The Forger Tolkien Library
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
may add illustrations later, if the Decider decides that the masses
are worthy.)
Taemon
> Announcing the unveiling of this glorious research institution.
A closing parenthesis is missing in the eleventh paragraph.
T.
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
The stray bracket was put in by evil Barlog spies. It has been
removed.
(Balrogs have no sense of punctuation. But that is the least of their
sins.)
Taemon
> On Nov 22, 5:54 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III wrote:
>>> Announcing the unveiling of this glorious research institution.
>> A closing parenthesis is missing in the eleventh paragraph.
> The stray bracket was put in by evil Barlog spies. It has been
> removed.
Damn! Wrong again? And I consulted dictionaries and all! When does one use
"bracket" and when does one use "parenthesis"? Really?
T.
Derek Broughton
> Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 5:54 am, "Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III wrote:
>>>> Announcing the unveiling of this glorious research institution.
>>> A closing parenthesis is missing in the eleventh paragraph.
>> The stray bracket was put in by evil Barlog spies. It has been
>> removed.
>
> Damn! Wrong again? And I consulted dictionaries and all! When does one use
> "bracket" and when does one use "parenthesis"? Really?
To computer programmers, at least as I was educated, "brackets" come in 4
(?) styles:
- brace "{}"
- paren "()" [and, yes, they're parens, not parentheses]
- angle bracket "<>"
- [square] bracket "[]"
The last is often just a "bracket". I have no idea if it's the same in
English :-)
--
derek
Taemon
So... "bracket" is always good? When to use "paren"?
T.
Steve Hayes
A parenthesis is what goes inside the brackets. Parentheses may also be
separated from the rest of the sentence by dashes and commas, and not just
brackets.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Paul S. Person
While that may be so in some dialects, "parenthesis" also refers to
")" or "(" in English.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "paren" was used by
printers (who need, or needed, a name for every thing, however
obscure, that they might need to use) and then adopted by programmers.
Or maybe not. /The Devil's DP Dictionary/ (Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1981)
gives these enlightening definitions:
parentheses n.pl. (A (pair (of symbols (referred to as (open) and
(closed))) each ) of which) has the (hold (down) ((to)(repeat)
operation) on a ((LISP)-(oriented) keyboard)). See table of Acronyms.
(The table of Acronyms defines LIST as "Lots of Irritating, Spurious
Parentheses" (attributed to J. McCarthy, ca. 1961).)
parenthesis n. Archaic singular of parentheses
and a note:
In most repectable languages, a singular, unmatched bracket is
syntactically inadmissible.
which, I suppose, is intended to explain why "parenthesis" is archaic.
So there is /some/ reason to believe that "parenthesis" is not
restricted to referring to a parenthetical phrase. Oh, yes,
"parenthesis" can indeed be used to refer to a phrase, as stated by
Steve above. It just isn't the /only/ way to use the word.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Derek Broughton
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:39:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>>A parenthesis is what goes inside the brackets. Parentheses may also be
>>separated from the rest of the sentence by dashes and commas, and not just
>>brackets.
>
> While that may be so in some dialects, "parenthesis" also refers to
> ")" or "(" in English.
...
> In most repectable languages, a singular, unmatched bracket is
> syntactically inadmissible.
>
> which, I suppose, is intended to explain why "parenthesis" is archaic.
You _were_ quoting from a satirical work.
> So there is /some/ reason to believe that "parenthesis" is not
> restricted to referring to a parenthetical phrase. Oh, yes,
> "parenthesis" can indeed be used to refer to a phrase, as stated by
> Steve above. It just isn't the /only/ way to use the word.
I actually understood Steve's point. A parenthesis, or as I was taught, a
"parenthetical expression", is grammatically what's inside round brackets
(or commas, etcetera). It doesn't mean that usage isn't different, but a
grammarian will often come at odds with usage...
--
derek
Paul S. Person
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:39:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>>A parenthesis is what goes inside the brackets. Parentheses may also be
>>>separated from the rest of the sentence by dashes and commas, and not just
>>>brackets.
>>
>> While that may be so in some dialects, "parenthesis" also refers to
>> ")" or "(" in English.
>...
>> In most repectable languages, a singular, unmatched bracket is
>> syntactically inadmissible.
>>
>> which, I suppose, is intended to explain why "parenthesis" is archaic.
>
>You _were_ quoting from a satirical work.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's definition doesn't show that
"parentheses" can refer to the brackets themselves. (The "respectable
languages" referred to are, of course, all programming languages.)
It also, IIRC, defines a closed file as "safe", which is certainly
correct, in the sense that your program can't corrupt a file's
contents if the file is closed. This is certainly correct.
>> So there is /some/ reason to believe that "parenthesis" is not
>> restricted to referring to a parenthetical phrase. Oh, yes,
>> "parenthesis" can indeed be used to refer to a phrase, as stated by
>> Steve above. It just isn't the /only/ way to use the word.
>
>I actually understood Steve's point. A parenthesis, or as I was taught, a
>"parenthetical expression", is grammatically what's inside round brackets
>(or commas, etcetera). It doesn't mean that usage isn't different, but a
>grammarian will often come at odds with usage...
I would say that it means that grammarians have their own specialized
vocabulary which those who are not professional grammarians may not
share.
/The Word Book II/, a very small book useful mainly in finding where
words should be hyphenated (I bought it when I got WordStar: whatever
hyphenation point WordStar proposed looked good to me, even those I
would never have come up with on my own, and needed the book to
distinguish the real ones from the false ones), has, on its inside
back cover, a box labled "Parentheses", listing how parentheses are
used; summarized, they are:
(1) To set off nonessential, supplementory, or explanatory material.
(2) To enclose parenthetical material where the interruption is too
great to be indicated by commas.
(3) To enlose letters or numbers in a series.
So, at least in the late 70's/early 80's, at least one reputable,
solid, non-satirical, orthographical (if not grammatical) reference
work used "parentheses" to refer to a particular set of brackets and
"parenthetical material" to refer to what is enclosed.
That said, the mid-70's Webster's 3rd that came with the Encyclopedia
Britannica does contain "paren" as a word -- it refers the user to the
third meaning of "parenthesis" which is, of course, to name either of
the brackets.
I would not be surprised, however, to learn that either the code point
or the glyph used in, say, Unicode, for these things use "paren"
rather than "parenthesis".
Steve Morrison
> I would not be surprised, however, to learn that either the code point
> or the glyph used in, say, Unicode, for these things use "paren"
> rather than "parenthesis".
Doesn't look like it:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0028/index.htm
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0029/index.htm
And for what it's worth, I was taught in school that these:
() are called "parentheses", these: [] "brackets", and these:
{} "braces". That would have been in the early 1970s and in
the U.S. public school system.
Julian Bradfield
[ big snip ]
> So, at least in the late 70's/early 80's, at least one reputable,
> solid, non-satirical, orthographical (if not grammatical) reference
> work used "parentheses" to refer to a particular set of brackets and
> "parenthetical material" to refer to what is enclosed.
The OED has only managed to trace "parenthesis" (meaning an inserted
remark) back to 1547 in English. The meaning of "()" is traced back to
1582 - so they're pretty much contemporaneous.
> That said, the mid-70's Webster's 3rd that came with the Encyclopedia
> Britannica does contain "paren" as a word -- it refers the user to the
> third meaning of "parenthesis" which is, of course, to name either of
> the brackets.
Going back to 1905 in the OED.
> I would not be surprised, however, to learn that either the code point
> or the glyph used in, say, Unicode, for these things use "paren"
> rather than "parenthesis".
Unicode uses "parenthesis" (or rather "PARENTHESIS").
(And since when did Unicode give names to glyphs?)
Clams Canino
"Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhh0c0...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> On 2009-11-27, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> [ big snip ]
Julian - you're up for the 20 questions.
-W
Julian Bradfield
I'm sorry, I don't understand this, either as a piece of English -
what does "up for" mean: it's not in my dialect, and in the only
dialects I know it from it means "ready and willing to do" (as in "up
for anything") - or as a comment upon the quoted posting.
My best guess is that you're telling me that the winner of one 20
questions round is obliged to host the next one. Is that what you
mean? If so, fine, but it has nothing to do with this thread, even
this drifted thread.
Raven
news:slrnhh11p...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> My best guess is that you're telling me that the winner of one 20
> questions round is obliged to host the next one. Is that what you
> mean? If so, fine, but it has nothing to do with this thread, even
> this drifted thread.
The winner of a 20 questions round has won the right to host the next
one. Presumably that is what he meant. If you don't want to avail yourself
of that right say so, and someone else will take over. I waived my hosting
of the next round last I won.
Hrafn.
Paul S. Person
I am as unsurprised that they use "parenthesis" as I would be had they
used "parens".
>(And since when did Unicode give names to glyphs?)
Sadly, my actual knowledge of Unicode, while extending the difference
between code points and glyphs, extends no further.
Paul S. Person
<j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2009-11-27, Clams Canino <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhh0c0...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk...
>>> On 2009-11-27, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> [ big snip ]
>>
>> Julian - you're up for the 20 questions.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't understand this, either as a piece of English -
>what does "up for" mean: it's not in my dialect, and in the only
>dialects I know it from it means "ready and willing to do" (as in "up
>for anything") - or as a comment upon the quoted posting.
I related it to being "up to bat" in baseball: that is, that it is
your turn. This involves parsing it so that "for the 20 questions"
tells us what you are "up" for.
In a physical situation, such as a party or meeting, it could mean
that it is your turn to stand up and propose a toast or make a speech:
once you stand up you are, of course, definitely "up".
And so on.
So I would say that your best guess below is right on.
>My best guess is that you're telling me that the winner of one 20
>questions round is obliged to host the next one. Is that what you
>mean? If so, fine, but it has nothing to do with this thread, even
>this drifted thread.
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
> On 2009-11-27, Clams Canino <cc-mar...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:slrnhh0c0...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> >> [ big snip ]
>
> > Julian - you're up for the 20 questions.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this, either as a piece of English -
> what does "up for" mean: it's not in my dialect, and in the only
> dialects I know it from it means "ready and willing to do" (as in "up
> for anything") - or as a comment upon the quoted posting.
>
> My best guess is that you're telling me that the winner of one 20
> questions round is obliged to host the next one. Is that what you
> mean? If so, fine, but it has nothing to do with this thread, even
> this drifted thread.
Actually it does, since TOLKIEN's famous guide to the game of 20
Questions, in 24 volumes, is one of the highlights of the Forger
Tolkien Library's collections.
Derek Broughton
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:22:10 -0400, Derek Broughton
> <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>Paul S. Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:39:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>>>>A parenthesis is what goes inside the brackets. Parentheses may also be
>>>>separated from the rest of the sentence by dashes and commas, and not
>>>>just brackets.
>>>
>>> While that may be so in some dialects, "parenthesis" also refers to
>>> ")" or "(" in English.
>>...
>>> In most repectable languages, a singular, unmatched bracket is
>>> syntactically inadmissible.
>>>
>>> which, I suppose, is intended to explain why "parenthesis" is archaic.
>>
>>You _were_ quoting from a satirical work.
>
> Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's definition doesn't show that
> "parentheses" can refer to the brackets themselves.
I wasn't disagreeing with that - just that "parenthesis" in the singular
isn't archaic in _English_, only with regard to programming languages that
require plurals of them.
--
derek
Clams Canino
"Julian Bradfield" <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this, either as a piece of English -
> what does "up for" mean: it's not in my dialect, and in the only
> dialects I know it from it means "ready and willing to do" (as in "up
> for anything") - or as a comment upon the quoted posting.
Ahhh yes, sorry.
It is a strictly a term from the American English dialect - derived from
"batter up!" as used in baseball to designate the players turn at bat.
> My best guess is that you're telling me that the winner of one 20
> questions round is obliged to host the next one. Is that what you
> mean? If so, fine, but it has nothing to do with this thread, even
> this drifted thread.
The reason I stuck it in this thread was due to the confusion at the end of
my "hedge thread" as to the final winner. That knowledge, coupled with the
timestamps of your posts, indicated to me that you may not have been aware
of the eventual outcome of that thread - and may or may not be still
watching it at all.
Since I was confident that you were indeed still attentive to this thread, I
posted it here - so as to be assured that you were aware of the final
outcome. Thereby completing my task. :)
-W