Common Usenet Misspellings
T Nielsen Hayden
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
> "Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
> "seperately" should be "separately"
"publically" should be "publicly"
"given free reign" should be "given free rein"
"tow the line" should be "toe the line"
"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <01bcc3d8$0b197020$03c1accf@speedy>, "justitia" <just...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote in article
><5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
>
>> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
>in that direction.
Indeed, we are recapitulating one of my favorite Well topics, the one simply
entitled "S! MT! OE!"
I find myself constantly wishing to remind people that "literally" means,
well, literally. I still treasure the memory of the wrestling announcer who
cried "And now he's literally nailing his opponent's head to the floor!"
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Loren MacGregor
In rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:05:23 GMT,
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) said:
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some, but I
>suggested there probably was a web page with something like that.
>Well, guess what? I just searched for a while and didn't see any
>obvious or easily found page listing common misspellings on the net.
>Hmm. So I guess maybe I'll try out Teresa's idea and see what turns
>up. If I get enough of them, and it seems useful to do so, maybe I'll
>put them up on a little page of my own.
>
> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
>that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
>not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
>genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
>They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
>
> I'll start with some that we've recently discussed.
>
>"Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
>"Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>"seperately" should be "separately"
Pilosteel should be pliosteel...
-- LJM
Loren MacGregor
lmac...@efn.org
justitia
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote in article
> Sure, what the heck? The thing's already mutated into Glaring
> Mistakes That Bug You Every Time You See Them In A Post, which is the
> essence of the thing, anyway.
Well, if that's the ultimate goal, let me be the first to
say how drag-ass tired I am of seeing posts that (and always
in the most strident of terms) insist one cannot resolve the
Twin Paradox with invoking general relativity, _yet never
offer any kind of math to back it up_ (puff, puff). The math
necessary to resolve the TP with special relativity is all
actually very simple (I posted it once, provoking a response
of absolute stony silence). But it never seems to overcome
the basic desire that some have to cling to certain flawed
tropes of the relativity wars (such as believing that if, at
any point in the discussion, the word "acceleration" slips
in, then SR is per se useless).
Come to think of it, as often as we call upon each other to
provide some kind of proof of one or another thing we say,
I think it might be Usenet Peeve #1 for me that detailed
proofs of the mathematically rigorous kind so often are
simply ignored. Could it be that (<gasp!>) people don't
actually read them? Or (hush, now) that they don't always
understand what they read?
Nah.
> Blatent Mind-Grinding Error.
You're trolling with this one, right? Please? :-)
--
You used to know me as l...@interport.net
Dave Locke
On 18 Sep 1997 01:55:14 GMT T Nielsen Hayden phosphorized:
>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
>> "Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>> "seperately" should be "separately"
>
>"publically" should be "publicly"
>"given free reign" should be "given free rein"
>"tow the line" should be "toe the line"
>"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
"homocide" s/b "homicide"
"experiance" s/b "experience"
a "newsgroup" is *not* a "bulletin board"
---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin
Avram Grumer
In article <5vq263$1p8...@mrw.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
Weholt) wrote:
>What about "poring scorn" on something? Should that be
>"poring" or "pouring"?
"Heaping."
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
"My television set told me that seventy to eighty percent
of the population now gets most of their information
about the world from their television set!" -- Crosley Bendix
justitia
> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
Ah, but that's usage, not spelling. We could go on forever,
in that direction.
"Amatuer" should be "amateur."
"Here, here," should be "hear, hear."
"Reknown" (or "renoun") should be "renown."
"Copywrite" should be "copyright."
And, of course, the whole class that includes those
switched-at-birth favorites such as
its/it's
their/there
affect/effect
How 'bout those?
justitia
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote in article
<5vq367$r...@news1.panix.com>...
> In article <01bcc3d8$0b197020$03c1accf@speedy>, "justitia"
<just...@erols.com> wrote:
> >T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote in article
> >> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
> >Ah, but that's usage, not spelling.
> Indeed...
> I find myself constantly wishing to remind people that "literally" means,
> well, literally. I still treasure the memory of the wrestling announcer
who
> cried "And now he's literally nailing his opponent's head to the floor!"
Yes, that's a good one. And Teresa already took my personal
fave. Nevertheless, this is a more interesting line than
mere spelling, so let me add
"Theory" means "system of axioms and relations," not
"speculation."
"Begs the question" means "assumes the thing sought to
be proved," not "urges another inquiry."
"Innocent" means "didn't do it," not "acquitted."
As a sub-sub-thread, I don't know how to class these two, but
they irritate me with their frequency:
"could/should of <something>" should be "could/should
have <something>."
"try and <something>" should (usually) be "try to
<something>."
(Patrick, you watch wrestling?)
Barnaby
Michael R Weholt wrote in article <5vpuoj$1p8...@mrw.panix.com>...
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>the net ((snip))
>"Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
I see this in non-phosphor print all the time, even in the most prominent
places.
Barnaby
T Nielsen Hayden wrote in article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
>
>"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
Is using "decimated" to mean "reduced by ninety percent" a blatant
mind-grinding error or just a legitimate or semi-legitimate variation?
Barnaby Rapoport
Ray Radlein
T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
This doesn't seem particularly misspelled to me; also, most dictionaries
*do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
valid definition. While I certainly sympathize with your position, and
always keep the original sense of the word in mind, to insist otherwise
is to confuse etymology with meaning.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Ray Radlein
justitia wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, as often as we call upon each other to provide
> some kind of proof of one or another thing we say, I think it might
> be Usenet Peeve #1 for me that detailed proofs of the mathematically
> rigorous kind so often are simply ignored. Could it be that (<gasp!>)
> people don't actually read them? Or (hush, now) that they don't
> always understand what they read?
I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I had
once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people that,
mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as* "1." I
went at this on every possible level from extremely basic eighth-grade
Algebra, to infinite series and sums, to Cantor's proof of the
non-uniqueness of ternary (and, by extension, decimal) expansion, to
mathematical gedanken-experiments.
Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have demonstrated
that the same effect obtains on usenet.
Gary Farber
In <3420b...@news1.ibm.net> Barnaby <hra...@ibm.net> wrote:
: T Nielsen Hayden wrote in article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
: >
: >"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
: Is using "decimated" to mean "reduced by ninety percent" a blatant
: mind-grinding error or just a legitimate or semi-legitimate variation?
Error.
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Ray Radlein
Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
> suggested there probably was a web page with something like that.
> Well, guess what? I just searched for a while and didn't see any
> obvious or easily found page listing common misspellings on the net.
> Hmm. So I guess maybe I'll try out Teresa's idea and see what turns
> up. If I get enough of them, and it seems useful to do so, maybe I'll
> put them up on a little page of my own.
>
> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
> that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
> not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
> genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
> They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
>
> I'll start with some that we've recently discussed.
>
> "Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
"Rediculous," I say, "rediculous."
Oh, and easily the most flabbergasting spelling mistake which I have
seen with any frequency on the net: "Zena." Flabbergasting, because I
have seen in on alt.tv.xena, of course.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Barnaby
Gary Farber wrote in article <5vqf4c$p...@panix2.panix.com>...
>
>In <3420b...@news1.ibm.net> Barnaby <hra...@ibm.net> wrote:
>: T Nielsen Hayden wrote in article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
>: >
>: >"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
>: Is using "decimated" to mean "reduced by ninety percent" a blatant
>: mind-grinding error or just a legitimate or semi-legitimate variation?
>
>Error.
Okay. I remembered Algis Budrys carrying on about this in a long-ago F&SF
column, but had forgotten which side he had come down on.
Barnaby Rapoport
T Nielsen Hayden
Barnaby <hra...@ibm.net> wrote:
> T Nielsen Hayden wrote in article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
> >
> >"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
> Is using "decimated" to mean "reduced by ninety percent" a blatant
> mind-grinding error or just a legitimate or semi-legitimate variation?
They word they undoubtedly had in mind was "nominated".
justitia
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote in article
<5vr13o$5...@news1.panix.com>...
> Here we get into the dictionary argument: are they authorities or maps?
I say
> they're maps.
But why choose? I say a better approach is for the dictionary
to simply label itself as "prescriptive" or "descriptive." Or,
at a micro level, to label its definitions that way. Then you
can choose the authority that suits your need.
justitia
> T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> > "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
> ... most dictionaries
> *do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
> valid definition. ...to insist otherwise
> is to confuse etymology with meaning.
Ah, yes. The dictionary wars. It had to come to this.
Ray, you are confusing a mistake with a policy. Some
(enlightened) folks believe that dictionaries should be
prescriptive. Prescriptive dictionaries do not list
the mangled meanings of words. Other (benighted) folks
believe that dictionaries should be descriptive. Their
dictionaries list whatever it is that some vaguely set
percentage of the population seems to think a word can
mean.
One must be tolerant. Teresa's and my view is, as a
matter of law, correct. The fact that large numbers
of idiots sell each other dictionaries that house
randomly chosen definitions (I think the most popular
one is labeled to this effect) no more makes their
choice a mistake, though, than it was a mistake to
vote against Jimmy Carter.
T Nielsen Hayden
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <3420B9...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
> >
> >T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >>
> >> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
> >
> >This doesn't seem particularly misspelled to me; also, most dictionaries
> >*do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
> >valid definition. While I certainly sympathize with your position, and
> >always keep the original sense of the word in mind, to insist otherwise
> >is to confuse etymology with meaning.
> Here we get into the dictionary argument: are they authorities or maps? I say
> they're maps.
> A modern dictionary is quite right to list the looser meaning of "decimated,"
> because many people use it that way. And Teresa is quite right to frown on
> that usage, and to think that it's much more effective to stick to the more
> etymologically rigorous one.
> I'm pretty practical about this stuff. Language changes, and I'm fascinated
> by--and sympathetic with--many of the processes by which it does so. But I
> also note that people who take a sparing approach, who pay a lot of attention
> to the history and heft of their words, tend to commit much more effective
> language.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmf.
Damien Broderick
justitia wrote:
>so let me add
>
> "Theory" means "system of axioms and relations," not
> "speculation."
And
"That's just *semantics*" means "Oh, that's just about the *very meaning* of
what we're arguing over, let's not give it a moment's attention", not "Pah,
footling word-chopping!"
But I'm not certain that this is a matter of *misspelling*, sorry, sorry,
it's probably just semantics.
Damien Broderick
justitia
Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote
> justitia wrote:
> > Usenet Peeve #1 for me that detailed proofs of the mathematically
> > rigorous kind so often are simply ignored
> I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I had
> once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people that,
> mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as* "1."
> Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have demonstrated
> that the same effect obtains on usenet.
But you do make it seem as though they listened. The meta-
question is: how do you get them to try, _really try_, to
understand your proof before just dismissing it because it
doesn't prove what they want?
I had a hell of a time in that regard one night when I tried
to convince someone that if you wait half as long as you did
before, each time you cut the remaining half of the stick of
butter into two and throw another half away, that it does
finally all disappear. Over and over, he kept interrupting
my explanation by literally (literally, Patrick) holding up
his hands in front of my face, closing his eyes, shaking his
head, and saying in the most metronomic cadence: It. Doesn't.
Matter. How. Fast. You. Do. It. Finally, I told him I'd buy
him a beer if he'd let me pose a question. I asked: If you
wait thirty seconds before the first cut, then fifteen before
the next one, then seven-and-a-half, and so on, reducing the
time you wait before each cut by fifty percent of the time
before the last cut, how much butter is left when sixty-one
seconds have passed? I waited for an answer. He paused.
His eyes stared vacantly into space. By God, he appeared to
be thinking! I tell you, I felt a chill in that moment, and
it felt good! Then he closed his eyes, shook his head, and
said: It. Doesn't. Matter...
Aahz
In article <johan.anglemark-ya024...@news.apple.com>,
Johan Anglemark <johan.a...@bahnhof.REMOVE.THIS.se> wrote:
>
>San Fransisco for Berkeley
Well, if you're going in that direction:
Berkeley for Palo Alto
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Life is like a simile." -- /bin/fortune
justitia
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote in article
<5vr7nf$6...@news1.panix.com>...
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmf.
Well tol', sister!
Pierre Jelenc
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> writes:
>
> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
> that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
> not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
> genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
> They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
I think nobody's mentionned "baited breath" yet.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
New York City | Home Office
Beer Guide | Records
http://www.nycbeer.org/ | http://www.web-ho.com/
Janice Gelb
In article q...@news1.panix.com, T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> writes:
>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> "Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>> "seperately" should be "separately"
>
>
>"given free reign" should be "given free rein"
>"tow the line" should be "toe the line"
Nearly 30 posts on this thread about common Usenet misspellings
and no one mentioned "alot"???
Plus:
arguement
asterik
ecsetera
Isreal
psuedo
truely
And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it: I got
several email messages from someone yesterday who kept asking whether
one of my writers and I were "insink."
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"These are my opinions. If they were the Biblical truth, your bushes
would be burning"
-- Randy Lander
********************************************************************************
Joel Rosenberg
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>
>
> In article <3420B9...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
> >
> >T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >>
> >> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
> >
> >This doesn't seem particularly misspelled to me; also, most dictionaries
> >*do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
> >valid definition. While I certainly sympathize with your position, and
> >always keep the original sense of the word in mind, to insist otherwise
> >is to confuse etymology with meaning.
>
> Here we get into the dictionary argument: are they authorities or maps? I say
> they're maps.
Specifically, they're the Hudsons.
justitia
Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote in article
> And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it...
For non-net faves, I'll share my long-standing plan to publish
a coffee table book with large color photos of all the professionally
made signs one can find in Manhattan, advertising the sale of:
expresso
Kevin J. Maroney
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
I will agree only if one is referring to Roman military punishments
for treason. Otherwise, this is a battle that is both lost and
unloved.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Steve Brewster
justitia (just...@erols.com) wrote:
: As a sub-sub-thread, I don't know how to class these two, but
: they irritate me with their frequency:
:
: "could/should of <something>" should be "could/should
: have <something>."
:
: "try and <something>" should (usually) be "try to
: <something>."
Hmm - the first of these is an irritating solecism, but I'd say that
the 'try and' construction is good colloquial English - perhaps still
a bit too informal for most purposes, but a far less serious offence
than 'could / should of'.
(Looking in Gowers / Fraser's _The Complete Plain Words_, I read
the following: "'_Try and_' is well established in conversational
use. '_Try to_' is to be preferred in serious writing.")
--
The same arts that did gain / A power, must it maintain.
http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb
Mike Scott
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:05:23 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
wrote:
>"Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
>"Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>"seperately" should be "separately"
"loose" should (97.432% of the times it is used) be "lose"
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
Philip Chee
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some, but I
>suggested there probably was a web page with something like that.
>Well, guess what? I just searched for a while and didn't see any
>obvious or easily found page listing common misspellings on the net.
Perhaps because the web page has been misspelled?
Philip
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 9940.67 ž Uesnet is misspelled.
Brenda Daverin
In article <aahzEG...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Aahz) wrote:
> In article <johan.anglemark-ya024...@news.apple.com>,
> Johan Anglemark <johan.a...@bahnhof.REMOVE.THIS.se> wrote:
> >
> >San Fransisco for Berkeley
>
> Well, if you're going in that direction:
>
> Berkeley for Palo Alto
Then, of course, there's:
Disneyland for California
New York for the United States
Bakersfield for reality
Or was that last option too personal?
-Brenda
--
I don't speak for Apple Computer, Inc.
The preceding message is a test of my spam filtering system. If this had been a real Usenet post, it would have been filled with senseless trivia and excess flamage. This is a recording.
Emshandar
From: awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
> That's a good idea. Add misused words, too.
>
"flaunting the law" is a good one...
David G. Bell
In article <5vpuoj$1p8...@mrw.panix.com>
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
>
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
> the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some, but I
[snip]
"discrete" for "discreet"
"discreet" for "discrete" (Much less frequent, for some reason.)
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Michael Benveniste
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some
who's and whose (guilty!)
----------
Michael Benveniste
mike.be...@fmr.com
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of Fidelity
Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Loren MacGregor
In article <aahzEG...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <johan.anglemark-ya024...@news.apple.com>,
>Johan Anglemark <johan.a...@bahnhof.REMOVE.THIS.se> wrote:
>>
>>San Fransisco for Berkeley
>
>Well, if you're going in that direction:
>
>Berkeley for Palo Alto
Not to mention:
Palo Alto for Bishop Berkley
-- LJM
Nels E Satterlund
Robert Sneddon wrote:
>
> My (un)favourite - "grammer" for "grammar", often used as the poster
> starts a spelling/grammar flame.
>
> --
> To reply via email, remove the string "_nospam_" from my address.
>
> Robert (nojay) Sneddon
Dropping out of lurk mode
your (not Mine) for you're (you are)
Back to lurk mode as I'd rather read than type.
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company
Ne...@aol.com <-- Use this address the other is missing _'s in
my name.
Dpesa
> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>> the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some
I started a thread on another newsgroup by expressing my irritation at the
misuse of stationary/stationery.
Debbie
Lady Meadhbh o Suileabhain - Crown Province of Ostgardr
Intelligence has much less application than you'd think - Dilbert
Brenda Daverin
In article <3420BE...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
> justitia wrote:
> >
> > Come to think of it, as often as we call upon each other to provide
> > some kind of proof of one or another thing we say, I think it might
> > be Usenet Peeve #1 for me that detailed proofs of the mathematically
> > rigorous kind so often are simply ignored. Could it be that (<gasp!>)
> > people don't actually read them? Or (hush, now) that they don't
> > always understand what they read?
>
> I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I had
> once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people that,
> mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as* "1." I
> went at this on every possible level from extremely basic eighth-grade
> Algebra, to infinite series and sums, to Cantor's proof of the
> non-uniqueness of ternary (and, by extension, decimal) expansion, to
> mathematical gedanken-experiments.
>
> Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have demonstrated
> that the same effect obtains on usenet.
Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level and
at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1. He doesn't
buy the "close enough" arguments he got in school. Me, I think there are
far better things to fret about, such as the encroachment of "'s" as the
means by which one renders a word plural. I'm also inclined to agree with
my husband, to tell the truth.
Gary Farber
In <5vsn6g$l...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
: In article <5vsmte$l...@news1.panix.com>,
: T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
: >
: >Is that anything like that Spanish word, "inasmuchas"? Or the way
: >over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
: I find that in New York people keep mistaking me for a guy named Noam Sane.
: They come up to me and say the most amazing things, Noam Sane? Noam Sane?
Foreign swine. You have no appreciation of our native boids, even dose
down on Doity-doid Street.
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Janice Gelb
In article 3ac0accf@speedy, "justitia" <just...@erols.com> writes:
>Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote in article
>
>> And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it...
>
>For non-net faves, I'll share my long-standing plan to publish
>a coffee table book with large color photos of all the professionally
>made signs one can find in Manhattan, advertising the sale of:
>
> expresso
>
Oh, well, if you're going to talk about menus, one of my favorites is
the number of ways they spell "Caesar salad":
Ceasar
Ceaser
Cesar
Jo Walton
Bureaucracy.
It isn't all that hard but I've seen ever so many odd versions of it.
I once asked a frequent and erudite poster on rasfw if his girlfriend
would object to my having "Bureaucracy" tattooed on his arm, for
ease of checking the spelling. If anyone knows where one can get
cross-stitch samplers, suitable for hanging over keyboards, with that
word, I want to biy someone one for Christmas.
"Either learn how to spell it, or stop getting into arguments about it..."
Bureaucracy - the rule of the filing cabinets.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Blue Jo Web Page - Blood of Kings Poetry, Reviews, Interstichia
20 poems by me, 11 poems by Graydon, Momentum Guidelines,
storytelling card games... all at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
XNimshubur
In article <3420C0...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein
<r...@learnlink.emory.edu> writes:
>
>Michael R Weholt wrote:
>>
>> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>> the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some, but I
>> suggested there probably was a web page with something like that.
>> Well, guess what? I just searched for a while and didn't see any
>> obvious or easily found page listing common misspellings on the net.
>> Hmm. So I guess maybe I'll try out Teresa's idea and see what turns
>> up. If I get enough of them, and it seems useful to do so, maybe I'll
>> put them up on a little page of my own.
>>
>> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
>> that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
>> not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
>> genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
>> They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
>>
>> I'll start with some that we've recently discussed.
>>
>> "Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
>> "Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>> "seperately" should be "separately"
>
>"Rediculous," I say, "rediculous."
>
>Oh, and easily the most flabbergasting spelling mistake which I have
>seen with any frequency on the net: "Zena." Flabbergasting, because I
>have seen in on alt.tv.xena, of course.
"Zena" happens to be my sister-in-law's given name. In the context you
report, however, it is maddening, which is one of the reasons I no longer
subscribe. (Got tired of <Piracy> in all of its aspects, too.)
--
Doug Wickstrom
To reply by E-mail, remove the "X" from the addy. If you forget,
your mail will bounce from here to Mars.
T Nielsen Hayden
Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote:
> And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it: I got
> several email messages from someone yesterday who kept asking whether
> one of my writers and I were "insink."
Is that anything like that Spanish word, "inasmuchas"? Or the way
over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
:tnh
P Nielsen Hayden
>over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
I find that in New York people keep mistaking me for a guy named Noam Sane.
They come up to me and say the most amazing things, Noam Sane? Noam Sane?
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Tom Galloway
wierd for weird.
tyg t...@netcom.com
XNimshubur
In article <lilo0u3...@gw.ddb.com>, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@gw.ddb.com>
writes:
>
>
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>
>>
>>
>> In article <3420B9...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein
><r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>> >
>> >This doesn't seem particularly misspelled to me; also, most dictionaries
>> >*do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
>> >valid definition. While I certainly sympathize with your position, and
>> >always keep the original sense of the word in mind, to insist otherwise
>> >is to confuse etymology with meaning.
>>
>> Here we get into the dictionary argument: are they authorities or maps? I
>say
>> they're maps.
>
>Specifically, they're the Hudsons.
YMMV.
John Dilick
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:22:50 -0700, dav...@apple.com (Brenda Daverin)
spake thusly:
>Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level and
>at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
>pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
>.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1. He doesn't
>buy the "close enough" arguments he got in school. Me, I think there are
>far better things to fret about, such as the encroachment of "'s" as the
>means by which one renders a word plural. I'm also inclined to agree with
>my husband, to tell the truth.
Short and sweet version:
X = .999... (A)
10*X = 9.999... (B) (Multiplication of (A))
(10*X) - X = 9.999... - .999... ((B)-(A))
9*X = 9 (Subtraction)
X=1 (Division)
Knowledge of algebra should convince him of this proof.
HTH.
--
John Dilick
dili...@cris.com
justitia
John Dilick <dili...@cris.com> wrote in article
<3422e489...@news.cris.com>...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:22:50 -0700, dav...@apple.com (Brenda Daverin)
> spake thusly:
> >Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level
and
> >at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
> >pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
> >.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1.
> X = .999... (A)
> 10*X = 9.999... (B) (Multiplication of (A))
> (10*X) - X = 9.999... - .999... ((B)-(A))
> 9*X = 9 (Subtraction)
> X=1 (Division)
Excellent, John!
Now let's see if this follows the depressing pattern I
bemoaned earlier, wherein no one will say anything to
suggest they have read, much less understood, this
very tractable proof. (Brenda, please show it to your
husband and post his reply.)
Ewan
> > 10*X = 9.999... (B) (Multiplication of (A))
> > (10*X) - X = 9.999... - .999... ((B)-(A))
> > 9*X = 9 (Subtraction)
> > X=1 (Division)
>
> Excellent, John!
>
> Now let's see if this follows the depressing pattern I
> bemoaned earlier, wherein no one will say anything to
> suggest they have read, much less understood, this
> very tractable proof. (Brenda, please show it to your
> husband and post his reply.)
Naah. I said, upon reading said proof, "Oh, cool!" Jenny
asked (whilst in the process of rescuing laundry from cat)
about what I was commenting, and we discussed briefly.
However, neither of us doubted the veracity of the statement in
the first place :).
Ewan
--
Ewan McNay - http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~ecm5f Under construction!
Gamer/socialist/neuroscientist/cook (not necessarily in that order)
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
But the angels are all in heaven, and few of the fools are dead.
XNimshubur
In article <34208c80...@news.efn.org>, lmac...@efn.org (Loren
MacGregor) writes:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:05:23 GMT,
>awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) said:
>
>> Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
>>the net and she suggested starting a thread to collect some, but I
>>suggested there probably was a web page with something like that.
>>Well, guess what? I just searched for a while and didn't see any
>>obvious or easily found page listing common misspellings on the net.
>>Hmm. So I guess maybe I'll try out Teresa's idea and see what turns
>>up. If I get enough of them, and it seems useful to do so, maybe I'll
>>put them up on a little page of my own.
>>
>> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
>>that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
>>not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
>>genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
>>They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
>>
>> I'll start with some that we've recently discussed.
>>
>>"Tolkein" should be "Tolkien"
>>"Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
>>"seperately" should be "separately"
>
>Pilosteel should be pliosteel...
Unless it's a heap o' scrap metal.
Emshandar
From: Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu>
>I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I had
>once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people that,
>mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as* "1." I
>went at this on every possible level from extremely basic eighth-grade
>Algebra, to infinite series and sums, to Cantor's proof of the
>non-uniqueness of ternary (and, by extension, decimal) expansion, to
>mathematical gedanken-experiments.
>
>Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have demonstrated
>that the same effect obtains on usenet.
but -- i don't understand -- it seems intuitively obvious to me... and i
can see that probably at least two of your proof methods would have gone a
long way toward convincing me, even if it DIDN't seem that way...
Mike Scott
>Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level and
>at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
>pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
>.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1. He doesn't
>buy the "close enough" arguments he got in school. Me, I think there are
>far better things to fret about, such as the encroachment of "'s" as the
>means by which one renders a word plural. I'm also inclined to agree with
>my husband, to tell the truth.
.9999... x 10 = 9.9999...
9.999... - .9999... = 9
So .9999... x (10 - 1) = 9
So .9999... x 9 = 9
So .9999.. = 1
Alternatively, one might appeal the the elegant sequence:
1/9 = .111...
2/9 = .222...
3/9 = .3333...
.
.
.
8/9 = .8888...
9/9 = .9999...
9/9, of course, also = 1.
Emshandar
>From: "justitia" <just...@erols.com>
>John Dilick <dili...@cris.com> wrote in article
><3422e489...@news.cris.com>...
>
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:22:50 -0700, dav...@apple.com (Brenda Daverin)
>> spake thusly:
>
>> >Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level
>and
>> >at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
>> >pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
>> >.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1.
>
>> X = .999... (A)
>> 10*X = 9.999... (B) (Multiplication of (A))
>> (10*X) - X = 9.999... - .999... ((B)-(A))
>> 9*X = 9 (Subtraction)
>> X=1 (Division)
>
>Excellent, John!
>
>Now let's see if this follows the depressing pattern I
>bemoaned earlier, wherein no one will say anything to
>suggest they have read, much less understood, this
>very tractable proof.
OK -- i'll buy it. I think. are you SURE it doesn't involve a hidden
division by zero like the "proof" that 1 = 2?
Ray Radlein
Brenda Daverin wrote:
>
> Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I
> > had once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people
> > that, mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as*
> > "1." I went at this on every possible level from extremely basic
> > eighth-grade Algebra, to infinite series and sums, to Cantor's proof
> > of the non-uniqueness of ternary (and, by extension, decimal)
> > expansion, to mathematical gedanken-experiments.
> >
> > Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have
> > demonstrated that the same effect obtains on usenet.
>
> and at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's
> taken pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of
> stating that .999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same*
> Me, I think there are far better things to fret about, such as the
> encroachment of "'s" as the means by which one renders a word plural.
> I'm also inclined to agree with my husband, to tell the truth.
I see that John Dilick has already given one of the very simple proofs,
so I will give another one. Come to think of it, this one may not even
require eighth-grade algebra. All it requires is long division and
multiplication of decimals and fractions. Pre-algebra stuff. This should
be perfectly straightforward to any seventh-grade student who
understands multiplication and division with (repeating) decimals.
We are all agreed that one equals three times one-third, right?
(a) 1 = 3 * (1/3)
Similarly, we all remember that the decimal expansion of 1/3 is
.3333333..., right? If not, we can always use decimal long division
("Three doesn't go into one, so we put a zero before the decimal point
and try ten. Three goes into ten three times, so we write a three after
the decimal point; ten minus nine is one; cary the zero and we get ten.
Three goes into ten three times...").
(b) 1/3 = .3333333333333333333..........
So, therefore, equation (a) can be written as
(c) 1 = 3 * .33333333333333333333.......
Right? Great. Now, *multiply* the right-hand side back out again. Since
three times three is nine, each decimal place will just get a nine in it
instead of a three:
(d) 3 * .33333333333.... = .999999999....
Right? So substitute that result back into the right-hand side of the
equation, then:
(e) 1 = .9999999999.....
In other words, "1" and ".999999....." are just two different names for
the same number.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Emshandar
From: "Barnaby" <hra...@ibm.net>
> T Nielsen Hayden wrote in article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
>>
>>"decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
>
>Is using "decimated" to mean "reduced by ninety percent" a blatant
>mind-grinding error or just a legitimate or semi-legitimate variation?
I'd say it's pretty much in the mind-grinding category.
When a Roman Legion mutinied, or broke en masse in the face of the enemy,
they were "decimated" -- lined up in ranks, and then a sword or spear was
stuck into every tenth man. There was no other punishment (at least for
the common troops -- the officers often found themselves in interesting and
amusing situations involving wild animals or vats of boiling lead...).
The one that _I_ hate is the local traffic reporters' habit of reporting
that the Interstate is "gridlocked".
YOU CANNOT "GRIDLOCK" A LIMITED-ACCESS DIVIDED HIGHWAY.
Robert Sneddon
In article <01bcc438$6bf8a040$3ac0accf@speedy>
just...@erols.com "justitia" writes:
> Ah, yes. The dictionary wars. It had to come to this.
On alt.peeves it's known as dictionary-size wars...
David Hines
"judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
"per se" means "in and of itself," not "as such."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
====================================================================
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <5vsnum$b...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>In <5vsn6g$l...@news1.panix.com> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >Is that anything like that Spanish word, "inasmuchas"? Or the way
>: >over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
>
>: I find that in New York people keep mistaking me for a guy named Noam Sane.
>: They come up to me and say the most amazing things, Noam Sane? Noam Sane?
>
>down on Doity-doid Street.
If I'm foreign swine in New York, I'm foreign swine everywhere, because I've
lived in New York significantly more years than I've lived anywhere else in my
life.
No doubt Gary considers me "rootless" and "cosmopolitan."
Steve Brewster
Proof that .999... = 1:
1) .999... is defined as the limit of the sequence
.9, .99, .999, .9999, ...
2) The limit of this sequence is 1.
3) That's all.
4) _Please_, _please_ let's not get into this discussion on rasff.
Read the sci.math FAQ, or search the Dejanews record for '.999'
and take a few weeks off work in order to plough through a couple
of years' worth of postings on the topic.
--
"There is no dark side in the moon, | Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk
really. Matter of fact it's all dark." | http://zeus.bris.ac.uk/~masjb
Daniel Blum
In rec.arts.sf.fandom justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
> <EGqvu...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
>
> > "judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
> As a lawyer, I've had to accept defeat on this one.
> Both are now correct.
In fact, my Concise OED lists "judgement" as the preferred spelling. I
believe "judgment" is usually preferred in the US, but it hardly seems worth
quibbling over, when there are so many unequivocal errors being perpetrated.
> How about "hairbrained"?
I dunno... I can think of people to whom that would apply <insert blond
joke here>.
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Let it be granted that a controversy may be raised about any question,
and at any distance from that question." - Lewis Carroll
T Nielsen Hayden
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> "judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
> "per se" means "in and of itself," not "as such."
Er. Most of the professional text-wranglers I know would tell you that
judgment/judgement are both legitimate alternate spellings, as are
acknowledgment/acknowledgement. The one who wouldn't concur has an elaborate
theory about how judgement and acknowledgement are British spellings and
shouldn't be used in US books.
::tnh::
::fwa::
justitia
David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
<EGqvu...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> "judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
As a lawyer, I've had to accept defeat on this one.
Both are now correct.
How about "hairbrained"?
justitia
T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote in article
<5vtvqa$1...@news1.panix.com>...
> justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> > How about "hairbrained"?
> Hate it! Should be "harebrained", "having no more intelligence than a
> rabbit".
Well, uh... yeah. I guess I should have made clear
that I was just offering another candidate for the
list of wrong spellings, not an alternate spelling.
Now, for an alternate spelling that has me grinding
my teeth, I find I can barely tolerate "supercede."
--
You used to know me as l...@interport.net
justitia
Debra Fran Baker <dfb...@panix.com> wrote in article
<5vu1f7$2...@panix.com>...
> I have a theory about the proliferation of "'s" as a plural. Go to your
> local supermarket and look at the tabloids. No possessives at all.
> "JonBenet Parents are the killers."
> This has two results. One is that there are a lot of unemployed
> apostrophes running around looking for work. The other (and this one is
> serious) is that less and less people learn proper usage.
In the strangest places, too. One can, for example, go to the
book store and see shelves full of volumes whose bindings say
that each of them is a "Writers Guide."
T Nielsen Hayden
justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> How about "hairbrained"?
Hate it! Should be "harebrained", "having no more intelligence than a
rabbit".
I once received an elaborate piece of junkmail that alluded to a "hare's
breath escape".
::tnh::
::fwa::
David Goldfarb
"Facism" -- no doubt discrimination by physiognomy? (One of
the few times I've ever been moved to send an unsolicited spelling
correction was when Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, in a post about _Miracleman_ #16,
used "facism" or "facist" 5 times in 3 consecutive sentences.)
David Goldfarb <*>|"Anything that can be destroyed by the truth
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | should be."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
aste...@slip.net | -- P. C. Hodgell, _Seeker's Mask_
Emshandar
From: rc...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc)
>I think nobody's mentionned "baited breath" yet.
What -- like "The cat that ate the cheese and sat by the mousehole with..."?
--
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Kevin J. Maroney
emsh...@aol.com (Emshandar) wrote:
>The one that _I_ hate is the local traffic reporters' habit of reporting
>that the Interstate is "gridlocked".
>
> YOU CANNOT "GRIDLOCK" A LIMITED-ACCESS DIVIDED HIGHWAY.
You can, conceivably, engineer a gridlock situation at a full
cloverleaf where every exit is blocked by people trying to get past to
the next exit... or, you can just have a situation like that which
pertains throughout the NY Metro area, where traffic backs up because
the exit ramps *lead into* true gridlock.
But I agree; it's sloppy usage to say "gridlock" when what one means
is "traffic stoppage" or "cluster fuck".
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Alan Woodford
On 19 Sep 1997 07:07:54 GMT, emsh...@aol.com (Emshandar) wrote:
--- Snip ---
>The one that _I_ hate is the local traffic reporters' habit of reporting
>that the Interstate is "gridlocked".
>
> YOU CANNOT "GRIDLOCK" A LIMITED-ACCESS DIVIDED HIGHWAY.
Hmmm. Maybe not, but traffic on my local motorway (M5 Junction 2)
would probably be moving faster at the moment if it WAS gridlocked :-)
I recieved a fax at work this afternoon, referring to a Mr Fox, on a
digitalis machine. I think he has kidney problems, but....
Alan "I went to Scotland, and my wife only let me bring ten bottles of
single malt back :-( " Woodford
Ray Radlein
Emshandar wrote:
>
> >John Dilick <dili...@cris.com> wrote
> >> X = .999... (A)
> >> 10*X = 9.999... (B) (Multiplication of (A))
> >> (10*X) - X = 9.999... - .999... ((B)-(A))
> >> 9*X = 9 (Subtraction)
> >> X=1 (Division)
[snip]
> OK -- i'll buy it. I think. are you SURE it doesn't involve a
> hidden division by zero like the "proof" that 1 = 2?
Hey -- watch it again, in slo-mo. We'll wait. At no time do the fingers
leave his hand. He multiplied both sides by ten (perfectly allowable),
subtracted identical quantities from both sides, and divided both sides
by nine. Simple.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Debra Fran Baker
In <daverin-1809...@davebr.apple.com> dav...@apple.com (Brenda Daverin) writes:
>Would you be an absolute sweetheart and give me the eight-grade level and
>at least one other proof that can be understood by someone who's taken
>pre-trigonometry? I have a husband who falls on the side of stating that
>.999... *is* *not* *even* *mathematically* *the* *same* *as* 1. He doesn't
>buy the "close enough" arguments he got in school. Me, I think there are
>far better things to fret about, such as the encroachment of "'s" as the
>means by which one renders a word plural. I'm also inclined to agree with
>my husband, to tell the truth.
I have a theory about the proliferation of "'s" as a plural. Go to your
local supermarket and look at the tabloids. No possessives at all.
"JonBenet Parents are the killers."
This has two results. One is that there are a lot of unemployed
apostrophes running around looking for work. The other (and this one is
serious) is that less and less people learn proper usage.
Debra
--
One sharp peppercorn is better than a basketful of melons.
-- Tractate Megillah 7A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Fran Baker dfb...@panix.com
Marty Helgesen
In article <5vq367$r...@news1.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) says:
<SNIP>
>I find myself constantly wishing to remind people that "literally" means,
>well, literally. I still treasure the memory of the wrestling announcer who
>cried "And now he's literally nailing his opponent's head to the floor!"
>
Some years ago Minneapolis fan Curtis Hoffmann (possibly misspelled)
had a science fiction/fantasy novel published. It was memorable for a
sentence in which he said of a character, "-He figuratively hit the ceiling.-"
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/latest.html and look under "Added May 26."
"Our scene opens on a police tram steaming through the South
China Sea." The Goon Show
Marty Helgesen
In article <01bcc438$6bf8a040$3ac0accf@speedy>, "justitia" <just...@erols.com> says:
>
>> T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
>> > "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
Marty Helgesen
In article <19970919022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, xnims...@aol.com (XNimshubur) says:
<SNIP>
>>Pilosteel should be pliosteel...
>
>Unless it's a heap o' scrap metal.
Minneapolis) I passed a junkyard that had a sign saying "-Buyers of Irony-"
Marty Helgesen
In article <01bcc44d$efbd0780$3ac0accf@speedy>, "justitia" <just...@erols.com> says:
>
>Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote in article
>
>> And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it...
>
>For non-net faves, I'll share my long-standing plan to publish
>a coffee table book with large color photos of all the professionally
>made signs one can find in Manhattan, advertising the sale of:
>
> expresso
They obviously identify fast food coffee houses.
Marty Helgesen
In article <EGpqq...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Steve Brewster) says:
>
>justitia (just...@erols.com) wrote:
>: As a sub-sub-thread, I don't know how to class these two, but
>: they irritate me with their frequency:
>:
>: "could/should of <something>" should be "could/should
>: have <something>."
>:
>: "try and <something>" should (usually) be "try to
>: <something>."
>:
>
>Hmm - the first of these is an irritating solecism, but I'd say that
>the 'try and' construction is good colloquial English - perhaps still
>a bit too informal for most purposes, but a far less serious offence
>than 'could / should of'.
Too many people fail to realize that just because "should've" sounds
like "should of" doesn't mean it's spelled that way.
Loren MacGregor
In article <97262.13...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, Marty says...
>
>In article <EGpqq...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Steve Brewster)
>says:
>>
>>justitia (just...@erols.com) wrote:
>>: As a sub-sub-thread, I don't know how to class these two, but
>>: they irritate me with their frequency:
>>:
>>: "could/should of <something>" should be "could/should
>>: have <something>."
>>:
>>: "try and <something>" should (usually) be "try to
>>: <something>."
>>:
>>
>>Hmm - the first of these is an irritating solecism, but I'd say that
>>the 'try and' construction is good colloquial English - perhaps still
>>a bit too informal for most purposes, but a far less serious offence
>>than 'could / should of'.
>
>Too many people fail to realize that just because "should've" sounds
>like "should of" doesn't mean it's spelled that way.
Yes, but I do think that this does stray into the area of
idiom.
-- LJM
Gary Farber
In <EGqvu...@midway.uchicago.edu> David Hines
<dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: "judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
Both usages are correct in US publishing unless house style rules
otherwise.
[. . . .]
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Gary Farber
In <19970919070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Emshandar <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: OK -- i'll buy it. I think. are you SURE it doesn't involve a hidden
: division by zero like the "proof" that 1 = 2?
No, he was just having you on. He's really quite unsure.
David Gibbs
In article <5vrl19$9...@panix2.panix.com>, Pierre Jelenc <rc...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> So, feel free to contribute. I suppose the rules should be
>> that the misspellings have to be mistakes you see on the *net* (i.e.,
>> not mistakes you see on billboards &c.), and that they should be
>> genuine (not alternative or "disfavored" or Brit v. U.S.) spellings.
>> They can be proper or common nouns. Anything that drives you nuts.
>
>I think nobody's mentionned "baited breath" yet.
This whole thread has really "peaked my interest" in common
misspellings.
Of course, their/there/they're and its/it's are very common errors as well.
-David
P.S. Of course it's "piqued".
--
-David Gibbs
dag...@qnx.com
Marilee J. Layman
In <5vsmte$l...@news1.panix.com>, T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com>
wrote:
>
>Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote:
>
>> And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it: I got
>> several email messages from someone yesterday who kept asking whether
>> one of my writers and I were "insink."
>
>Is that anything like that Spanish word, "inasmuchas"? Or the way
>over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
I know someone who, even though I pointed them out to her, uses "all
intensive purposes" and "kitten caboodle."
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
RELM Mu...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
**New** Web site: http://home.virtual-pc.com/outland/owc/index.html
AOL keyword: FR > Science Fiction > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Arthur Hlavaty
P Nielsen Hayden (p...@panix.com) wrote:
: I find myself constantly wishing to remind people that "literally" means,
: well, literally. I still treasure the memory of the wrestling announcer who
: cried "And now he's literally nailing his opponent's head to the floor!"
Sports announcers are often good for that sort of thing: "literally ate
him up," "literally faked him out of his jock," ...
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
B. Vermo
In article <5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>, T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote:
|"given free reign" should be "given free rein"
Eh - I find ghe former rather appropriate in the case of people like
Mobutu or Bokassa...
B. Vermo
In article <01bcc3d8$0b197020$03c1accf@speedy>,
"justitia" <just...@erols.com> wrote:
|"Copywrite" should be "copyright."
Unless it is the proper name of a Canadian software package.
One I often see is "wierd" for "weird".
Arthur Hlavaty
Barnaby (hra...@ibm.net) wrote:
: Michael R Weholt wrote in article <5vpuoj$1p8...@mrw.panix.com>...
: > Teresa and I were discussing (in email) common misspellings on
: >the net ((snip))
: >"Samuel R. Delaney" should be "Samuel R. Delany"
: I see this in non-phosphor print all the time, even in the most prominent
: places.
I just got a bit of propaganda from a Serious Lit Publisher with that very
error on it. Mr. Delaney is, of course, a sci-fi writer.
Arthur Hlavaty
T Nielsen Hayden (t...@panix.com) wrote:
: Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.ANTISPAM-REMOVE-THIS.com> wrote:
: > And, not common and not even on the net but I had to share it: I got
: > several email messages from someone yesterday who kept asking whether
: > one of my writers and I were "insink."
: Is that anything like that Spanish word, "inasmuchas"? Or the way
: over-expensive items in NYC cost a nominal egg?
I _like_ a nominal egg. And it tempts me to quote the Peter De Vries
character who comlplained that a fee he paid was "nominal in name only."
Arthur Hlavaty
Daniel Blum (to...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In rec.arts.sf.fandom justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
: > David Hines <dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in article
: > <EGqvu...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
: >
: > > "judgement" is wrong; it's "judgment."
: > As a lawyer, I've had to accept defeat on this one.
: > Both are now correct.
: In fact, my Concise OED lists "judgement" as the preferred spelling. I
: believe "judgment" is usually preferred in the US, but it hardly seems worth
: quibbling over, when there are so many unequivocal errors being perpetrated.
Gerald Ford actually pronounced the superfluous E.
Emshandar
From: db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell")
>"discrete" for "discreet"
>
>"discreet" for "discrete" (Much less frequent, for some reason.)
>
>
Probably because more people have occasion to use the meaning properly
expressed by "discreet" than have occasion to say "discrete".
I mean, you'd use the first meaning when trolling for some of that
*F*R*E*E* *S*E*X* that all our elected officials assure us is just All
Over the Internet... But the second is only likely to show up in, say, a
discussion of electronic components.
--
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Emshandar
From: Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu>
>T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>>
>> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
>This doesn't seem particularly misspelled to me; also, most dictionaries
>*do* include the common usage of the word ("dramatically reduced") as a
>valid definition. While I certainly sympathize with your position, and
>always keep the original sense of the word in mind, to insist otherwise
>is to confuse etymology with meaning.
>
>
It's not misspelled. However, it IS incorrect to use "decimated" to mean
other than "destroyed [killed] one in ten".
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
The problem with the amount of mispelling on the net, for me, is that
after a while, the wrong spellings begin to look right. They no
longer trigger the "that looks wrong" flag, and I don't realize that
I'm getting it wrong.
BTW, do most word processing programs have a key that transposes two
characters?
73, doug
Arwel Parry
In article <01bcc3d8$0b197020$03c1accf@speedy>, justitia
>T Nielsen Hayden <t...@panix.com> wrote in article
><5vq1m2$q...@news1.panix.com>...
>
>> "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
>in that direction.
>
>"Amatuer" should be "amateur."
>"Here, here," should be "hear, hear."
>"Reknown" (or "renoun") should be "renown."
>"Copywrite" should be "copyright."
Shudder! Can I contribute "strickly" for "strictly"? It seems to be
mostly Americans who can't pronounce their 't's that do this...
Arwel
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
T Nielsen Hayden
justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> Now, for an alternate spelling that has me grinding
> my teeth, I find I can barely tolerate "supercede."
Hah! Why should you tolerate "supercede" AT ALL? It's wrong, just plain
wrong, Wrong Wrong Wrong, boy is it ever wrong...
Watch. Now somebody's going to pop in and tell us that some morally supine
modern dictionary has taken to listing "supercede" as an alternate spelling,
which is A WEEDY WET CAPITULATION to all the people who've persistently
misspelled it.
At that rate you might as well allow acommodate, accomodate, and acommadate
as allowable alternate spellings becuase people misspell "accommodate" so
often.
"Vermillion" is also JUST PLAIN WRONG. It's "vermilion". So there.
::tnh::
::fwa::
justitia
> justitia <just...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Now, for an alternate spelling that has me grinding
> > my teeth, I find I can barely tolerate "supercede."
> Hah! Why should you tolerate "supercede" AT ALL? It's wrong, just plain
> wrong, Wrong Wrong Wrong, boy is it ever wrong...
Don't mince words, Bones. What do you _really_ think?
> Watch. Now somebody's going to pop in and tell us that some morally
supine
> modern dictionary has taken to listing "supercede" as an alternate
spelling,
> which is A WEEDY WET CAPITULATION to all the people who've persistently
> misspelled it.
Perhaps, then, you know how I felt one day when I was challenged
by a smug usage-is-everything dweeb to show that supersede was the
only authorized spelling and, supremely confident (because I've
checked before), the first dictionary we tried listed both. I
might as well have caught my parents smoking.
--
You used to know me as l...@interport.net
justitia
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote in article
<97262.14...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
> In article <01bcc44d$efbd0780$3ac0accf@speedy>, "justitia"
<just...@erols.com> says:
> >For non-net faves, I'll share my long-standing plan to publish
> >a coffee table book with large color photos of all the professionally
> >made signs one can find in Manhattan, advertising the sale of:
> > expresso
> They obviously identify fast food coffee houses.
Either that, or it's coffee that makes a statement.
justitia
> > Hah! Why should you tolerate "supercede" AT ALL? It's wrong, just plain
> > wrong, Wrong Wrong Wrong, boy is it ever wrong...
BTW, just to brighten my day, Microsoft's spelling checker
passes "supercede."
*sigh* The majority gets it way, again.
John Dilick
On 19 Sep 1997 06:56:58 GMT, emsh...@aol.com (Emshandar) spake thusly:
>From: Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu>
>
>>I think I mentioned before, over on rasfw, about the hideous time I had
>>once on a BBS convincing even very smart and accomplished people that,
>>mathematically, ".9999999...." *was* *the* *same* *thing* *as* "1." I
>>went at this on every possible level from extremely basic eighth-grade
>>Algebra, to infinite series and sums, to Cantor's proof of the
>>non-uniqueness of ternary (and, by extension, decimal) expansion, to
>>mathematical gedanken-experiments.
>>
>>Small-scale experimental repetitions of this incident have demonstrated
>>that the same effect obtains on usenet.
>
>but -- i don't understand -- it seems intuitively obvious to me... and i
>can see that probably at least two of your proof methods would have gone a
>long way toward convincing me, even if it DIDN't seem that way...
I have experienced the _exact_ same phenomenon as Ray, especially when I
tutored college students in mathematics. Some people simply lack the
necessary mental framework to make the leap from .999... to 1. Some people
will instantly grasp the underlying logic of whichever proof you present
while others will _never_ accept it. Often, the only way I could get a
student to understand a concept would be to restate the proof in <mumble>
different ways.
I think this falls under the "different types of intelligence" thread.
Some people have the mental processes that can handle this type of thing,
others don't.
--
John Dilick
dili...@cris.com
Emshandar
From: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
>In <19970919070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>Emshandar <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: OK -- i'll buy it. I think. are you SURE it doesn't involve a hidden
>: division by zero like the "proof" that 1 = 2?
>
>No, he was just having you on. He's really quite unsure.
Ummm. Maybe i better start using smileys a lot more, after all...
--
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Ray Radlein
Arthur Hlavaty wrote:
>
> P Nielsen Hayden (p...@panix.com) wrote:
>
> : I find myself constantly wishing to remind people that "literally"
> : means, well, literally. I still treasure the memory of the
> : wrestling announcer who cried "And now he's literally nailing his
> : opponent's head to the floor!"
>
> Sports announcers are often good for that sort of thing: "literally
> ate him up," "literally faked him out of his jock," ...
This is just another example of the fact that, given enough time, almost
all adverbs become {really/very}. Just like most adjectives which don't
describe a measurable physical characteristic eventually come to mean
"good" or "bad."
This process is, of course, totally gnarly. And tubular. Or perhaps
wicked fresh, def, and phat.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"Well, before my sword can pass all the way through your neck, it has
to pass *half way* through your neck. But before it can do *that*, it
has to first pass *one-fourth* of the way through your neck. And
before it can do *that*...." - Zeno, Warrior Princess
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Ray Radlein
justitia wrote:
>
> > T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> > > "decimated" means "reduced by ten percent"
>
> > ("dramatically reduced") as a valid definition. ...to insist
>
>
> Ray, you are confusing a mistake with a policy. Some (enlightened)
> folks believe that dictionaries should be prescriptive. Prescriptive
> dictionaries do not list the mangled meanings of words. Other
> (benighted) folks believe that dictionaries should be descriptive.
> Their dictionaries list whatever it is that some vaguely set percentage
> of the population seems to think a word can mean.
>
> One must be tolerant. Teresa's and my view is, as a matter of law,
> correct. The fact that large numbers of idiots sell each other
> dictionaries that house randomly chosen definitions (I think the most
> popular one is labeled to this effect) no more makes their choice a
> mistake, though, than it was a mistake to vote against Jimmy Carter.
I think this distinction, and this argument, is *silly*. It is also
awful, pompous, and artificial, and only a chauvanist would make it.
What is wrong with this picture?
- Ray R.
PS - I *would* have said that only a gay chauvanist would make it, but
that would make things entirely *too* obvious, wouldn't it?