World's worst software. What's decent?
Robert Hoffman
$1000. Don't need autorouter or a zillion layers. Do want back
annotation and ease of use. I've downloaded a dozen demo packages. The
software all seems to be written by people with exceptional eyesight, no
fingers, a poor grasp of the English language, little understanding of
Windows conventions, and have never actually designed a PC board. They
mostly have 300 little tiny unreadable icons and no clue that clicking
the left mouse button should select something and the right button
should offer a list of things to do with it. A good few do not use the
mouse buttons at all. Pretty much without exception the software is
expensive and very poorly written. I can draw schematics and boards
faster and easier in Autocad, which is what I do now.
Is there ANYTHING out there that: actually correctly uses the mouse, has
working popup help on the buttons, is written in American English (no
"colours" please), is readable by somebody without super-human eyesight
and does 95% of everything with only the mouse buttons like it should.
Double-click to change properties, right-click to rotate, mirror, swap,
delete, add, cut, etc. I don't want something I have to fight with.
Under $1,000.
Steven Swift
have purchased and installed the Linux and newer Windows versions, but
have found them too slow, hard to read and require too many movements to
get anything done.
See if you can find a copy of Eagle 3.5 or so. It will do most of what you
want.
Robert Hoffman <bob@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com> writes:
--
Steven D. Swift, nova...@eskimo.com, http://www.novatech-instr.com
NOVATECH INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 55997
206.301.8986, fax 206.363.4367 Seattle, Washington 98155 USA
Leon Heller
news:41719613.BC9C6F2B@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com...
EasyPC does most of the above: http://www.numberone.com
Leon
--
Leon Heller, G1HSM
http://www.geocities.com/leon_heller
Brad Velander
Don't know if you already know of it but a gent by the name
of Terry Pinnel has a page devoted to CAD software. It contains a
lot of cheaper packages and in some cases a small review or
commentary of the package. In some cases he also has pricing and
most have links to the vendors home page. And no, he is not
selling any of it, he is not a pirate, just a guy who compiled
probably the most complete list of CAD software yet.
see Terry's page at:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/terrypin/ECADList.html
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander
"Robert Hoffman" <bob@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com> wrote in message
news:41719613.BC9C6F2B@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com...
Pooh Bear
Robert Hoffman wrote:
> Is there ANYTHING out there that:....... is written in American English
Anything wrong with English English ?
Graham
Rheilly Phoull
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4171E55B...@hotmail.com...
way ya know).
--
Regards ........... Rheilly Phoull
Kevin Aylward
SuperSpice essentially does this, unfortunately its not PCB, only
simulation. However, you would be out of luck even in SS for "colour".
It nice to actually have someone note that programs should follow
windows standards. Its something I personally find indispensable. Where
SS adds to Windows conventions is the obvious recognition that you don't
need to type letters on a schematic page, therefore mirror rotate and
flip are simple m, r, f without the ctrl, in addition to right mouse
access for these features.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Robert Hoffman
The USA is probably the world's largest market for CAD at the moment.
If a software vendor can't be troubled to understand and accomodate the
local idiom, it bothers me. Eagle, for example. Badly translated
prompts from German and a very different expectation about the user
interface. "User is please to click the button right of the mouse
mechanism at this time." CAdInt has a wierd non-conforming user
interface translated from Swedish. In Microsoft Word, I can generate a
document faster than I could with pencil and paper. I expect that I can
render a schemetic or a PC board faster with CAD than I can by hand.
Not so. I can draw with a template faster and layout with tape and dots
faster than most PCB CAD programs I've tried. I need something that
increases my productivity. Something I have to fight, or needs
extensive training for me to accomodate its quirks is not acceptable.
It has to fit me. not vice-versa.
Nothing really objectionable about having some minor spelling
differences, but the fact they won't bother to customize to suit such a
major market does bother me. I have not tried Easy PC yet, but I will.
Robert Hoffman
those so far. I've found many where I can't understand how they could
sell a single copy. Terrible. A couple that I don't really like but I
could maybe live with. I'll sort through the rest today. Thanks.
Terry Pinnell
>Nothing actually WRONG with Engilsh English. Its a symptom however.
^^^^^^^ ^^^
>The USA is probably the world's largest market for CAD at the moment.
>If a software vendor can't be troubled to understand and accomodate the
^^^^^^^^^^
>local idiom, it bothers me. Eagle, for example. Badly translated
>prompts from German and a very different expectation about the user
>interface. "User is please to click the button right of the mouse
>mechanism at this time." CAdInt has a wierd non-conforming user
^^^^^
>interface translated from Swedish. In Microsoft Word, I can generate a
>document faster than I could with pencil and paper. I expect that I can
>render a schemetic or a PC board faster with CAD than I can by hand.
^^^^^^^^^
>Not so. I can draw with a template faster and layout with tape and dots
>faster than most PCB CAD programs I've tried. I need something that
>increases my productivity. Something I have to fight, or needs
>extensive training for me to accomodate its quirks is not acceptable.
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
>It has to fit me. not vice-versa.
^^^^^
>
>Nothing really objectionable about having some minor spelling
>differences, but the fact they won't bother to customize to suit such a
>major market does bother me. I have not tried Easy PC yet, but I will.
>
>Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> Robert Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> > Is there ANYTHING out there that:....... is written in American English
>>
>> Anything wrong with English English ?
>>
>> Graham
I'd worry a bit more about your own spelling than trivialities like
'color' versus 'colour'.
--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK
Robert Hoffman
apostrophe's does not alter the basic issue. The customer is always
right. You don't design software to suit your own convenience, you
design it to satisfy the customer. Several companies are not going to
get the thousand bucks or so which I have budgeted for this software.
It's probably not a triviality to them. (When I deliver something, I
have someone who is better at grammar and spelling check it for me. I
design things; I don't write dictionaries.)
Thaas
Clarence
> > Is there ANYTHING out there that:....... is written in American English
> Anything wrong with English English ?
Other than hard to decipher?
Clarence
"Thaas" <my...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:0l65n0ltfsdp00gia...@4ax.com...
<snip>
A spammer?
Most spelling checkers are free. Many are built into the NG reader.
Trying to sell a POS add on is not helpfull!
Clarence
"Terry Pinnell" <terrypi...@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:a325n011m04ar86tl...@4ax.com...
Contributed nothing to the thread.
Robert Sefton
> Very nice. I had not found that page. I've looked at about half of
> those so far. I've found many where I can't understand how they could
> sell a single copy. Terrible. A couple that I don't really like but I
> could maybe live with. I'll sort through the rest today. Thanks.
>
Robert -
Any chance you can post some brief comments and complaints about the
packages you've looked at?
Rob
Thaas
No. I'm a user. I like it. If you think it's a piece of shit, don't
use it.
AsYouType works for all programs, not just your news reader or word
processor. Since it's automatic you don't have to remember to run it
after you slam out your message. So you don't look like an idiot who
can't spell or type. It's adaptable to your common mistakes.
You can add correction databases, even modify the dictionaries. For
example, a common mistake I see on the usenet is mistyping loose for
lose. Kill loose in the dictionary and AsUType will flag it as an
unknown, calling the mistake to your attention.
But, hell Clarence, go ahead and loose the attitude.
--
Thaas
Clarence
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:47:44 GMT, "Clarence" <n...@No.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thaas" <my...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> >news:0l65n0ltfsdp00gia...@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Try Fanix Software's AsUType at http://www.asutype.com
> >> --
> >> Thaas
> >
> >A spammer?
> >Most spelling checkers are free. Many are built into the NG reader.
> >Trying to sell a POS add on is not helpfull!
>
> No. I'm a user. I like it. If you think it's a piece of shit, don't
> use it.
You didn't say why you recommended it in your response.
I do not like it, and will not use it.
However, thank you for the recommendation.
Robert Hoffman
chart. I'm sure I have not looked at every possible CAD package, but I
have looked at many. I'm not an amateur at this; I've been laying out
boards for a good 30 years, starting with tape and dots and rubylith. I
use AutoCad now. My expectations are different for software intended
for hobby, student, single-user and enterprise. I basically ignored the
hobby and student versions. I have no need or budget for the enterprise
packages. Altium and the other packages that cost several thousand
dollars per seat are outside my envelope. The free packages which are
tied to specific PC board houses are not useful to me. I need the
option of placing my order with whichever company I choose. I do more
precision analog than digital so the autorouter is not as important to
me. I don't do too many buried vias or boards over 8 layers. I think it
is perfectly reasonable that packages for my requirements should be
under $1000.
Software should be intuitive. Several companies try to sell packages
with DOS heritage. They simply stitch together a bunch of obsolete junk
with a top-level menu and no integration. Or, their user interface is
so complicated that it takes several minutes of clicking around to find
how to insert a part.
Several companies think that colored lines on a black background are
acceptable. Very hard to read. I prefer a white background. Many like
to use a vast number of very small icons. Even on a 21 inch monitor
they are almost unreadable.
Several companies (like Eagle) make very poor use of the mouse. Windows
software needs to conform to the Windows standard. Left-click to
select, right-click for properties and actions. Virtually all actions
in a CAD program should be available from only the mouse buttons. You
should never have to go up to a button bar for delete, move, mirror,
etc.
Some have poor licensing options. Boardmaker wants you to pay a yearly
license fee. Their option for a permanent license is expensive. Some
have serial numbers that are keyed to a specific computer. I don't mind
a hardware "dongle", but I don't want to pay another fee just to move
the package to another computer. I need to be able to upgrade and
reconfigure my hardware as necessary. The company needs to be stable so
I can get support if necessary. I'd be reluctant to buy from someone
operating from their garage.
The only one so far that seems pretty reasonable is Easy-PC. It has
better functionality and features than even some of the really expensive
packages. There are a few quirks but it seems like a good value and I'm
going to buy a copy. I don't have time to survey every package on the
market. It runs close to $2,000 if you buy all the pieces, but you can
get get a pin-limited version for just schematics and boards for under
$200. Their integrated SPICE is nice. They have an interesting filter
design module. Expanded libraries, a more sophisticated autotouter and
a Gerber import module are also extra cost. The full-up schematic and
PCB part without the extras is about $800. I'm going to get everything
except the fancier autorouter. They don't seem to advertise very well.
When I do internet searches a lot of really cruddy packages show up.
They would do well to pay the fee and get themselves listed as a
sponsored link on Google. They also have no on-line ordering. I expect
they could sell a lot more copies if they addressed those two issues.
Leon Heller
EasyPC is a good choice - I used it for years before Pulsonix became
available (it's basically the same company).
If you subsequently move up to Pulsonix, it imports EasyPC designs without
any problems.
Leon
Colin Warwick
Here are a couple more...
http://www.eedesign.com/resources/opensourcelinks.html
http://www.handyarchive.com/free/eda
-- Colin
"Brad Velander" <Spam...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:r9lcd.759136$gE.669433@pd7tw3no...
Chaos Master
sci.electronics.cad on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:32:08 -0400 under article
<4173A9B8.B04F4717@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com>:
> It will take me a while, but I can probably come up with a review
> chart. I'm sure I have not looked at every possible CAD package, but I
> have looked at many.
I have evaluated various electronics CAD package, to find one that I like, I
ended up with EAGLE for schematic/PCB and LTSpice for simulation.
My experiences have been good only with a few packages, e.g. EAGLE, LTSpice,
gEDA, SIMetrix, and other programs were not bad, like PSpice.
But other programs where bad, like QCAD (http://www.winqcad.com) and 5Spice
(http://www.5spice.com)!
[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil.
"I know the difference between myself and my reflection. "
-- Evanescence, "Breathe No More"
http://marreka.no-ip.com | http://tinyurl.com/46vru | http://renan182.no-ip.org
Robert Hoffman
style and I need something that fits how I work. Up to a point, I can
trade cost for efficiency. If it takes me a few hours less, its
definitely worth a couple hundred dollars more to me. Of all the
packages I downloaded and tried (at least 15), Easy PC was the only one
who sent me an Email asking if I liked it or had any questions. LTspice
is fantastic for the price (free). I still use it for quick jobs or when
using some linear technology parts.
Chaos Master
<4174E85D.B5A49032@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com>:
> Eagle does work, but I found it frustrating. Everybody has their own
> style and I need something that fits how I work. Up to a point, I can
> trade cost for efficiency. If it takes me a few hours less, its
> definitely worth a couple hundred dollars more to me. Of all the
> packages I downloaded and tried (at least 15), Easy PC was the only one
> who sent me an Email asking if I liked it or had any questions. LTspice
> is fantastic for the price (free). I still use it for quick jobs or when
> using some linear technology parts.
I ended up learning Eagle, as it was the package that looked more interesting.
But it still has some UNIX stuff in the middle, looks like as if it is a bad
port from Linux version.
For simulation, I liked SIMetrix, their support was helpful with a few
questions I had about the demo.
qrk
If you want really stable software, use Orcad's DOS stuff.
SDT386+ for schematics
PCB386+ for pcbs
It's easy and efficient to use if you use macros. It's about 10 years
old. New VESA video drivers have been written for modern high
resolution monitors. The biggest problem is finding a video board that
will handle VESA mode under Windoze.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dos-orcad/ is an active group that
deals with DOS Orcad programs including new drivers for video,
printers, modifications to the Orcad executables, and general help.
---
Mark
Leon Heller
news:MPG.1bdfc3d61...@news.individual.net...
> Quoting Robert Hoffman [bob@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com], that posted to
> sci.electronics.cad on Tue, 19 Oct 2004 06:11:41 -0400 under article
> <4174E85D.B5A49032@_I_Get_too_much_spam.com>:
>> Eagle does work, but I found it frustrating. Everybody has their own
>> style and I need something that fits how I work. Up to a point, I can
>> trade cost for efficiency. If it takes me a few hours less, its
>> definitely worth a couple hundred dollars more to me. Of all the
>> packages I downloaded and tried (at least 15), Easy PC was the only one
>> who sent me an Email asking if I liked it or had any questions. LTspice
>> is fantastic for the price (free). I still use it for quick jobs or when
>> using some linear technology parts.
>
> I ended up learning Eagle, as it was the package that looked more
> interesting.
>
> But it still has some UNIX stuff in the middle, looks like as if it is a
> bad
> port from Linux version.
>
> For simulation, I liked SIMetrix, their support was helpful with a few
> questions I had about the demo.
The SPICE supplied with EasyPC is SIMetrix. It has a good reputation.
Leon
lurker
<leon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For simulation, I liked SIMetrix, their support was helpful with a few
>> questions I had about the demo.
>
>The SPICE supplied with EasyPC is SIMetrix. It has a good reputation.
>
>Leon
>
I've also looked into SIMetrix at various times, but haven't bought it
yet. The demo seemed to work great.
I'm re-evaluating my schematic capture software at the moment since it
was just sold - again. I've used ECS/Synario/Cohesion for over 10
years and it's always been reasonably priced. The new company wants
~$20k for it now: http://www.sicanvas.com/ They call it Laker AMS.
The schematic software that comes with SIMetrix will apparently read
ASCII files created by cohesion, allowing complete schematics to be
imported.
Those in the newsgroup who use ltspice will know about these ASCII
files since the ltspice format is basically cohesion, modified so they
don't quite transfer.
I don't know what the schematic capture costs by itself, but the
SIMetrix simulator plus the schematic software is still ~$5k:
Jamie
Robert Hoffman wrote:
> Just because I'm not a great typast or speler or attentive to my
> apostrophe's does not alter the basic issue. The customer is always
> right. You don't design software to suit your own convenience, you
> design it to satisfy the customer. Several companies are not going to
> get the thousand bucks or so which I have budgeted for this software.
> It's probably not a triviality to them. (When I deliver something, I
> have someone who is better at grammar and spelling check it for me. I
> design things; I don't write dictionaries.)
>
> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
A'men! :)
Jamie
qrk wrote:
What they matter with you? have no faith in winders ?
:))))
> Mark
qrk
No faith in modern programmers and companies that don't fully
alpha/beta test their crap. Layout version 10 is a good example of a
crippled release. It still isn't working right. Windoze programs can
be made to work reliably.
Leon Heller
news:ql5dn05dbg938k5pl...@4ax.com...
Easy-PC with the SIMetrix SPICE is a lot less than that, and the Easy-PC
schematic capture is a lot nicer than that supplied with SIMetrix.
Leon
Paul Burke
>
> What they matter with you? have no faith in winders ?
>
Not since Markham Colliery (1973).
Don Prescott
> No faith in modern programmers and companies that don't fully
> alpha/beta test their crap. Layout version 10 is a good example of a
> crippled release. It still isn't working right. Windoze programs can
> be made to work reliably.
OrCAD Layout has always looked like a DOS program to me, and version
10 is no different. I doubt it's 32 bit Windows.
Prescott
Pooh Bear
Robert Hoffman wrote:
> In Microsoft Word, I can generate a
> document faster than I could with pencil and paper.
You're still using version 2.0c ? ;-)
Personally, I find Word to be an excellent example of an anti-productivity
application. Just today I used write in preference to generate a report in rtf
format ( that doesn't need Word to read - and screw up - the file ).
Graham
Pooh Bear
Clarence wrote:
Please elaborate ?
Graham
Clarence
I would think it obvious, it is often sprinkled with many slang, or colloquial
words which are not used universally.
--
Blocked Sender list: Feel free to add these to you own list.
Added due to ----------------------------------- Reason
Bill....@IEEE.ORG For Foul Language
Kevin Aylward sa...@anasoft.co.uk For Abject Stupidity
John Fields sa...@austininsturments.com For Thuggish behavior
feer...@cs.com TROLL
Don Prescott DBPr...@aol.com For RUDE Conduct
Fred Bloggs For Insults and Foul language
Pooh Bear
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:417850C2...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Clarence wrote:
> >
> > > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4171E55B...@hotmail.com...
> > > >
> > > > Robert Hoffman wrote:
> > > > > Is there ANYTHING out there that:....... is written in American English
> > > > Anything wrong with English English ?
> > > Other than hard to decipher?
> >
> > Please elaborate ?
> > Graham
>
> I would think it obvious, it is often sprinkled with many slang, or colloquial
> words which are not used universally.
Not used universally in the USA you mean ?
We find some US English somewhat hard to understand.
I can't see how there would be much confusion in CAD software though.
Is the USA claiming to own the English language in preference to its origin in
England ?
" Bah, who needs to learn English, I'm never going to England " ...... Homer
Simpson.
Graham ;-)
Clarence
> Clarence wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:417850C2...@hotmail.com...
> > > Clarence wrote:
> > > > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4171E55B...@hotmail.com...
> > > > > Robert Hoffman wrote:
> > > > > > Is there ANYTHING out there that:....... is written in American
English
> > > > > Anything wrong with English English ?
> > > > Other than hard to decipher?
> > > Please elaborate ?
> > > Graham
> >
> > I would think it obvious, it is often sprinkled with many slang, or
colloquial
> > words which are not used universally.
> Not used universally in the USA you mean ?
Also not used in INDIA, China, Belize, Australia, etc.
> We find some US English somewhat hard to understand.
Also understandable, for the same reasons.
> I can't see how there would be much confusion in CAD software though.
I have software written in Australia. The help files are worthless!
> Is the USA claiming to own the English language in preference to its origin
in
> England ?
I have no idea what your talking about. America is a country of diverse
opines.
> " Bah, who needs to learn English, I'm never going to England " ...... Homer
> Simpson.
Yet you have seen his shows, and understood them?
> Graham ;-)
OH, well!
Have fun!
Pooh Bear
Clarence wrote:
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41785CC7...@hotmail.com...
> > Clarence wrote:
< snip >
> > > I would think it obvious, it is often sprinkled with many slang, or
> colloquial
> > > words which are not used universally.
>
> > Not used universally in the USA you mean ?
>
> Also not used in INDIA, China, Belize, Australia, etc.
You'll find that India and Australia have their own slang and colloquialities that
you wouldn't likely be familiar with either.
Dunno about Belize. When I've been in China, they speak English more like us than
the US way.
> > We find some US English somewhat hard to understand.
>
> Also understandable, for the same reasons.
>
> > I can't see how there would be much confusion in CAD software though.
>
> I have software written in Australia. The help files are worthless!
I wouldn't base an opinion on that alone.
> > Is the USA claiming to own the English language in preference to its origin
> in
> > England ?
>
> I have no idea what your talking about. America is a country of diverse
> opines.
>
> > " Bah, who needs to learn English, I'm never going to England " ...... Homer
> > Simpson.
>
> Yet you have seen his shows, and understood them?
Yes - and yeah - I think so. Rather humourous when you get the picture. Took a
while though.
Graham
Clarence
> Clarence wrote:
> > "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:41785CC7...@hotmail.com...
> > > Clarence wrote:
> < snip >
> > > > I would think it obvious, it is often sprinkled with many slang, or
> > colloquial
> > > > words which are not used universally.
> > > Not used universally in the USA you mean ?
> > Also not used in INDIA, China, Belize, Australia, etc.
> You'll find that India and Australia have their own slang
> and colloquialities that
> you wouldn't likely be familiar with either.
> Dunno about Belize. When I've been in China,
> they speak English more like us than the US way.
Been to India, they have a British accent, but there are a lot if differences.
The Telephone service people are sent to school to learn to speak so someone on
a phone can understand them.
> > > We find some US English somewhat hard to understand.
> > Also understandable, for the same reasons.
> >
> > > I can't see how there would be much confusion in CAD software though.
> > I have software written in Australia. The help files are worthless!
>
> I wouldn't base an opinion on that alone.
I don't, I worked with An aussie Programmer, a PhD type over here doing
research. I Couldn't understand more than half of what he said. Just accent
and slang. I had to fix his code too. Not that it didn't work, it was just
really big. Didn't optimize anything.
> > > Is the USA claiming to own the English language in
> > > preference to its origin in England ?
> >
> > I have no idea what your talking about. America is a country of diverse
> > opines.
> >
> > > " Bah, who needs to learn English, I'm never going to England " ......
Homer
> > > Simpson.
> >
> > Yet you have seen his shows, and understood them?
>
> Yes - and yeah - I think so. Rather humourous when you get the picture. Took
a
> while though.
Well, since I don't watch the Simpsons normally, I can't comment on it further.
Chuck Harris
>
> Is the USA claiming to own the English language in preference to its origin in
> England ?
The Linguist Dr. Deborah Tannen wrote that the language spoken in the US today
more closely resembles the English spoken in England 200 years ago, than does the
language spoken in England today.
The reason is the vast size of the US compared to England. The language used in
a small community can evolve through creative new words, meanings and phrases,
without causing confusion, much more quickly than the language used in a large
geographically expansive country. Think of how the language changes within clicks
of teenagers. It drifts so quickly that one generation cannot readily understand
another.
That being so, it can be argued that what you speak in England is the aberration.
-Chuck Harris
Paul Burke
> the language spoken in the US
> today
> more closely resembles the English spoken in England 200 years ago, than
> does the
> language spoken in England today.
>
> The reason is the vast size of the US compared to England. The language
> used in
> a small community can evolve through creative new words, meanings and
> phrases,
> without causing confusion, much more quickly than the language used in a
> large
> geographically expansive country.
That's why Northern English dialects (the most intensively
industrialised parts of the UK, with large immigrant populations-
Flemish, Huguenot, Irish, Cornish- over hundreds of years) retain
Anglo-Saxon and Norse features not found in Standard English, and why in
the US the Deep South dialects so much resemble those of New England, I
suppose.
Paul Burke
Paul Burke
> Been to India, they have a British accent, but there are a lot if differences.
> The Telephone service people are sent to school to learn to speak so someone on
> a phone can understand them.
>
Have you ever HEARD a "British accent"? One of the newest things the
Devil has invented to plague us with is the outsourced Indian cold sales
call. It must do wonders for race relations in the UK when you KNOW that
an Asian accent means that they aren't trying to sell you anything, no,
they just want you to take part in a survey.
Paul Burke
Bill Sloman
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >
> > Is the USA claiming to own the English language in preference to its
> > origin in England ?
>
> The Linguist Dr. Deborah Tannen wrote that the language spoken in the US
> today more closely resembles the English spoken in England 200 years ago,
>
> The reason is the vast size of the US compared to England. The language
> used in a small community can evolve through creative new words, meanings
Teenagers are are special case - they use aberrant language with the
fixed intention of not being understood by the previous generation.
See also "thieve's cant".
The fact that the U.S. is geographically bigger than England doesn't
signify in this context - England has more different dialects than the
US, and a greater variation between the dialects, while Australia,
which is about the same size as the continental U.S.A. has hardly any
perceptible regional dialect variation.
> That being so, it can be argued that what you speak in England is the
> aberration.
Not really. English is spoken in a lot of places beside England and
the U.S.A. and no single dialect has any particular claim to
pre-emminence.
The aberrant spelling to which the OP was objecting, is a slightly
different case. Noah Webster "reformed" American spelling in 1828
http://www.ctstateu.edu/noahweb/biography.html
while the rest of us have stumbled on using Dr.Johnson's spellings.
Since English spelling embodies some six different schemes for coding
the phonetics of English into the Latin alphabet, there is probably
room for a lot more reform than Noah Webster's idiosyncratic
variations.
---------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Don Prescott
language used in a small community can evolve through creative new
words, meanings and phrases, without causing confusion, much more
quickly than the language used in a large geographically expansive
country. Think of how the language changes within clicks of
teenagers. It drifts so quickly that one generation cannot readily
understand another.
>
Surely, the communication gaps between generations, and ethnic groups,
is more about the use of fashionable words and phrases than a true
change in the language....
Many of the words used by Americans that are not part of modern
"British" English, like: trash, garbage, sidewalk, attorney, fall
(Autumn in Britain)and the American English spellings like color, date
from the English at the time of the pilgrim fathers. There is so much
communication between the US and other English speaking countries by
way of tv shows, movies, the internet, that since about the early part
of the 20th century separate evolution paths for English have been
quite limited worldwide.
I would contend that the "American English" in product manuals and
help files is more to do with American style that the actual
language...
Prescott
Clarence
"Paul Burke" <pa...@scazon.com> wrote in message
news:2trrg6F...@uni-berlin.de...
Good Friend, name of "Nigel" just returned from his "Mum's" in Britain. Still
hasn't lost his interesting pattern of speech. Says he can't understand
"Cockney" whatever that is.
I get the calls, I just hang up. The call is also illegal here.
Clarence
I thought that Television had something to do with providing some sense of
"standardizing" the manner of speech in the US. Perhaps the source of that
(TV) was bragging?
Clarence
"Don Prescott" <DMBPr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7fb54666.04102...@posting.google.com...
Well, style is also dictated. "Strunk and White" come to mind.
Chuck Harris
> Teenagers are are special case - they use aberrant language with the fixed intention of not being understood by the
> previous generation. See also "thieve's cant".
Yes, their intention is to obscure, but look at how the teens quickly
change the language that THEY understand. That is evolution at work.
>
> The fact that the U.S. is geographically bigger than England doesn't signify in this context - England has more
> different dialects than the US, and a greater variation between the dialects, while Australia, which is about the
> same size as the continental U.S.A. has hardly any perceptible regional dialect variation.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me:
USA large -> few dialects
Australia large -> few dialects
England small -> many dialects
Regions with a large number of dialects are a brewing pot for language change.
Regions with few dialects are an indication of a stable language.
>
>
>> That being so, it can be argued that what you speak in England is the aberration.
>
>
> Not really. English is spoken in a lot of places beside England and the U.S.A. and no single dialect has any
> particular claim to pre-emminence.
England certainly has pre-eminence to the English language, they are where
the language developed. Do they *control* the language? No, inspite of
their former role in the spread of the language.
The only country that I am aware of that claims eminence over a language
is France. But then, they are the center of the known universe ;-)
>
> The aberrant spelling to which the OP was objecting, is a slightly different case. Noah Webster "reformed" American
> spelling in 1828
>
> http://www.ctstateu.edu/noahweb/biography.html
>
> while the rest of us have stumbled on using Dr.Johnson's spellings. Since English spelling embodies some six
> different schemes for coding the phonetics of English into the Latin alphabet, there is probably room for a lot more
> reform than Noah Webster's idiosyncratic variations.
Noah Webster, and Benjamin Franklin wanted to make English spelling
phonetic. Their results failed and never gained popularity. I have
seen copies of their "reformed" dictionary, and I cannot recall even
one of their phonetic spellings that made it into the modern dictionary.
Well, that isn't exactly true, if you look at the pronunciation guides, they
are really close to what Webster and Franklin proposed.
In today's US English, 60% of the words in the dictionary
are pronounced differently from their phonetic pronunciation.
Ample evidence that Webster and Franklin's idea failed.
Where Webster and Franklin did succeed, was in making spelling more
uniform. They took a language where spelling varied greatly depending
on where you were educated, and provide a reference of American
spellings. These spellings were not the simple phonetic spellings that
they wanted to have adopted, but rather, the spellings that were commonly
used by Webster, Franklin, Jefferson and others. It is interesting to
notice that the spellings used by Jefferson in his writings exactly match
those in the current American English dictionaries.
-Chuck Harris
Chuck Harris
Television is having a dramatic affect on the English language.
It is standardizing the US on the Midwestern dialect of US
English.... and it has done so within my lifetime. When I was
a kid, we used to travel throughout the US and Canada quite a lot,
and I used to marvel at the way people in different parts of the
country talked, but now, they all sound mostly the same.
-Chuck
Paul Burke
>
> Regions with a large number of dialects are a brewing pot for language
> change.
That's not true at all. The dialects are stable over many years- in fact
it's believed that the "ordinary" US pronunciation derived largely from
the still- current Cornish dialect. Dialects are NOT slang, and they can
be VERY stable indeed- Norse and Anglo-Saxon elements dating back over a
thousand years are still current. And Welsh (not an English dialect by
the way) has changed only slightly in that thousand years- there are few
smaller countries than Wales. And it's obvious if you think about it-
tightly knitted communities are likely to share speech patterns and
value them as a defence against external encroachment.
It's mass communications (starting with railroads) that prevented the
fragmentation of US English. I'm sure that had the Southern US dialects
had another half century of separation from the Northern, they would
have become so mutually unintelligible to have constituted different
languages.
Paul Burke
Bob Stephens
Really? When's the last time y'all traveled down south? Or Minnesohwtah for
that matter.
Bob
Chuck Harris
Well, I have been in Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio,
Ontario, Wisconsin, Maryland and Virginia so far this year. My mother is
from Minnesota. And I have traveled in the South quite extensively over
the last couple of years. And some would say that I live in the south.
-Chuck
Bob Stephens
Just picking communities from three of those areas that I am familiar with.
Don't you think it would be pretty easy to distinguish between natives of
Brooklyn, Minneapolis and Memphis blindfolded?
Bob
Mike Engelhardt
> that I am familiar with. Don't you think it would
> be pretty easy to distinguish between natives of
> Brooklyn, Minneapolis and Memphis blindfolded?
There's a difference between an accent and a dialect.
When I studied German in college I was told me that
I wouldn't be able to freely use it in Germany because
there's somewhere between 165 and 168 different
dialects of German. However, when I lived in Germany,
I found while these dialects exist, it can be
difficult to find people that can still speak them.
I figured progress and/or TV had flattened the
language with some uniformity, though I could still
recognized where people were from because of the
accent.
--Mike
Chuck Harris
Certainly, but unlike 40 years ago, you will understand virtually everything
that they are saying.
I believe the reason is we all share a common source of language and pronunciation
that comes from the radio, and the boob tube.
-Chuck
Don Prescott
Oh no! Not Clarence! Who IS this guy..? Indian people do NOT have
British accents Clarence. People fom Britain do.... yes, Britain -
that's the largeish island off mainland Europe on the map. People
from India have Indian accents. Yes, I know it's difficult for you to
understand, but just try to remember: people from a given country that
speak English tend to have the accent associated with that
country..... If you say it over and over it just might stick....!
Prescott
Don Prescott
> Well, style is also dictated. "Strunk and White" come to mind.
Clarence, I really don't know what you're on but you come out with
some statements that are impossible to understand. "Strunk and White"
- what on earth does that mean..?
Just for the record, what country are you from...?
Prescott
Clarence
>
> Clarence, I really don't know what you're on but you come out with
> some statements that are impossible to understand. "Strunk and White"
> - what on earth does that mean..?
"Strunk and White" in the standard "Style" manual used for a variety of formal
writing. You could just look it up. IF you have access to the Internet.
Don't you have a "Style" manual in Britain?
Gee. No wonder your confused! (:>)
> Just for the record, what country are you from...?
> Prescott
There is NO record!
My family has been in America for over 400 years.
I've lived in several states. Never had a problem communicating with anyone.
Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Hawaii, and
California. I may have missed the states where I only had a contract job
there. Some of these states are larger than Britain. None as crowded.
By the way, what are you on?
Your goofy mannerisms are quite annoying. (:>)
Do you really mean to try to be insulting? (You fall short if you do.)
Don Prescott
> the still- current Cornish dialect.
Right. Not so much Cornish as West Country English. If you visit the
west of England counties: Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, you can detect
the faint echos of the modern American accent. This makes perfect
sense of course as Plymouth, from whence came the pilgrim fathers, is
in Devon.
Prescott
Bill Sloman
> Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > Teenagers are are special case - they use aberrant language with the fixed > > intention of not being understood by the
> > previous generation. See also "thieve's cant".
>
> Yes, their intention is to obscure, but look at how the teens quickly
> change the language that THEY understand. That is evolution at work.
It isn't evolution, because teenagers go back to using standard
language when they grow up.
> > The fact that the U.S. is geographically bigger than England doesn't
> > signify in this context - England has more
> > different dialects than the US, and a greater variation between the
> > dialects, while Australia, which is about the
> > same size as the continental U.S.A. has hardly any perceptible regional
> > dialect variation.
>
> It sounds like you are agreeing with me:
>
> USA large -> few dialects
> Australia large -> few dialects
> England small -> many dialects
No, I'm not. Australian English has essentially no geographical
dialects, and presents a very different picture from the U.S.
As Paul Burke points out, the difference has to do with history. In
the UK the regional dialects reflect the languages that used to be
spoken in the various regions before English was imposed, and have
persisted for about a thousand years, because the population doesn't
move around much.
The U.S. dialects haven't evolved apart from an intially uniform
version of English, but rather reflect the dialects of the different
groups who migrated into the different regions of the U.S.
Australia's lack of geographical variation in dialect reflects a very
mobile population - something like 30% of the population moves
interstate at least once in their lives.
> Regions with a large number of dialects are a brewing pot for language
> change.
As Paul Burke points out, dialects are pretty stable and the
"isogloss" contour lines are equally stable.
> Regions with few dialects are an indication of a stable language.
Can you produce a few examples to test this claim? It doesn't seem to
apply to Dutch or German, any more than it does to English.
> >
> >> That being so, it can be argued that what you speak in England is the aberration.
> >
> >
> > Not really. English is spoken in a lot of places beside England and the
> > U.S.A. and no single dialect has any
> > particular claim to pre-emminence.
>
> England certainly has pre-eminence to the English language, they are where
> the language developed. Do they *control* the language? No, in spite of
> their former role in the spread of the language.
>
> The only country that I am aware of that claims eminence over a language
> is France. But then, they are the center of the known universe ;-)
They certainly act as if this is the case.
> > The aberrant spelling to which the OP was objecting, is a slightly
> > different case. Noah Webster "reformed" American
> > spelling in 1828
> >
> > http://www.ctstateu.edu/noahweb/biography.html
> >
> > while the rest of us have stumbled on using Dr.Johnson's spellings. Since > > English spelling embodies some six
> > different schemes for coding the phonetics of English into the Latin
> > alphabet, there is probably room for a lot more
> > reform than Noah Webster's idiosyncratic variations.
>
> Noah Webster, and Benjamin Franklin wanted to make English spelling
> phonetic. Their results failed and never gained popularity. I have
> seen copies of their "reformed" dictionary, and I cannot recall even
> one of their phonetic spellings that made it into the modern dictionary.
> Well, that isn't exactly true, if you look at the pronunciation guides, they
> are really close to what Webster and Franklin proposed.
Color, and sulfur have made it into modern U.S. dictionaries - I spell
them colour and sulphur.
> In today's US English, 60% of the words in the dictionary
> are pronounced differently from their phonetic pronunciation.
This assumes a single, specific grapheme to phoneme rule. There are in
fact six different sets of rules that show up in modern English
spelling.
> Ample evidence that Webster and Franklin's idea failed.
> Where Webster and Franklin did succeed, was in making spelling more
> uniform. They took a language where spelling varied greatly depending
> on where you were educated, and provide a reference of American
> spellings. These spellings were not the simple phonetic spellings that
> they wanted to have adopted, but rather, the spellings that were commonly
> used by Webster, Franklin, Jefferson and others. It is interesting to
> notice that the spellings used by Jefferson in his writings exactly match
> those in the current American English dictionaries.
Have a look at Elizabethan spelling sometime - the modern habit of
spelling the same word the same way every time your write it is a
comparatively recent innovation. I'd be very surprised if Jefferson
spelled everything exactly the same way as current American
dictionaries do - can you post a URL for a web-site that supports this
claim?
-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Chuck Harris
> Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SP...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<esidnTvqu-f...@rcn.net>...
>>Where Webster and Franklin did succeed, was in making spelling more
>>uniform. They took a language where spelling varied greatly depending
>>on where you were educated, and provide a reference of American
>>spellings. These spellings were not the simple phonetic spellings that
>>they wanted to have adopted, but rather, the spellings that were commonly
>>used by Webster, Franklin, Jefferson and others. It is interesting to
>>notice that the spellings used by Jefferson in his writings exactly match
>>those in the current American English dictionaries.
>
>
> Have a look at Elizabethan spelling sometime - the modern habit of
> spelling the same word the same way every time your write it is a
> comparatively recent innovation. I'd be very surprised if Jefferson
> spelled everything exactly the same way as current American
> dictionaries do - can you post a URL for a web-site that supports this
> claim?
It is a personal observation that comes from reading a whole lot of his
personal letters, and other writings. I was very surprised to see that
he was quite consistant, and quite modern. The letters he received in
reply were all over the place with their spelling.
-Chuck
Charles Edmondson
Memphis might be a little hard to pick out, if the speaker is caucasian.
One of the lighter southern accents. I know, I was raised there! 8-)
--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
Pooh Bear
The Indians speak English with a largely unmistakeable accent. It can be *very* 'broad'
to the extent that I've had trouble following some Indian speakers clearly.
On the other hand, a few Indians speak English with a virtually neutral accent.
Graham
Chaos Master
sci.electronics.cad on Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:13:03 +0100 under article
<4178508E...@hotmail.com>:
> > In Microsoft Word, I can generate a
> > document faster than I could with pencil and paper.
>
> You're still using version 2.0c ? ;-)
I use Word 97. It's the last Word version that is worth it.
[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil.
"I know the difference between myself and my reflection. "
-- Evanescence, "Breathe No More"
http://marreka.no-ip.com | http://tinyurl.com/46vru | http://renan182.no-ip.org
Kevin Aylward
> "Don Prescott" <DMBPr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:7fb54666.04102...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>> Well, style is also dictated. "Strunk and White" come to mind.
>>
>> Clarence, I really don't know what you're on but you come out with
>> some statements that are impossible to understand. "Strunk and
>> White"
>> - what on earth does that mean..?
>
> "Strunk and White" in the standard "Style" manual used for a variety
> of formal writing. You could just look it up. IF you have access to
> the Internet. Don't you have a "Style" manual in Britain?
>
> Gee. No wonder your confused! (:>)
>
>> Just for the record, what country are you from...?
>> Prescott
>
> There is NO record!
Oh. You mean you don't have a birth certificate?
> My family has been in America for over 400 years.
Here we go again. Those pretentious F*&*ing Americans that that seem to
think that they are not American because that have some extremely remote
connection outwith the US. ROTFLMAO.
Look, dude, read my lips. You are American. Period. However, I agree,
there is good reason for Americans to try and deny that they are, as
evidenced by the fact that they usually all respond in a like manner
when asked this question.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Kevin Aylward
Ahmmm... Plymouth is a *port* where people *went* to board ships. Its
not very likely that many on the Mayflower actually *came* from Plymouth
or that area, so it makes no sense at all that they would have west
English accents.
The first link I got on this was
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/discovering/famous/pilgrim_fathers.shtml
Where it is stated that that many on the Mayflower were transfers from a
Southampton ship, and that some weren't even English.
Bill Sloman
> Don Prescott wrote:
> > US pronunciation derived largely from
> >> the still- current Cornish dialect.
> >
> > Right. Not so much Cornish as West Country English. If you visit the
> > west of England counties: Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, you can detect
> > the faint echos of the modern American accent. This makes perfect
> > sense of course as Plymouth, from whence came the pilgrim fathers, is
> > in Devon.
>
> Ahmmm... Plymouth is a *port* where people *went* to board ships. Its
> not very likely that many on the Mayflower actually *came* from Plymouth
> or that area, so it makes no sense at all that they would have west
> English accents.
>
> The first link I got on this was
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/discovering/famous/pilgrim_fathers.shtml
>
> Where it is stated that that many on the Mayflower were transfers from a
> Southampton ship, and that some weren't even English.
Some of them were certainly Dutch, according to Jonathon Israel's "The
Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806".ISBN:
0198207344
--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Charles Schuler
> Here we go again. Those pretentious F*&*ing Americans that that seem to
> think that they are not American because that have some extremely remote
> connection outwith the US. ROTFLMAO.
That ... that (repeated word). "They" instead of "that"? Outwith doesn't
work here (USA) either. Work on your English before you bash us.
Clarence
"Charles Schuler" <charle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JdednQfq3_Z...@comcast.com...
>
Had nothing of value to add to the topic.
Just Kill file the jerk!
Charles Schuler
"Clarence" <n...@No.com> wrote in message
news:7_Wed.34276$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
You can kill his posts, but I enjoy them. His off-the-wall stuff is
entertaining and occasionally educational. Also, he has responded to
several of my posts and helped me out. To each his own. I like his website
too.
Clarence
Bob Stephens
> Here we go again. Those pretentious F*&*ing Americans that that seem to
> think that they are not American because that have some extremely remote
> connection outwith the US. ROTFLMAO.
What language is this supposed to be?
Bob Stephens
I spent a year living there - loved it BTW - and I used to try to emulate
the accent of the "Memphians" and came up with a couple of rules.
1) Every syllable is actually at least two.
2) Each syllable has a "Y" in it somewhere.
I never got very good at it, but here is on example I annotated.
There is a great brew pub near Overton Sqaure in Midtown called "Bosco's
Squared". One of their signature beers is "Flaming Stone" ale. I got very
close to being able to say this in a mid south accent as follows:
"Fillay May-ing Stay-own"
Not perfect, but I preferred the IPA anyways ;)
Bob
Don Prescott
> Here we go again. Those pretentious F*&*ing Americans that that seem to
> think that they are not American because that have some extremely remote
> connection outwith the US. ROTFLMAO.
>
>
> salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Interesting to see a guy who runs his own company using a term like
"F*&*ing Americans". Don't you sell your products to Americans
Kevin..?
Prescott
Clarence
Not any more!
Jamie
the feeling is mutual.
Clarence
"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_vali...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:10nqm2s...@corp.supernews.com...
Why, Thank you!
Kevin Aylward
Any American reading my comments, usually takes it that it is those
*other* daft Americans that are so silly to believe that they are
German-Welsh-Belgium. They don't consider that my comments are referring
to them because they are not so stupid to believe such nonsense. Why
would they? Only the ones that actually believe that they are not
Americans have an issue. Are you one of those daft buggers to which my
comments apply to?
Don Prescott
> *other* daft Americans that are so silly to believe that they are
> German-Welsh-Belgium. They don't consider that my comments are referring
> to them because they are not so stupid to believe such nonsense. Why
> would they? Only the ones that actually believe that they are not
> Americans have an issue. Are you one of those daft buggers to which my
> comments apply to?
>
> Kevin Aylward
Other than the American Indians who came across the Baring Straights a
few thousand years ago just about everyone else arrived from somewhere
else in the last few hundred years - mostly from Europe. So why are
these Americans "daft"?
Prescott
Kevin Aylward
Oh dear. Look, dude, when someone says "where are *you* from?", the
answer is "I was born in []". Insert country of birth for the brackets.
Not, well, I have a great great grand papa that came from Switzerland.
Jesus wept. Contrast this with the *other* question "where does your
family ancestry derive from?"
People who don't realise this are seriously in need of help.
Charles Edmondson
syllables... Me-em-phy-es