in BrE,
> and twice that in AmE.
>
> "as of yet" is also rare, but gaining? I suppose, from the Ngram,
> that what I've heard most has probably been "as yet" unless I
> picked it up from some single person. It's been a bunch more
> hours. I've slept on it. As yet, "as yet" still sounds unduly
> truncated to me.

Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples is
that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people must have
been expressing well before English existed.

Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
America), but since then, to some people, it does.

I find that odd.

[Peter Moylan]

To me, "as yet" means the same as "as of now". Blending the two sounds
weird to me.

[Hibou]

Le 01/11/2022 à 07:13, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 01/11/22 18:01, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples
>> is that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people

>> must have been express[ed] well before English existed.

>>
>> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
>>  back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
>> America), but since then, to some people, it does.
>>
>> I find that odd.
>
> To me, "as yet" means the same as "as of now". Blending the two sounds
> weird to me.

I agree that 'as of yet' sounds weird.

English has plenty of simple words for temporal relationships - 'from',
'since', 'now'.... Why we should want to replace them with muddy
circumlocutions is beyond me.

[Hibou]

Le 01/11/2022 à 08:25, Hibou a écrit :
> Le 01/11/2022 à 07:13, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 01/11/22 18:01, Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples
>>> is that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people

>>> must have been expressing well before English existed.

>>>
>>> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
>>>  back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
>>> America), but since then, to some people, it does.
>>>
>>> I find that odd.
>>
>> To me, "as yet" means the same as "as of now". Blending the two sounds
>> weird to me.
>
> I agree that 'as of yet' sounds weird.
>
> English has plenty of simple words for temporal relationships - 'from',
> 'since', 'now'.... Why we should want to replace them with muddy
> circumlocutions is beyond me.

'As yet' is two simple words, of course!

[Peter Moylan]

One difference between "as yet" and "as of now" has just occurred to me.
The former is mostly used in negative polarity statements. ("I was
expecting it to fail, but as yet nothing has gone wrong.") "As of now"
can be used equally well for positive and negative polarity statements,
with a bias towards the positive. ("As of now we have had 7 wins this
season.")

Both of them are in present perfect tense, or they would be if they were
verbs. They're not verbs, of course, but it seems to me that words for
temporal relationships naturally have tenses.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 8:35:15 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/11/22 06:56, lar3ryca wrote:
> > On 2022-10-31 02:23, Hibou wrote:

> >> I'm out of a job as of now.
> >> (I'm now out of a job.)
> >> As of last December, our meetings....
> >> (Since last December....)
> > I would take that to mean 'until last December'.

As I said earlier, those two are nearly opposite in meaning.

> The rest of the sentence will make it clear whether December was the
> starting point or the stopping point. Either is possible.
>
> "As of" does, in any case, make it clear that the time mentioned is a
> transition point. "Since" doesn't carry that information as unambiguously.
>
> (That's why "as of yet" doesn't work. "Yet" is not a clearly defined time.)

It's 'now'!

[Peter T. Daniels]

'Scuse me? "At this point in time" was a catchphrase not quite 50
years ago, because of how John Dean used it over and over in his
prepared statement before the Watergate Committee.

Neither modern nor semi-literate. Presumably lawyer jargon then
and perhaps now.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Language changes. Get over it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 4:25:18 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> Le 01/11/2022 à 07:13, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> > On 01/11/22 18:01, Hibou wrote:

> >> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples
> >> is that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people
> >> must have been express[ed] well before English existed.
> >> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
> >> back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
> >> America), but since then, to some people, it does.
> >> I find that odd.
> > To me, "as yet" means the same as "as of now". Blending the two sounds
> > weird to me.

Closely related expressions interbreed. Sometimes their offspring
are viable.

> I agree that 'as of yet' sounds weird.
>
> English has plenty of simple words for temporal relationships - 'from',
> 'since', 'now'.... Why we should want to replace them with muddy
> circumlocutions is beyond me.

"Circumlocutions" tend to arise when "simple words" (or expressions)
have become semantically bleached and no longer do the work they
used to.

[Jerry Friedman]

Why odd? "As yet" sounds too truncated to Rich because he's used to a
longer expression. "As of yet" sounds too long to you because you're used
to a shorter expression. It's true that "as yet" is much older (first attested
in Chaucer, according to the OED), but that doesn't make much difference
to what you're used to.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Snidely]

After serious thinking lar3ryca wrote :

"As of last December" is a snapshot timestamp. It means the moment
something happened (which, in the example, seems to mean when a change
took place in procedures).

>
>>     The contract comes into force as of 1st January.
>>     (The contract comes into force on 1st January.)
>>
>>     As of April 2014, the town had a population of....
>>     (In April 2014....)
>
> All these are fine with me, modulo my correction.
>
>> I'm afraid the further step to 'as of yet' makes me shudder - but I
>> shouldn't say that unless I can improve on it. Let me see...
>>
>>     I don't like 'malvertising' because it's new¹, unfamiliar,
>>     and seems awkward....
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> ¹Google Ngram Viewer tells me it  dates from ~2006, but remains rare.

I think "because it's new" has a different emphasis than "because as of
yet it seems". The former emphasizes newness, the latter emphasizes
on-going evaluation.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <b82d3309-e5e9-492d-b85d-e4cf9661e8bbn @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 1 Nov 2022 07:23:32 -0700 (PDT):

If I was writing today and looking for a variation (variant?) I'd use
"Right about now" for "As of now/yet". Not sure how it'd go down with
the readers

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:43:28 +0530, Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:

>* Rich Ulrich <ogutlh91a07p9c441g5v0e919glpjut8vb @4ax.com> :
>Wrote on Sun, 30 Oct 2022 18:31:39 -0400:
>> On reflection, I stick with it, and "as yet" seems wanting.
>>
>> I would say, As of today; as of yesterday; as of 5 years ago.
>> I could have written, as of now.
>>
>> In my dialect, the time reference for "as" seems to demand
>> "as of". Five minutes of reflection don't change my mind.
>
>I expected "Five minutes of reflection doesn't change my mind." but
>then it's the reflection and not the minutes, which come from "Five
>minutes of reflection do not change my mind"

But I might also say, "Five minutes doesn't change my mind."

Perhaps that should be punctuated with 'five minutes' in quotes.
Whatever the punctuation, the minutes are not acting
separately? or is there some other justification?

--
Rich Ulrich

[bil...@shaw.ca]

"So far" might do the job, especially if you want to retain the possibility
that things could change down the road.

bill

[Tak To]

On 10/31/2022 9:10 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:58:20 -0400, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2022 12:46 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> In a recent email I received from a computer techie group was the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> "Researchers at Guardio Labs have discovered a new malvertizing
>>> campaign pushing Google Chrome extensions that hijack searches and
>>> insert affiliate links into webpages."
>>>
>>> It's a reference to "malware", which is a general term for any type of
>>> software that disrupts, damages, or allows unauthorized access to
>>> someone else's computer.
>>
>> I am not sure this is a reference to "malware". It is more likely
>> just a contraction of "malicious advertising"; and the fact that
>> the product being pushed (openly or secretly) is malware
>> is coincidental.
>
> No, not "malicious advertising" because it is specifically about
> promoting software that can have malware inserted.

That interpretation requires the assumption that (1) "mal" stands
for "malware" and not just the common prefix; and (2) that
"mal(ware)-" means "for malware" and not "by malware".

Perhaps there was something in the original article that I
wasn't privy to.

> Political advertising that suggests false facts or dirt about
> opponents could be called "malicious advertising".

So is selling deceptive software.

[Hibou]

Yes, let's all be passengers.

[Hibou]

I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each word, to
make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is not easy, and I
can't pretend to succeed often, but I think it's worthwhile, that
language so composed will be clean, fresh, and transparent, and to an
extent timeless.

'As of yet' clearly comes from an opposing school of thought.

"It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to make
it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it with
suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888.

(« Il est, en effet, plus difficile de manier la phrase à son gré, de
lui faire tout dire, même ce qu'elle n'exprime pas, de l'emplir de
sous-entendus, d'intentions secrètes et non formulées, que d'inventer
des expressions nouvelles... » -
<http://maupassant.free.fr/chroniques/roman.html>)

It seems to me that there are a lot of inventors of new words and
expressions these days, rather fewer who can craft sentences exactly as
they wish.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 02.11.2022 kl. 07.29 skrev Hibou:

> I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each word, to
> make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is not easy, and I
> can't pretend to succeed often, but I think it's worthwhile, that
> language so composed will be clean, fresh, and transparent, and to an
> extent timeless.

That is exactly the advice given to us by our Danish teacher in high
school. "Look at your text and delete the words that are not necessary".

--
Bertel

[Paul Wolff]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, at 08:29:09, Bertel Lund Hansen posted:

Hence "I'm sorry this is so long: I didn't have the time to make it
shorter."
--
Paul

[GordonD]

On 29/10/2022 19:07, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Den 29.10.2022 kl. 18.33 skrev Rich Ulrich:
>
>> I wasn't sure I would get used to 'malware' when it first
>> appeared.  Right now, I want to emphasize the L in
>> 'malvertising' and the V is not the easiest sound to follow
>> it.  Seems awkward.
>

> I'm surprised. I find it easy to pronounce. How about "velvet"?
>

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 2:29:25 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> Le 01/11/2022 à 14:38, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:01:32 AM UTC-6, Hibou wrote:

> >> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples is
> >> that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people must have
> >> been expressing well before English existed.
> >> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
> >> back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
> >> America), but since then, to some people, it does.
> >> I find that odd.
> > Why odd? "As yet" sounds too truncated to Rich because he's used to a
> > longer expression. "As of yet" sounds too long to you because you're used
> > to a shorter expression. It's true that "as yet" is much older (first attested
> > in Chaucer, according to the OED), but that doesn't make much difference
> > to what you're used to.

I.e., it turns out to be Pondian.

Not dissimilar from BrE "go through" vs. AmE "go in" for entering a
building/room. Prepositions/particles are telling.

> I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each word, to
> make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is not easy, and I
> can't pretend to succeed often, but I think it's worthwhile, that
> language so composed will be clean, fresh, and transparent, and to an
> extent timeless.
>
> 'As of yet' clearly comes from an opposing school of thought.
>
> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to make
> it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it with
> suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888.
>
> (« Il est, en effet, plus difficile de manier la phrase à son gré, de
> lui faire tout dire, même ce qu'elle n'exprime pas, de l'emplir de
> sous-entendus, d'intentions secrètes et non formulées, que d'inventer
> des expressions nouvelles... » -
> <http://maupassant.free.fr/chroniques/roman.html>)
>
> It seems to me that there are a lot of inventors of new words and
> expressions these days, rather fewer who can craft sentences exactly as
> they wish.

How/why is inventing new words and expressions not crafting
sentences exactly as they wish?

[Ken Blake]

"Delete words not necessary."

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

pshurely you mean
"Delete unneccessary words"
- oh and use a spellchecker.


Mississippi

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[lar3ryca]

"Delete unnecessary words."

--
Why experiment on animals with so many politicians out there?

[lar3ryca]

Yes, do, it's a neccccesity.


--
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so.”
—Douglas Adams

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Grate minds can do precisé.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <tjuis8$185ga$2...@dont-email.me>, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2022-11-02 11:28, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> pshurely you mean
>> "Delete unneccessary words"
>> - oh and use a spellchecker.
>
>Yes, do, it's a neccccesity.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is everyone dancing around
the original formulation, "omit needless words"?

(Which is a bad "rule", for what it's worth, because "need" is a
judgment.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:28:38 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

No, that's not only deletion; it's also rearrangement. I stuck to
deletion, which was what the advice was about.

>- oh and use a spellchecker.

Good advice. It's spelled "surely."

[Peter Moylan]

This morning, in an e-mail newsletter, I read a comment about a racist
complaint "in mispelt words which suggested he'd learnt to write with a
spraycan". How beautifully expressed. And what a pity that he misslept
"misspelt".

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 02.11.2022 kl. 21.16 skrev Garrett Wollman:

> (Which is a bad "rule", for what it's worth, because "need" is a
> judgment.)

which can come as no surprise to people who judge their own scriblings
every day.

--
Bertel

[Snidely]

Peter Moylan was thinking very hard :

I knew a Miss Van Pelt.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Hibou]

Le 02/11/2022 à 14:02, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 2:29:25 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to make
>> it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it with
>> suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new

>> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888. [...]

>>
>> It seems to me that there are a lot of inventors of new words and
>> expressions these days, rather fewer who can craft sentences exactly as
>> they wish.
>
> How/why is inventing new words and expressions not crafting
> sentences exactly as they wish?

There's an overlap, certainly. Shakespeare invented a lot of new terms,
which were part of his niftiness at crafting. And I recognise that
someone who is not very able may craft a sentence as they wish without
it satisfying others.

Let's examine some examples that obviously pleased their inventors,
while perhaps not demonstrating ability in crafting...

Social distancing - is the duchess not wanting to invite her peasants to
the ball.

Road map used to mean route plan or route map.

No-fly zone - a hygienic kitchen.

I could care less. George Boole might've cared more.

Steep learning curve - is one learning quickly or slowly?

As of yet - wordy and with no analysable meaning, whichever side of the
Pond one is.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-11-03, Snidely wrote:

> Peter Moylan was thinking very hard :
>> On 03/11/22 04:28, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:02:28 -0700 Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 08:29:09 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
>>>> <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 02.11.2022 kl. 07.29 skrev Hibou:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each
>>>>>> word, to make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is
>>>>>> not easy, and I can't pretend to succeed often, but I think
>>>>>> it's worthwhile, that language so composed will be clean,
>>>>>> fresh, and transparent, and to an extent timeless.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is exactly the advice given to us by our Danish teacher in
>>>>> high school. "Look at your text and delete the words that are not
>>>>> necessary".
>>>>
>>>> "Delete words not necessary."
>>>
>>> pshurely you mean "Delete unneccessary words" - oh and use a
>>> spellchecker.
>>
>> This morning, in an e-mail newsletter, I read a comment about a racist
>> complaint "in mispelt words which suggested he'd learnt to write with a
>> spraycan". How beautifully expressed. And what a pity that he misslept
>> "misspelt".
>
> I knew a Miss Van Pelt.

Lucy, with a brother named Linus?


--
Random numbers should not be generated with a method chosen at random.
---Donald Knuth

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-4, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <tjuis8$185ga$2...@dont-email.me>, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:
> >On 2022-11-02 11:28, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> >> pshurely you mean
> >> "Delete unneccessary words"
> >> - oh and use a spellchecker.
> >Yes, do, it's a neccccesity.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but why is everyone dancing around
> the original formulation, "omit needless words"?
>
> (Which is a bad "rule", for what it's worth, because "need" is a
> judgment.)

How about "be concise"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 4:23:08 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> Le 02/11/2022 à 14:02, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 2:29:25 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:

> >> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to make
> >> it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it with
> >> suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
> >> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888. [...]
> >> It seems to me that there are a lot of inventors of new words and
> >> expressions these days, rather fewer who can craft sentences exactly as
> >> they wish.
> > How/why is inventing new words and expressions not crafting
> > sentences exactly as they wish?
>
> There's an overlap, certainly. Shakespeare invented a lot of new terms,

(Well, that's more the effect of the OED not having many contributors
working on 16th-century materials, so that antedatings are discovered
fairly randomly -- and maybe also because desk dictionaries are committed
to including every word in Shakespeare and the KJV, but not necessarily
Spenser. I wonder what the policy is on Bacon, Jonson, and the playwrights
who were competing with the Stratford man.)

> which were part of his niftiness at crafting. And I recognise that
> someone who is not very able may craft a sentence as they wish without
> it satisfying others.

It's hard to improve on Strunk & White. Though I haven't seen what
may have been done to it in revisions since E. B. White died.

BTW if you take up his several volumes of collected essays, you'll
find that his superb style is achieved by following his recommendations.
His stepson, the late great baseball writer Roger Angell, described
how he would often try to get a ms. back after he'd mailed it to the
NYer HQ in NYC from his farm in Maine, to further improve it.

(I was surprised when a visiting Englishman -- whom I'd met on a
classical music newsgroup, and was in town to perform as Maria
Friedman's accompanist at a Café Carlyle gig -- was completely
unfamiliar with his three children's books, Charlotte's Web, Stuart
Little, and Trumpet of the Swan, but happily he bought all three to
take home for his then toddler.)

> Let's examine some examples that obviously pleased their inventors,
> while perhaps not demonstrating ability in crafting...
>
> Social distancing - is the duchess not wanting to invite her peasants to
> the ball.
>
> Road map used to mean route plan or route map.
>
> No-fly zone - a hygienic kitchen.
>
> I could care less. George Boole might've cared more.
>
> Steep learning curve - is one learning quickly or slowly?
>
> As of yet - wordy and with no analysable meaning, whichever side of the
> Pond one is.

Some of those were obviously created as jokes, some seem to be
those made-up examples that were supposedly written by school-
children in their quizzes.

"Route map" seems to be a Pondianism? A road map is a paper
map of an area showing the roads between places. Sometimes
they have insets with little street maps of cities. I'm not sure we
have a word for a map on which a route from origin to destination
is marked out with a marker.

The AAA (American Automobile Association) used to provide
Trip-Tiks as part of membership, which were booklets assembled
from "strip maps" of the routes between destinations typically
about 100 miles apart, keyed to their touring guidebooks which
contained listings for both sights and accommodations (as if a
more democratic Michelin Green and Red guide were combined).
(The books were also free, presumably subsidized by the advertising
they carried; the people who did the ratings were not aware of whether
an establishment was an advertiser.)

But when the Interstates almost entirely replaced the old US Highway
and State Highway systems for through routes, Trip-Tiks became otiose.

[Ken Blake]

He should have taken sspleeping pills.

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 10:11:15 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

Many brothers, named Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, et al.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 09:40:14 -0700, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com>

But this is a wake-up call to pay more attention to spelling.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[lar3ryca]

When I first read about Linux, I pronounced it Line-ux, based on the
pronunciation of the Peanuts character.

I was surprised to find out it was pronounced Lin-ux, based on the
creator's name.

--
Inoculatte (v): To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 03.11.2022 kl. 17.57 skrev lar3ryca:

> When I first read about Linux, I pronounced it Line-ux, based on the
> pronunciation of the Peanuts character.

> I was surprised to find out it was pronounced Lin-ux, based on the
> creator's name.

.. and the pronunciation of "Unix" - the same two vowels.

--
Bertel

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Adam Funk wrote :

Sharon, IIRC. I've been out of school for a while.

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

[Snidely]

Hibou was thinking very hard :

You may not be able to analyze on either side of the pond, but some of
us can.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[lar3ryca]

Really?

I pronounce Unix to rhyme with you-nicks.

And to be a bit more specific, I pronounce the first syllable of Linux
to rhyme with fin, sin, bin, and the second vowel is more of a schwa.

--
rw-rw-rw- Permissions of the beast.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

I took some leaping pills, but the S had fallen off. Bak wen mae spelin wuz atroshus.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 03.11.2022 kl. 20.17 skrev lar3ryca:


>>> I was surprised to find out it was pronounced Lin-ux, based on the
creator's name.

>> .. and the pronunciation of "Unix" - the same two vowels.

> Really?

No, that was an error. I had a Danish pronunciation in mind.

--
Bertel

[Hibou]

Le 03/11/2022 à 15:21, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> "Route map" seems to be a Pondianism? A road map is a paper
> map of an area showing the roads between places. Sometimes
> they have insets with little street maps of cities. I'm not sure we
> have a word for a map on which a route from origin to destination
> is marked out with a marker.

We agree on terms. A road map shows roads, a route map shows one or more
routes. Google Ngram Viewer suggests that 'route map' used to be
commoner in AmE than BrE, but is now commoner in BrE. It's often used
for bus services etc., but also for individual, tailored routes.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:29:25 AM UTC-6, Hibou wrote:
> Le 01/11/2022 à 14:38, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:01:32 AM UTC-6, Hibou wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such examples is
> >> that the expression is new, but the thought is one that people must have
> >> been expressing well before English existed.
> >>
> >> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500 (as far
> >> back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started its rise in
> >> America), but since then, to some people, it does.
> >>
> >> I find that odd.
> >
> > Why odd? "As yet" sounds too truncated to Rich because he's used to a
> > longer expression. "As of yet" sounds too long to you because you're used
> > to a shorter expression. It's true that "as yet" is much older (first attested
> > in Chaucer, according to the OED), but that doesn't make much difference
> > to what you're used to.

> I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each word, to
> make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is not easy, and I
> can't pretend to succeed often, but I think it's worthwhile, that
> language so composed will be clean, fresh, and transparent, and to an
> extent timeless.

I try to do the same, also thinking about whether anything is missing.
I doubt it's timeless at all, though. My students probably think I'm a
funny old man for saying "This isn't too hard a problem" with no "of"
after "hard".

But how do you feel about, say, "You better do that"? The meaning is
clear, and it's more concise than the standard form "You had better
do that." Is the "had" or "'d" necessary? For anything beyond keeping
it from sounding too truncated?

> 'As of yet' clearly comes from an opposing school of thought.

I doubt that it comes from a school of thought. People probably knew
"as of November 2" and "as of now" and felt that "as yet" should be
analogous.

> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to make
> it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it with
> suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888.
>

> (« Il est, en effet, plus difficile de manier la phrase à son gré, de
> lui faire tout dire, même ce qu'elle n'exprime pas, de l'emplir de
> sous-entendus, d'intentions secrètes et non formulées, que d'inventer
> des expressions nouvelles... » -
> <http://maupassant.free.fr/chroniques/roman.html>)

Why "unwritten" instead of "unformulated"? Isn't he talking about
writing the speech and thoughts of fictional characters in a way
that communicates things they have not formulated even to
themselves?

I doubt that you try to fill your phrases with your secret and
unformulated intentions.

> It seems to me that there are a lot of inventors of new words and
> expressions these days, rather fewer who can craft sentences exactly as
> they wish.

I think the default is to speak and write as one hears. That's not even a
wish; it's how language is acquired. When people modify their language
according to their wishes, those wishes may well be to sound like their
hearers or listeners, not to appear to think too hard about style instead
of substance, not to appear to claim any kind of linguistic superiority.

I read a lot of my employer's documents, and I can agree with you to the
extent that when well-educated people in responsible jobs /are/ trying
to write clearly and concisely with standard grammar, many of them have
a great deal of trouble, especially in the amount of time they gave
themselves or were given.

--
Jerry Friedman

[CDB]

On 11/4/2022 11:14 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Hibou wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman a écrit :

>>> Hibou wrote:

>>>> Yes, I'd looked at GNV too. The interesting thing about such
>>>> examples is that the expression is new, but the thought is one
>>>> that people must have been expressing well before English
>>>> existed.

>>>> Apparently 'as yet' did not sound too truncated between 1500
>>>> (as far back as GNV goes) and ~1950 (when 'as of yet' started
>>>> its rise in America), but since then, to some people, it does.

>>>> I find that odd.

>>> Why odd? "As yet" sounds too truncated to Rich because he's used
>>> to a longer expression. "As of yet" sounds too long to you
>>> because you're used to a shorter expression. It's true that "as
>>> yet" is much older (first attested in Chaucer, according to the
>>> OED), but that doesn't make much difference to what you're used
>>> to.

>> I try not to stop at what I'm used to, but to think about each
>> word, to make sure it's necessary and is the right one. This is not
>> easy, and I can't pretend to succeed often, but I think it's
>> worthwhile, that language so composed will be clean, fresh, and
>> transparent, and to an extent timeless.

> I try to do the same, also thinking about whether anything is
> missing. I doubt it's timeless at all, though. My students probably
> think I'm a funny old man for saying "This isn't too hard a problem"
> with no "of" after "hard".

Say "this problem isn't too hard" and grow younger before their eyes.

> But how do you feel about, say, "You better do that"? The meaning
> is clear, and it's more concise than the standard form "You had
> better do that." Is the "had" or "'d" necessary? For anything
> beyond keeping it from sounding too truncated?

With "had", "do" is an infinitive; without it, it is an indicative form,
or possibly an imperative: "you would have it better to do that" or "do
that/you do that [and it is] better". It isn't clear to me that the
meanings are exactly the same.

>> 'As of yet' clearly comes from an opposing school of thought.

> I doubt that it comes from a school of thought. People probably
> knew "as of November 2" and "as of now" and felt that "as yet" should
> be analogous.

AOL.

>> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to
>> make it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it
>> with suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
>> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888.

>> (« Il est, en effet, plus difficile de manier la phrase à son gré,
>> de lui faire tout dire, même ce qu'elle n'exprime pas, de l'emplir
>> de sous-entendus, d'intentions secrètes et non formulées, que
>> d'inventer des expressions nouvelles... » -
>> <http://maupassant.free.fr/chroniques/roman.html>)

> Why "unwritten" instead of "unformulated"? Isn't he talking about
> writing the speech and thoughts of fictional characters in a way that
> communicates things they have not formulated even to themselves?

Or "unexpressed".

> I doubt that you try to fill your phrases with your secret and
> unformulated intentions.

I took M to mean the unformulated intentions of a writer's characters.
He's discussing the technique of realistic writing in which the author
tries to define a character perfectly by describing appearance and
action instead of detailing the character's inner workings.

ObEnglish: I noticed the ecpression "pêle-mêle", used there as a noun
but perhaps more often as an adverb. The entry at atilf gives it a long
pedigree in French which indicates that the English expression does not
come from an image of riders galloping breakneck down Pall Mall, as I
had mistakenly thought.

http://stella.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1236705630;

Wiktionary confirms it:

'From French pêle-mêle, from Old French pesle-mesle, apparently a rhyme
based on the stem of mesler (“to mix, meddle”). Compare meddle, melee.'

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pell-mell

[Jerry Friedman]

I don't mind hinting to them that the "of" is not (yet) academic
English, in my opinion, though most of them probably don't notice.

> > But how do you feel about, say, "You better do that"? The meaning
> > is clear, and it's more concise than the standard form "You had
> > better do that." Is the "had" or "'d" necessary? For anything
> > beyond keeping it from sounding too truncated?

> With "had", "do" is an infinitive; without it, it is an indicative form,
> or possibly an imperative: "you would have it better to do that" or "do
> that/you do that [and it is] better". It isn't clear to me that the
> meanings are exactly the same.

I think it's an infinitive either way. Does "He better do that" help?
And note that there's no "You better did that".

> >> 'As of yet' clearly comes from an opposing school of thought.
>
> > I doubt that it comes from a school of thought. People probably
> > knew "as of November 2" and "as of now" and felt that "as yet" should
> > be analogous.

> AOL.

> >> "It is, indeed, more difficult to turn a sentence as one wishes, to
> >> make it say everything, even what it doesn't express, to fill it
> >> with suggestion, with secret unwritten meaning, than to invent new
> >> expressions..." - Maupassant, 'Le roman', 1888.
>
> >> (« Il est, en effet, plus difficile de manier la phrase à son gré,
> >> de lui faire tout dire, même ce qu'elle n'exprime pas, de l'emplir
> >> de sous-entendus, d'intentions secrètes et non formulées, que
> >> d'inventer des expressions nouvelles... » -
> >> <http://maupassant.free.fr/chroniques/roman.html>)
>
> > Why "unwritten" instead of "unformulated"? Isn't he talking about
> > writing the speech and thoughts of fictional characters in a way that
> > communicates things they have not formulated even to themselves?
> Or "unexpressed".
> > I doubt that you try to fill your phrases with your secret and
> > unformulated intentions.

> I took M to mean the unformulated intentions of a writer's characters.

AOL yourself.

> He's discussing the technique of realistic writing in which the author
> tries to define a character perfectly by describing appearance and
> action instead of detailing the character's inner workings.

I think Maupassant's technique also describes thoughts, but leaves the
unconscious (probably repressed) thoughts implicit. This is from
"Une vie":

"Elle regarda sa pendule, pensa que la petite abeille battait à la façon
d'un cœur, d'un cœur ami ; qu'elle serait le témoin de toute sa vie, qu'elle
accompagnerait ses joies et ses chagrins de ce tic-tac vif et régulier..."

(For anyone reading this who wants to know: "She looked at its
pendulum, thought that the little bee was beating like a heart, a
friendly heart; that it would be the witness of all of her life, that it
would accompany her joys and sorrows with that lively and regular
tick-tock..." Not that I know what unformulated thoughts it might
be hinting at.)

> ObEnglish: I noticed the ecpression "pêle-mêle", used there as a noun
> but perhaps more often as an adverb. The entry at atilf gives it a long
> pedigree in French which indicates that the English expression does not
> come from an image of riders galloping breakneck down Pall Mall, as I
> had mistakenly thought.
>
> http://stella.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1236705630;
>
> Wiktionary confirms it:
>
> 'From French pêle-mêle, from Old French pesle-mesle, apparently a rhyme
> based on the stem of mesler (“to mix, meddle”). Compare meddle, melee.'
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pell-mell

...

Interesting.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

"Most of them probably don't notice": I agree.

It seems to me that students in general are aware that their teachers
are from an earlier generation - even those lecturers who who are only
five years older than the students, as I was when I first became a
lecturer (=AmE professor) - and they make allowances for that. So if
Jerry says "This isn't too hard a problem", they just accept that as an
old-fashioned way of saying "of a problem".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 10:16:35 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> I think it's an infinitive either way. Does "He better do that" help?
> And note that there's no "You better did that".

"You better have done that."

Could they put "of" there? Not as of yet, probably.

[Ken Blake]

In my AmE, I don't say either one. I say Google Maps.

[Ken Blake]

Ugh!


> The meaning is
>clear,

Yes

> and it's more concise than the standard form "You had better
>do that."

Yes, but just because it can be made shorter and still keep its
meaning doesn't mean it's acceptable.You know that? Been to school?

>Is the "had" or "'d" necessary?

Yes.

[Jerry Friedman]

I'd say both of those things, and write them informally. I wouldn't
write "You better do that," though I find myself saying such things.

> >Is the "had" or "'d" necessary?

> Yes.

> >For anything beyond keeping it from sounding too truncated?

...

The question is why it's necessary. I was suggesting that Hibou
probably had a different reason from what he gave, a more general
one.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

The same thing happens to them all the way through their schooling.
They are more likely to notice a teacher/lecturer who tries to speak
like the students.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Same with me. I especially like your saying " I find myself saying
such things." I also sometimes find myself saying things like that
that I think I shouldn't.

[Hibou]

Le 05/11/2022 à 18:12, Ken Blake a écrit :

> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 08:28:46 +0000, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> We agree on terms. A road map shows roads, a route map shows one or more
>> routes. Google Ngram Viewer suggests that 'route map' used to be
>> commoner in AmE than BrE, but is now commoner in BrE. It's often used
>> for bus services etc., but also for individual, tailored routes.
>
> In my AmE, I don't say either one. I say Google Maps.

Google's tools are devilishly useful, but I'd say their maps are not
really all that great as maps, since they're intended to be a substrate
for advertising.

[Snidely]

Hibou is guilty of <tk7jbs$eam$1...@gioia.aioe.org> as of 11/5/2022
11:14:20 PM

So are paper maps from petrol companies.

I can find my way from where I am to where I am going by using Google
Maps, and see the relationship of those locations to other locations.
What more is required to be "all that great as maps"?

/dps "Recently, to get to WestWorld in Scottsdale AZ from Long Beach
CA"

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/11/22 20:20, Snidely wrote:
> Hibou is guilty of <tk7jbs$eam$1...@gioia.aioe.org> as of 11/5/2022
> 11:14:20 PM
>> Le 05/11/2022 à 18:12, Ken Blake a écrit :
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 08:28:46 +0000, Hibou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We agree on terms. A road map shows roads, a route map shows one or
>>>> more
>>>> routes. Google Ngram Viewer suggests that 'route map' used to be
>>>> commoner in AmE than BrE, but is now commoner in BrE. It's often used
>>>> for bus services etc., but also for individual, tailored routes.
>>>
>>> In my AmE, I don't say either one. I say Google Maps.
>>
>> Google's tools are devilishly useful, but I'd say their maps are not
>> really all that great as maps, since they're intended to be a
>> substrate for advertising.
>
> So are paper maps from petrol companies.
>
> I can find my way from where I am to where I am going by using Google
> Maps, and see the relationship of those locations to other locations.
> What more is required to be "all that great as maps"?

Sometimes it's useful to have a map where the street names are not
obscured by all the business names.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

#Do you believe in the WestWorld?
OK, I'll look it up on Youtube for you. Even though it takes a full minute
to download & then dismiss the adverts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHtaKXXqksM
(Probably not to everyone's taste)
(Actually it was more powerful before I saw how wimpy these kids were!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld
(No Yul Brunner's were harmed in the making of this post)

> --
> You could try being nicer and politer
> > instead, and see how that works out.
> -- Katy Jennison

[Peter T. Daniels]

By which you mean that when you hover over a marker, it shows
information like the address of the establishment? I don't see ads
(for instance) around the edges of Google Maps.

The problem with Google Maps is the resolution. If you zoom in
far enough to see all the street names, you're not even seeing
enough of a neighborhood to navigate within it, and if you zoom
out just a bit to see the main streets, the street names and soon
the streets themselves go away.

Curiously, that doesn't happen with a paper map.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Again, that's not what I see.

[CDB]

If you want thm to know you're old, try writing something with "phial"
in it. (CTA)

>>> But how do you feel about, say, "You better do that"? The
>>> meaning is clear, and it's more concise than the standard form
>>> "You had better do that." Is the "had" or "'d" necessary? For
>>> anything beyond keeping it from sounding too truncated?

I feel negative. It seems to me that it is a parallel to the use of
"useta" for "used to": the missing sound has disappeared because of the
mechanics of articulation, and the fault has been interpeted as an
example. You say that you use the form in speech but not writing, and
that seems to agree with my explanation.

>> With "had", "do" is an infinitive; without it, it is an indicative
>> form, or possibly an imperative: "you would have it better to do
>> that" or "do that/you do that [and it is] better". It isn't clear
>> to me that the meanings are exactly the same.
>
> I think it's an infinitive either way. Does "He better do that"
> help? And note that there's no "You better did that".

You'd better have done that.

"Whee"? Or did you not refer to l'abeille?

One of the things I liked about the author WIWAL was the ease with which
he could be read by a learner.

>> ObEnglish: I noticed the expression "pêle-mêle", used there as a

[Ken Blake]

I strongly disagree. Unless I already know how to get where I'm going,
I always use Google Maps (or Waze) on my phone, and I find them to be
almost perfect.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 06-Nov-22 9:20, Snidely wrote:
> Hibou is guilty of <tk7jbs$eam$1...@gioia.aioe.org> as of 11/5/2022
> 11:14:20 PM
>> Le 05/11/2022 à 18:12, Ken Blake a écrit :

>>> In my AmE, I don't say either one. I say Google Maps.
>>
>> Google's tools are devilishly useful, but I'd say their maps are not
>> really all that great as maps, since they're intended to be a
>> substrate for advertising.
>
> So are paper maps from petrol companies.

Are those 'a thing' where you live?
I can't recall seeing anything like that here.

The (pre SatNav) default in the UK was to buy a road atlas which covered
the whole of the UK (some versions include N. Ireland, some just do the
Mainland).
Those used to be quite cheap since so many were sold, but the sales
volumes must be much lower these days & prices adjusted to suit.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 18:41:55 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

>On 06-Nov-22 9:20, Snidely wrote:
>> Hibou is guilty of <tk7jbs$eam$1...@gioia.aioe.org> as of 11/5/2022
>> 11:14:20 PM
>>> Le 05/11/2022 à 18:12, Ken Blake a écrit :
>
>>>> In my AmE, I don't say either one. I say Google Maps.
>>>
>>> Google's tools are devilishly useful, but I'd say their maps are not
>>> really all that great as maps, since they're intended to be a
>>> substrate for advertising.
>>
>> So are paper maps from petrol companies.
>
>Are those 'a thing' where you live?
>I can't recall seeing anything like that here.

A "petrol" paper map is what I would call a "gas station map", and
they used to be free. They were printed* by the company that supplied
the gasoline to the station.

Some gas stations still offer printed maps, but they are no longer
free and no longer printed by* the gasoline company.

* "Sponsored by", actually, because the gasoline company never was the
printer.

I have a multi-page "Florida Atlas" in my car that has detailed
by-area maps of Florida. It's fine if I want to determine the route
from one city to another in Florida, but I'll use Google Maps or
MapQuest if I want to plan a route to a location in some other city.

The one place in the South that free paper maps very much like the
"gas station maps" are available are the Welcome Stations as you enter
the state from another state. I have paper maps of Georgia, Alabama,
South Carolina and other states from past trips.

>
>The (pre SatNav) default in the UK was to buy a road atlas which covered
>the whole of the UK (some versions include N. Ireland, some just do the
>Mainland).
>Those used to be quite cheap since so many were sold, but the sales
>volumes must be much lower these days & prices adjusted to suit.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Snidely]

On Sunday or thereabouts, Peter T. Daniels asked ...

Ditto.

-d

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 11:50:11 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't understand why it is a problem to see the street names. Any
online map app I've ever used allows zooming in to see all the street
names. If a printed version is wanted, the zoomed in version can be
printed.

This particular poster has a history of not figuring out how to use
online assets. He often seems to take one look, and then make a
statement based on that that is not necessarily correct if he'd taken
time to figure out how to use what he's looking at.

[Peter T. Daniels]

READ THE FUCKING THREAD, MORON.

"The problem with Google Maps is the resolution. If you zoom in
far enough to see all the street names, you're not even seeing
enough of a neighborhood to navigate within it, and if you zoom
out just a bit to see the main streets, the street names and soon
the streets themselves go away."

is what I posted at 9:09 this morning, six hours before your
idiotic comment above.

> This particular poster has a history of not figuring out how to use
> online assets. He often seems to take one look, and then make a
> statement based on that that is not necessarily correct if he'd taken
> time to figure out how to use what he's looking at.

Yup, it was too much to suppose that the attack of decency could
last as long as a week.

Apparently my request this morning was too polite to penetrate
the thick skull. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I HAVE AND HAVE NOT '
SEEN, JACKASS.

Or have you in fact added Snidely to your collection of targets?

> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And asininity.

[Tony Cooper]

Your phrasing indicates that it's a "problem", and it isn't. It might
be a temporary problem if you are using a very small screen on a
mobile phone, but it isn't a problem on a monitor or a laptop screen.
You simply scroll around the screen to get your bearings or zoom only
enough to read the street names and you can do that on a mobile phone.

If you use a mouse with a laptop or desktop, zooming in and out is
instantaneous using the scroll wheel. Without a mouse, you have to
use the + and -, but that's simple.

A "problem" is a something that is a continuous impediment to you. It
would a continuous impediment only if you can't figure out how to
manage the app. A "problem" would be something that every user would
experience, and that's not the case.

And it's not "resolution" that creates even a temporary impediment.
It's the size of the viewed area. However, you may have your display
resolution set incorrectly; another indication that you don't know how
to manage what you're working with.

>is what I posted at 9:09 this morning, six hours before your
>idiotic comment above.

You did, and are doing, what you so often do: declare that something
to with a computer is impossible or a problem just because you can't
figure it out. The rest of us have no problem.

>
>> This particular poster has a history of not figuring out how to use
>> online assets. He often seems to take one look, and then make a
>> statement based on that that is not necessarily correct if he'd taken
>> time to figure out how to use what he's looking at.
>
>Yup, it was too much to suppose that the attack of decency could
>last as long as a week.
>
>Apparently my request this morning was too polite to penetrate
>the thick skull. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I HAVE AND HAVE NOT '
>SEEN, JACKASS.
>

I didn't. I told you what I saw and clicked. You didn't wait around
long enough to know if you would be able to see it. According to what
you posted, you panicked and closed the link before it fully opened.

>Or have you in fact added Snidely to your collection of targets?

Snidely seems to have an excellent grasp on how apps are used. I get
the feeling he could probably create one.

>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
>
>And asininity.

Right, Petey.

[Peter Moylan]

Here we had several different categories. A street directory covered
just one city, on a scale that required many pages. Also you could buy a
state directory; that was a bit like a street directory but the maps
were for a collection of towns that were too small to justify the
printing of a street directory. Finally we had folding maps of the kind
called "gas station maps" in North America. We usually got those free
from the state motoring organisation, although the really good ones were
from some government mapping department. Some of those covered a
relatively small region in a lot of detail, and included things like
fire trails. Others were strip maps that covered just one highway.

Just last week I had my six-year-old granddaughter in a child seat on
the back seat of my car, and she asked if she could read the Newcastle
street directory. I had completely forgotten that the seat pocket just
in front of her still contained a collection of what used to be my
most-needed maps.