Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?[very OT]
robin wrote: > I agree, though I'd balk at "kewl" (unless there are really people out > there who pronounce it like "mewl"). what we should be careful of, > though, is allowing the introduction of the equivalent of Microsoft's > and Netscape's "enhancements" to HTML during the early 1990s. A foreign > reader who has gone to the trouble of learning one weird English > spelling will not want to have to learn another > What I'd like to see would be some kind of W3C for formal written > international English (there's no point in telling people how to speak > or write SMS). I don't see this happening, though, given that worthy > academic bodies can't even agree on a format for bibliographies. > Ulitmately I'd like to see English replaced as the de facto > international language, but that's even less likely. > > Sir Robin > Don't know if you're aware Robin, but there is an international English language. Its used in places like the UN & Diplomatic missives to other countries. Its not American/Canadian/British or any such thing. Its alanguage almost unto itself. Femme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Saturday 06 July 2002 10:40 pm, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > Wouldn't it be great if we could just drop English and speak > Esperanto instead > > :) Or speak frog maybe? <> For the why? the answer is in the frogs. An ordinary frog goes "ribbit, ribbit" and a budfrog goes "bud ,,, Weis... Er", but a winfrog goes "reboot, reboot, reboot" <> (shamelessly stolen by me from Civileme's post to another list ;) IMNSHO, it's viruses -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 23:19:59 -0400, Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 06 July 2002 10:04 pm, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 20:46:24 -0400, Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > As a side note, has anyone ever calculated the cumulative cost of time, > > > ink and paper that is wasted on all of of those extra u's used in British > > > spelling? > > > > They're not "wasted". The 'u' moderates the sound of the 'o' so that it is > > not too hard. The 'o' is emphasised more in the word 'or' than in the word > > 'colour'. In that way, the 'u' is actually phonetic in (British) English. > > OK, if I follow your line of reasoning, does that mean that we'd need > separate spell checkers to account for each regional dialect? Or are we all > supposed to sound like BBC announcers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnews readers? Ideally we wouldn't need separate spell checkers [or should that be 'chequers' :) ]. > I notice that you ducked the "gh" ==> "eff" thing. Or is "night" supposed to > be pronounced "nift"? > > And a happy Fourth of July to you, sir. (Hmmm... why is it "fourth" and not > "forth"? Sounds the same to me.) I wasn't ducking. English is quite an odd language and I agree with you. A lot of the problems stem from written usage. Literature might become very confusing if we replaced 'there', 'their' and 'they're' with a simple 'there'. Many others stem from pronunciation. As somebody who pronounces words in the traditional 'British' manner, British spellings make sense to me. Similarly, American spellings might make more sense to an American. Wouldn't it be great if we could just drop English and speak Esperanto instead :) -- Sridhar Dhanapalan "Hey, that is an implementation issue, not a design issue, so that's the point where I don't care all that much any more. I'd not be all that likely to use this feature (I still do "zcat < file.tar.gz | tar xvf -" instead of using "tar zxvf file.tar.gz", because I'm an old-fashioned old fogey. I don't need my tar-files auto-mounted for me)." -- Linus Torvalds Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Saturday 06 July 2002 10:04 pm, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 20:46:24 -0400, Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a side note, has anyone ever calculated the cumulative cost of time, > > ink and paper that is wasted on all of of those extra u's used in British > > spelling? > > They're not "wasted". The 'u' moderates the sound of the 'o' so that it is > not too hard. The 'o' is emphasised more in the word 'or' than in the word > 'colour'. In that way, the 'u' is actually phonetic in (British) English. OK, if I follow your line of reasoning, does that mean that we'd need separate spell checkers to account for each regional dialect? Or are we all supposed to sound like BBC announcers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnews readers? I notice that you ducked the "gh" ==> "eff" thing. Or is "night" supposed to be pronounced "nift"? And a happy Fourth of July to you, sir. (Hmmm... why is it "fourth" and not "forth"? Sounds the same to me.) -- cmg Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 20:46:24 -0400, Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a side note, has anyone ever calculated the cumulative cost of time, ink > and paper that is wasted on all of of those extra u's used in British > spelling? They're not "wasted". The 'u' moderates the sound of the 'o' so that it is not too hard. The 'o' is emphasised more in the word 'or' than in the word 'colour'. In that way, the 'u' is actually phonetic in (British) English. -- Sridhar Dhanapalan "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by the sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to work at all." -- Douglas Adams Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Saturday 06 July 2002 06:02 pm, Michael Adams wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 03:41, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:20:37 +, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > > >On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56:16 -0400, "D. Olson"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Oh, and it's not in my dictionaries
> > > > either...
> > > >
> > > >>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=virii
> > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viruses
> > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virii
> > > >
> > > >Try using a _real_ English dictionary, like, say, the Oxford
> > > > Dictionary.
> > >
> > > "Virii" is not in the OED either (neither is "viri"). The plural is
> > > given as "viruses".
> >
> > Was it the full version OED? I'm pretty sure I saw it in there somewhere.
> > I could've been wrong, though -- it's been a while :)
> >
> > > BTW, while I'm a big fan of the OED, I would have to count
> > > Merriam-Webster as "a real English dictionary".
> >
> > Webster started his dictionary because he wanted to 'reform' the English
> > language. He had certain kooky ideas about English, and he was the
> > originator of today's 'American' spellings. Apparently, he also wanted to
> > change words like 'tongue' to 'tung' but some other people stopped him
> > before he went too far out to the deep end. Nevertheless, much of the
> > 'reform' continued. I can't trust any work that has such an agenda; it's
> > just not academically ethical.
>
> There has been a big movement out there for years to adapt English as she
> is written to a more phonetic version. I am all for it. But the
> establishment is so wrapped up in the history and entomology of words that
> it is proving impossible to get any real movement. Until the development of
> the dictionary, written English was a living breathing language (read
> Chaucer, as the first author to write in "spoken" English rather than
> Latin, French or the other classical languages).
>
> There is a groundswell happening since the mobile and texting that has seen
> much spelling reduced in a corrupted way. "c u at McD @ 5pm" is familiar to
> any college student now.
>
> The NZ school system is now not correcting young students spelling. The
> theory is not to penalise them while getting thier ideas onto paper.
>
> Foreign students have complained for years about the dificulty of learning
> English. The problem is it is a mongrel composed from so many roots. The
> written language compounds this by insisting on hanging on to many
> different root spellings, so that now we have examples like "...ough"
> having no less than four pronunciations (though, through, plough[plow for
> you yanks], thought).
>
> Personally, i would like to see written English be a living breathing
> language and dictionaries keep up with modern phonetic usage ie insert
> "kewl" alongside "cool". But dictionaries once written are seen as
> standards and "the law" and the spelling given too often used wothout
> questioning it for years add-infinitum. I like using "program" instead of
> "programme" as i see no benefit from the latter. I just wish the
> establishment were more flexible in considering the gradual adoption
> of a phonetic adaptation.
>
> What i am ranting about is the same mentality that keeps people using
> Microsoft Windows despite the alternatives. Be careful what you espouse
> Sridhar! ;-)
George Bernard Shaw once noted that the word "fish" could properly be spelled
"ghoti" using well-established English spellings: "gh" as in "laugh", "o" as
in "women", and "ti" as in "information". I guess the moral is to steer clear
of becoming involved in writing English-text-to-speech software. ("Daddy, why
isn't 'plough' be pronounced 'plowf'?")
As a side note, has anyone ever calculated the cumulative cost of time, ink
and paper that is wasted on all of of those extra u's used in British
spelling?
-- cmg
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 03:41, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:20:37 +, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > > >On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56:16 -0400, "D. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >wrote:>Oh, and it's not in my dictionaries either... > > > > > >>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=virii > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viruses > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virii > > > > > >Try using a _real_ English dictionary, like, say, the Oxford Dictionary. > > > > "Virii" is not in the OED either (neither is "viri"). The plural is > > given as "viruses". > > Was it the full version OED? I'm pretty sure I saw it in there somewhere. I > could've been wrong, though -- it's been a while :) > > > BTW, while I'm a big fan of the OED, I would have to count > > Merriam-Webster as "a real English dictionary". > > Webster started his dictionary because he wanted to 'reform' the English > language. He had certain kooky ideas about English, and he was the > originator of today's 'American' spellings. Apparently, he also wanted to > change words like 'tongue' to 'tung' but some other people stopped him > before he went too far out to the deep end. Nevertheless, much of the > 'reform' continued. I can't trust any work that has such an agenda; it's > just not academically ethical. There has been a big movement out there for years to adapt English as she is written to a more phonetic version. I am all for it. But the establishment is so wrapped up in the history and entomology of words that it is proving impossible to get any real movement. Until the development of the dictionary, written English was a living breathing language (read Chaucer, as the first author to write in "spoken" English rather than Latin, French or the other classical languages). There is a groundswell happening since the mobile and texting that has seen much spelling reduced in a corrupted way. "c u at McD @ 5pm" is familiar to any college student now. The NZ school system is now not correcting young students spelling. The theory is not to penalise them while getting thier ideas onto paper. Foreign students have complained for years about the dificulty of learning English. The problem is it is a mongrel composed from so many roots. The written language compounds this by insisting on hanging on to many different root spellings, so that now we have examples like "...ough" having no less than four pronunciations (though, through, plough[plow for you yanks], thought). Personally, i would like to see written English be a living breathing language and dictionaries keep up with modern phonetic usage ie insert "kewl" alongside "cool". But dictionaries once written are seen as standards and "the law" and the spelling given too often used wothout questioning it for years add-infinitum. I like using "program" instead of "programme" as i see no benefit from the latter. I just wish the establishment were more flexible in considering the gradual adoption of a phonetic adaptation. What i am ranting about is the same mentality that keeps people using Microsoft Windows despite the alternatives. Be careful what you espouse Sridhar! ;-) -- Michael Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK? [OT]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 July 2002 03:36 pm, robin did speak unto the huddled masses, saying: > Actually, I wouldn't have minded if his ideas on spelling had gone > further, but some of his other ideas were really kooky - IIRC he wanted > to rewrite the Bible with no bad words or references to sex. well at least it would be a lot smaller. :) - -- I knew I'd been living in Berkeley too long when I saw a sign that said "free firewood" and I said "who is firewood and what did he do?" shane Profile at: http://dmoz.org/profiles/shen.html Proud to be a DMOZ editor since 10-98 Mandrake Users Club Member http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/club/ Registered linux user #101606 @ http://counter.li.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9JjPOBwq+ZwvIN/oRAm0PAJ0UpgA1hIs0lfkF74nmHdjS6Y9ylwCeKzwa akBFcCKpIQwVlGiCXnMv76Q= =hOD9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?[OT]
Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: >On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:20:37 +, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56:16 -0400, "D. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>wrote:>Oh, and it's not in my dictionaries either... >>> >>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=virii http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viruses http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virii >>>Try using a _real_ English dictionary, like, say, the Oxford Dictionary. >>> >>> >>> >>"Virii" is not in the OED either (neither is "viri"). The plural is >>given as "viruses". >> >> > >Was it the full version OED? I'm pretty sure I saw it in there somewhere. I >could've been wrong, though -- it's been a while :) > It was the online (subscription) verison, which AFAIK is complete. > > > >>BTW, while I'm a big fan of the OED, I would have to count >>Merriam-Webster as "a real English dictionary". >> >> > >Webster started his dictionary because he wanted to 'reform' the English >language. He had certain kooky ideas about English, and he was the originator of >today's 'American' spellings. Apparently, he also wanted to change words like >'tongue' to 'tung' but some other people stopped him before he went too far out >to the deep end. Nevertheless, much of the 'reform' continued. I can't trust any >work that has such an agenda; it's just not academically ethical. > > Actually, I wouldn't have minded if his ideas on spelling had gone further, but some of his other ideas were really kooky - IIRC he wanted to rewrite the Bible with no bad words or references to sex. Sir Robin -- "We're clouds over the sea, or flecks of matter in the ocean when the ocean seems lit from within. I know I'm drunk when I start this ocean talk." - Rumi Robin Turner IDMYO Bilkent Üniversitesi Ankara 06533 http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Virii WAS I thought Wal Mart had a deal with L-MDK?
On Friday 05 Jul 2002 12:56 am, you wrote: > > "Virii" is most definitely a word. > > "Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the only correct English plural > of the word used in any of these senses is viruses, not virii . The "ii" is > used to denote plurity in latin words ending in "ius", not "us." Hence it > is "viruses", not "virii." If virus was spelled "virius," then the plural > "virii" would be correct, however, it is not." > > > > > Oh, and it's not in my dictionaries either... > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=virii > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viruses > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virii >From my dimly remembered schooldays, I thought the plural for a word ending in -us was -i, thus giving viri :-) Anne Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
