Discussion:
[review] Defekt (LitenVerse, book 2) by Nino Cipri
Add Reply
James Nicoll
2021-04-29 13:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Defekt (LitenVerse, book 2) by Nino Cipri
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/everythings-broken
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Kevrob
2021-05-02 22:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Defekt (LitenVerse, book 2) by Nino Cipri
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/everythings-broken
--
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!

Has the self-criticism session been scheduled, or is surprise
one of the chief weapons of the Fannish Inquisition?

..and how will we know that we are in "late capitalism," until the
era is over? "Modern-day capitalism" would be a more modest,
and more accurate label.† Of course, the Marxists assume it is "late,"
but their ruling era in the CCCP ended rather abruptly, and in a mode
not predicted by the classic form of their "religion".*

* Yes, technically a ghodless philosophy, but so is pure-drop
Buddhism, which also depends on assumed woo-woo, with
or without the accretion of ghodz to the original "canon."

† Some of us who care about the nomenclature don't like to use
"capitalism," as it is a term dreamed up by those who disdain
"voluntary exchange economies," to crib from Unca Miltie
Friedman. Others have icked it up and flown the word as
a flag, the way the subjects of other slurs have done.
--
Kevin R
Leif Roar Moldskred
2021-05-03 05:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.

I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
It's just manners.
James Nicoll
2021-05-03 13:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Leif Roar Moldskred
2021-05-03 13:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
Not as far as I can see, no.

Actually, I mistook the comment someone posted on your review to be
about the author rather than one of the characters (although as far
as I can see you haven't used a gendered pronoun for that character
anywhere either.) I just assumed there had originally been an occurence
of it in the text to have provoked the comment, and that you had just
corrected it when it was pointed out.

My mistake, obviously.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
pete...@gmail.com
2021-05-03 16:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
From Nino's own website: "They are represented by DongWon
Song of the Howard Morhaim Agency."

- so I think you're clear.

Pt
Paul S Person
2021-05-03 16:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
I don't generally read book reviews. No matter who they are by.

That's what I see when I read /this/ review, but in the review of
/Finna/ you appear to have used "her" for Jules:

Ava has her issues, Jules has her issues, and the two sets interact in
toxic ways.

which may explain the /second/ post, but not the first.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
James Nicoll
2021-05-03 18:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
I don't generally read book reviews. No matter who they are by.
That's what I see when I read /this/ review, but in the review of
Ava has her issues, Jules has her issues, and the two sets interact in
toxic ways.
which may explain the /second/ post, but not the first.
Fuck. I will go fix that.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Robert Carnegie
2021-05-04 15:05:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
As far as I can tell, I referred to Nino by the pronoun they. Did
I get it wrong somewhere?
I don't generally read book reviews. No matter who they are by.
That's what I see when I read /this/ review, but in the review of
Ava has her issues, Jules has her issues, and the two sets interact in
toxic ways.
which may explain the /second/ post, but not the first.
"Sister universes" perhaps. ;-)

It could be an old and/or offensive joke but:
nalbar jub bowrpgf gb srzvavar cebabhaf unf "ure" vffhrf.

I don't remember if last time, I commented on the
ASDA-y logo with or without noticing that the cover
of FINNA is decorated with bolts, nuts, and Allen keys.
Joking, or just unobservant?
James Nicoll
2021-05-03 13:26:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
As I understand it, amongst the keeping kids in cages crowd, using
pronouns other than he or she is considered as egregious as accepting
the results of a federal election.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Paul S Person
2021-05-03 16:32:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
As I understand it, amongst the keeping kids in cages crowd, using
pronouns other than he or she is considered as egregious as accepting
the results of a federal election.
And some Republican-controlled States are making the madness ... the
Law.

Oh, well, what else can you expect when you put Republicans in charge?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
The Horny Goat
2021-07-03 16:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
James Nicoll
2021-07-03 17:33:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
It may sound like I am laughing at you but only because I am in fact
laughing at you.

[A certain quotation goes here]

What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Joy Beeson
2021-07-05 02:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
Dates have nothing to do with it.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 04:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by James Nicoll
What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
Dates have nothing to do with it.
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Joy Beeson
2021-07-05 06:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
Robert Carnegie
2021-07-05 09:07:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2021-07-05 20:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.

"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you
can't /really/ get a leopard to appreciate the notion that
it has spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard,
but it will just sit there looking at you, knowing that
you are made of meat.
After a while it will perhaps kill you. -- Geoffrey Pullum
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 20:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.
Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
widely among different languages. There are some who have only
"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-07-06 16:58:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.
Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
widely among different languages. There are some who have only
"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."
And I once had a book, which claimed to be a history of spiritualism
but was mostly about Madame Blavatsky, that asserted, in the
introduction, that the "fact" that Homer saw the sea as "red" meant
that human senses were constantly become more sensitive, hence the
recent "breakthrough" in seeing dead people. This is, of course,
nonsense.

We went through this on another newsgroup, and the consensus was that
Homer knew very well what color the sea was and that Greek had a word
for it. We were using the translation "wine-red"; the Greek,
apparently, is something like "wine face" or "wine eye".

My guess was that it was a well-known tag, which audiences expected to
hear. This gained no support there, so I don't expect it to here.

Bing brings up several articles on "wine dark sea" and "wine red sea".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-07-06 17:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.
Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
widely among different languages. There are some who have only
"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."
And I once had a book, which claimed to be a history of spiritualism
but was mostly about Madame Blavatsky, that asserted, in the
introduction, that the "fact" that Homer saw the sea as "red" meant
that human senses were constantly become more sensitive, hence the
recent "breakthrough" in seeing dead people. This is, of course,
nonsense.
We went through this on another newsgroup, and the consensus was that
Homer knew very well what color the sea was and that Greek had a word
for it. We were using the translation "wine-red"; the Greek,
apparently, is something like "wine face" or "wine eye".
My guess was that it was a well-known tag, which audiences expected to
hear. This gained no support there, so I don't expect it to here.
Bing brings up several articles on "wine dark sea" and "wine red sea".
I have no idea what, if any, color words this applies to, but an intro
to one of the Homer translations I have (Fagles?) says that the Homeric
meter was so strict that many common greek words could not be used in
the poems at all.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-06 17:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On 5 Jul 2021 at 10:07:33 BST, "Robert Carnegie"
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
All changes inhibit communication.
Initially. Then add to the richness of the language.
"Wine-dark sea" and all that. Or "blue" as we'd say now, unlike poor
Homer who didn't have a handy word to use.
Color words, the number of them and what they signify, vary
widely among different languages. There are some who have only
"light" and "dark"; there are many who have "blue/green or any
other color you'd find in live vegetation" and "black/brown or
any other color you'd find in dead vegetation."
And I once had a book, which claimed to be a history of spiritualism
but was mostly about Madame Blavatsky, that asserted, in the
introduction, that the "fact" that Homer saw the sea as "red" meant
that human senses were constantly become more sensitive, hence the
recent "breakthrough" in seeing dead people. This is, of course,
nonsense.
Gosh. Makes me wonder if that's behind the entry in Ptolemy's
star-catalog describing Sirius as "red." Sirius nowadays is a
blue giant, and modern astrophysical theory holds that it always
was. But maybe it was the same usage as "wine-dark sea"?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995JHA....26..187C
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 14:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, what are your criteria for distinguish the one from the
other? I'd be interested in knowing.
Changes that improve communication vs. changes that inhibit
communication.
Okay; but if we're still talking about gendered vs. nongendered
pronouns, there are those who consider their gender none of anybody
else's business. Using a nongendered pronoun (which eliminates
number as well) may annoy you (and to a lesser extent, me), but
on the principle of calling people what they want to be called,
I'm going to try not to annoy them. (I mentioned Graydon's Halt
upthread, to whom no pronouns apply at all.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2021-07-05 13:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.

This, no doubt, was in part a consequence of the invention of the printing
press. With so many books in existence, and a literate populace, there was
a solid mass of reference material against which correct English could be
measured.

So I don't see anything surprising in there being objections to any recent
rapid and noticeable changes to the English language.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 14:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
subtractions from) the vocabulary.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-05 17:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
subtractions from) the vocabulary.
IIRC, Mark Liberman did some statistics on Language Log that showed
that the proportion of articles in the language has changed. That
is clearly significant, even if we don't understand how.

Over the course of the 19th century, people stopped complaining
about the passive progressive ("the house is being built").

Since the 19th century, the language has more or less settled on a
standard set of contractions, some of which used to be condemned
("won't").

When did the direct negation of "know" without an auxiliary
("I know not") finally disappear? I think that also happened during
the 19th century, but I may be off.

People who actually study this stuff would know a lot more.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-06 04:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
What's your cut-off date for real English words vs new usages that
sully it?
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Oh, it did. Chiefly with additions to (and to a lesser extent,
subtractions from) the vocabulary.
There have been fairly significant changes in phonetics as well (low
back merger, Northern Cities Vowel Shift, Estuary stop glottalization,
TRAP-BATH split, New England non-rhotacism, the list goes on). If
we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language was published in 1828.)
Languages change a lot, and quickly, because language evolution is
Lamarckian (culturally rather than genetically transmitted).
Well put!

Saved to disk because I want to look up some of these.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2021-07-06 23:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If
we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language was published in 1828.)
What does the preceding sentence have to do with the parenthesized
comment?

It certainly is true that Webster's American Dictionary of the English
Language did supply _a_ set of spellings for the words of the English
language. An idiosyncratic set that Noah Webster made up, long
after English speliing had already been standardized.

That Webster's spellings are generally considered to have been
an improvement on the established standard, and thus have been
adopted outside the United States by some, at least here in Canada,
is neither here nor there.

Samuel Johnson's _A Dictionary of the English Language_ was published
in 1755. *That* is when the spelling of English became standardized instead
of varying freely.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-06 23:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
If
we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language was published in 1828.)
What does the preceding sentence have to do with the parenthesized
comment?
It certainly is true that Webster's American Dictionary of the English
Language did supply _a_ set of spellings for the words of the English
language. An idiosyncratic set that Noah Webster made up, long
after English speliing had already been standardized.
That Webster's spellings are generally considered to have been
an improvement on the established standard, and thus have been
adopted outside the United States by some, at least here in Canada,
is neither here nor there.
Samuel Johnson's _A Dictionary of the English Language_ was published
in 1755. *That* is when the spelling of English became standardized instead
of varying freely.
That was probably a roadmark, yes. But what started
standardizing English spelling, not to mention vocabulary, was
the introduction of printing to England, starting with Caxton.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2021-07-07 04:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Samuel Johnson's _A Dictionary of the English Language_ was published
in 1755. *That* is when the spelling of English became standardized instead
of varying freely.
That was probably a roadmark, yes. But what started
standardizing English spelling, not to mention vocabulary, was
the introduction of printing to England, starting with Caxton.
True, but it's usually Samuel Johnson who is given the blame for
the atrocious non-phonetic spelling of the English language, which
Noah Webster tried to ameliorate a little.

John Savard
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-07 03:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
If
we're going back to 1800, a lot of spellings have changed as well, or
settled down into more standardized state after subsisting in free
variation for centuries. (Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language was published in 1828.)
What does the preceding sentence have to do with the parenthesized
comment?
Webster chose a set of spellings, many of which had been in common use
before he published his dictionary, and as a result of the popularity
of the dictionary, many people standardized on (a subset of) the
spellings he preferred, rather than the other spellings that had been
in use prior to that time. Some of his preferences were
... idiosyncratic, and not so widely adopted -- although not nearly as
muchg as Col. McCormick's a century later, which were largely ignored.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-05 15:34:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Also, the Earth is flat.

I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
or snarky, and I just can't.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Paul S Person
2021-07-06 17:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:34:36 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Quadibloc
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Also, the Earth is flat.
I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
or snarky, and I just can't.
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".

Of course, if they aren't there at all, they /could/ be a typo, as
most of these are scanned-in Kindle books with no prufredding evident.
But I can often figure out what the word means from the context, and
when that meaning is related to the current meaning of the word, then
"typo" doesn't seem as likely, whether its in the dictionary or not.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-06 22:15:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Titus G
2021-07-07 04:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
-GAWollman
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
Titus G
2021-07-07 04:23:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
-GAWollman
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
.....................................it uses many brackets.
Post by Titus G
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
I should have added that it is part of its happy chatty conversational
authorial voice, its personality, so has a purpose.
Kevrob
2021-07-07 06:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Titus G
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
-GAWollman
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
.....................................it uses many brackets.
Post by Titus G
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
Parenthetically, I love [{(brackets!)}]
Post by Titus G
I should have added that it is part of its happy chatty conversational
authorial voice, its personality, so has a purpose.
--
Kevin R
Paul S Person
2021-07-07 16:35:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Titus G
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
-GAWollman
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
.....................................it uses many brackets.
Post by Titus G
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
I should have added that it is part of its happy chatty conversational
authorial voice, its personality, so has a purpose.
So she's not just a Lisp programmer who can't shake the habit?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-07 13:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Psalm 94:3-6
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-07-07 13:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Paul S Person
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of older fiction (mid 1800s-mid 1900s)
and I've seen a /lot/ of words used in ways that either aren't in the
dictionary at all or are there but marked "obsolete".
You've probably also seen about three times as many commas as would be
used today.
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-07 13:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."

<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
--
Michael F. Stemper
A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-07 16:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-07 16:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Not just the UK. Also true in Austria, Germany, and Spain. (I'd guess
all of the EU, but I can only report personal observation.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
I do pretty much the same thing, except I don't bother with the
word "square".
--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-07-07 16:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Not just the UK. Also true in Austria, Germany, and Spain. (I'd guess
all of the EU, but I can only report personal observation.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
I do pretty much the same thing, except I don't bother with the
word "square".
{curly braces}
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-07 17:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Not just the UK. Also true in Austria, Germany, and Spain. (I'd guess
all of the EU, but I can only report personal observation.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
I do pretty much the same thing, except I don't bother with the
word "square".
{curly braces}
That works too.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-07-08 16:30:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Not just the UK. Also true in Austria, Germany, and Spain. (I'd guess
all of the EU, but I can only report personal observation.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
I do pretty much the same thing, except I don't bother with the
word "square".
{curly braces}
Or just {braces}
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-07 17:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Not just the UK. Also true in Austria, Germany, and Spain. (I'd guess
all of the EU, but I can only report personal observation.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
I do pretty much the same thing, except I don't bother with the
word "square".
If you never use curly brackets, you probably don't need to
specify "square."

But long ago, When entering the MS. for _The Interior Life_,
which was *supposed* to have three easily distinguishable (by the
casual reader, not a typography expert) sets of fonts for the
three worlds, I used naked plain text for world 1, [square
brackets] for world 2, {curly brackets} for world 3. And in
fact, whoever keyed in the text (because mine was encoded for
nroff and they didn't speak nroff) made virtually no mistakes in
keying. That the person who chose the fonts made font 1 and
font2 virtually indistinguishable by anyone who wasn't a
font-weenie was NOT the fault of the keyboarder.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
r***@rosettacondot.com
2021-07-07 18:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-07 18:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
Yup, those were the names in my high school too.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Robert Woodward
2021-07-08 04:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-07-08 05:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Don
2021-07-08 13:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
The modern Perry Rhodan epub flips those punctuation marks:

»Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?«

While the original 1962-03-30 pulp says it this way:

„Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?“

Danke,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-08 16:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Don
»Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?«
German book style.
Post by Don
„Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?“
German magazine style. That's just a tendency. You can find both
styles across various media.

Here are the quotation mark styles for a lengthy list of
languages/countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Summary_table

Another feature, not included in the summary table, is that some
languages, e.g. French, introduce lines of dialogue with a dash and
omit the quotation marks.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 16:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
»Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?«
German book style.
„Gut. Und wie geht die Sache vor sich?“
German magazine style. That's just a tendency. You can find both
styles across various media.
Here are the quotation mark styles for a lengthy list of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Summary_table
Another feature, not included in the summary table, is that some
languages, e.g. French, introduce lines of dialogue with a dash and
omit the quotation marks.
I've seen that too, in Spanish texts. (I don't read much French,
and how two of my neurons got together and remembered
"guillemets" is a mystery to me.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-08 14:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Woodward
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
I know those as angle brackets.
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
Those are guillemets.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Quadibloc
2021-07-08 16:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
Those are guillemets.
«Zut alors! Vous n'avez pas de guillemets!»

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 16:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
Those are guillemets.
«Zut alors! Vous n'avez pas de guillemets!»
No, I don't. My system only does 8-bit.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-07-08 16:41:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
And the French <<Alors! Je n'ai pas de patates.>>
I believe I have seen books using "--" to introduce speech. But
perhaps that is now antiquated.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Titus G
2021-07-08 05:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
Chevrons. As far as I knew. they are all brackets, round brackets,
square brackets and curly brackets. Wikipedia supports this classifying
paratheses as a type of bracket.
Titus G
2021-07-08 05:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
Chevrons. As far as I knew. they are all brackets, round brackets,
square brackets and curly brackets. Wikipedia supports this classifying
paratheses as a type of bracket.
Paratheses? Wow!
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 14:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
And there are also < this > (but I don't know what they are called as a
group).
Me neither, but if they were doubled, they'd be called
<<guillemets>> in France, and used instead of quotation marks.

I'd probably describe them aloud as less-than this greater-than.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Andy Leighton
2021-07-08 09:45:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 18:13:08 -0000 (UTC),
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://www.englishclub.com/writing/punctuation-brackets.htm>
I call these (parentheses), these [square brackets], and these
{curly brackets.} I don't know how many other Yanks do the same.
(Parentheses), [brackets] and {braces} here.
(Brackets), [square brackets], {curly brackets}, <angle brackets> here
in the UK.
--
Andy Leighton => ***@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams
Lynn McGuire
2021-07-08 02:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?

Lynn
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 02:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
In Britain it's the ground floor. I don't know what it is in
German.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-08 14:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
The ground floor.

That's the bureaucratic, prescriptive usage at least. In practice,
there is a lot of confusion. Judging from the comments on the
Wikipedia discussion page, there's at least a swath of south-western
Germany where "first floor" means the ground floor in ordinary
language, which matches my personal experience. Then there are
even people who think that the numbering differs whether you use
"Stock" or "Etage" for 'floor'.

If you want to be unambiguous, use "1. Obergeschoss" or short "1. OG"
for the level above the ground floor. The "Ober-" part makes it
clear that it's one up from a lower floor.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2021-07-08 15:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
The ground floor.
That's the bureaucratic, prescriptive usage at least. In practice,
there is a lot of confusion. Judging from the comments on the
Wikipedia discussion page, there's at least a swath of south-western
Germany where "first floor" means the ground floor in ordinary
language, which matches my personal experience. Then there are
even people who think that the numbering differs whether you use
"Stock" or "Etage" for 'floor'.
If you want to be unambiguous, use "1. Obergeschoss" or short "1. OG"
for the level above the ground floor. The "Ober-" part makes it
clear that it's one up from a lower floor.
There was a "space-warp" cross-walk corridor on campus where they
joined two buildings. You would enter the (completely level) corridor
and the third floor and exit on the 4th or vice versa. I think I heard
they eventually resolved the confusion by giving one building a "Ground"
floor and renumbering the others 1,2,3 etc. I haven't been in there
in 30 years so I can't say for sure though..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Quadibloc
2021-07-08 16:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
There was a "space-warp" cross-walk corridor on campus where they
joined two buildings. You would enter the (completely level) corridor
and the third floor and exit on the 4th or vice versa. I think I heard
they eventually resolved the confusion by giving one building a "Ground"
floor and renumbering the others 1,2,3 etc. I haven't been in there
in 30 years so I can't say for sure though..
I'm quite surprised. I would have thought that solution would create
confusion, not solve it. That is: having any one building in which the
North American convention of the main floor also being the first
floor would create severe confusion, while the fact that a walkway
between buildings might join different floors of the two buildings
ought not to confuse anyone - particularly if a little signage is
provided so that as people exit, they know which floor they're
now on in the building that is their destination.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 16:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
The ground floor.
That's the bureaucratic, prescriptive usage at least. In practice,
there is a lot of confusion. Judging from the comments on the
Wikipedia discussion page, there's at least a swath of south-western
Germany where "first floor" means the ground floor in ordinary
language, which matches my personal experience. Then there are
even people who think that the numbering differs whether you use
"Stock" or "Etage" for 'floor'.
If you want to be unambiguous, use "1. Obergeschoss" or short "1. OG"
for the level above the ground floor. The "Ober-" part makes it
clear that it's one up from a lower floor.
There was a "space-warp" cross-walk corridor on campus where they
joined two buildings. You would enter the (completely level) corridor
and the third floor and exit on the 4th or vice versa. I think I heard
they eventually resolved the confusion by giving one building a "Ground"
floor and renumbering the others 1,2,3 etc. I haven't been in there
in 30 years so I can't say for sure though..
Oh, gosh. There's a whole building like that on the Berkeley
Campus of the University of California. It's called Dwinelle
Hall and it houses a lot of English and other languages' classes.
It's built on a hill. There's a classroom wing and a faculty
office wing.

So if you go in the main (eastern) entrance, you're on the
floor where all the classrooms have three-digit numbers
beginning with 1. There's a floor above it where all the
classrooms have three-digit numbers beginning with 2.
Beneath the 1XX floor there's a floor where all the
classrooms have *two*-digit numbers, and beneath that there
are a few rooms (class-, storage-, and I forget what else)
beginning with B.

But if instead of going upstairs or down, you go north, you get
into the office wing, which has rooms with *four*-digit numbers,
until you get to the bottommost floor which has (IIRC)
three-digit numbers. Also, this wing is in the shape of a hollow
square surrounding a small garden that no one but Grounds and
Buildings employees can get into. This is so each of the offices
can have a window.

And I think I'm forgetting another few odd details; it's been a
while.

Poul Anderson wrote a story set in and around Dwinelle once. I
think it was the one about two telepaths detect each other from
a distance, and they're very eager to meet in person ... until
they get close enough to read ALL each other's thoughts, and turn
away in disgust. Anyone remember the title?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2021-07-08 16:14:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
Just as in Britain, where the main floor is the ground floor, in France it is
the rez-des-chaussées. As for German, it's the Erdgeschoß.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 16:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
Just as in Britain, where the main floor is the ground floor, in France it is
the rez-des-chaussées. As for German, it's the Erdgeschoß.
Okay. Can you give a literal translation of rez-des-chauss\xc3\xa9es ?
(My system can only read 8-bit, so I had to copy and paste the
term.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-07-08 16:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 21:33:26 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
It's the ground floor (Erdgeschosse, if I can believe a Bing result
that uses lower case for a German noun), of course.

What else would the floor at ground level be called?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-08 16:47:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 21:33:26 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
[those are not brackets]
I wouldn't call them that, but I speak en_US. However, as GBS is reputed
to have said, the US and the UK are "two countries separated by a common
language."
I heard Hal explaining to our grandson yesterday about the
different meanings of "first floor" in the US and the UK.
...
Germans follow that also. The first floor in Germany is the second
floor in the USA. I am not sure what the bottom floor is in Germany,
the NULL floor ?
It's the ground floor (Erdgeschosse, if I can believe a Bing result
that uses lower case for a German noun), of course.
What else would the floor at ground level be called?
In the US, most often, the first floor.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-07 17:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Titus G
In Martha Wells' Murderbot series, she uses many brackets. (All over the
place (including inside (brackets) and outside (brackets)). (Sometimes
just after the last lot (of brackets)).
She must have been a LISP programmer.
And a poor one, as those aren't properly nested. (The first one is
never closed.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
Quadibloc
2021-07-06 23:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Quadibloc
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Also, the Earth is flat.
I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
or snarky, and I just can't.
I will admit that the English language changed in ways that were
detectable between 1900 and 1965. For example, "transistor" was
added to the language.

But for the most part, there really weren't any in-your-face differences
between the grammar and usage of formal writing, even if some new
slang terms arose, new events and technologies required names, and
some terms formerly regarded as slang became part of the general
vocabulary.

Nothing earth-shattering like the use of singular "they" to avoid using
the old rule that the male includes the female, or the replacement of "thou"
by "you".

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-07 00:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Quadibloc
As far as I'm aware, between 1900 and 1965, or even between 1800 and
1965, the English language did not change in any noticeable manner.
Also, the Earth is flat.
I really don't know how else to comment on that. I've been sitting
here for a while trying to think of something, anything, serious
or snarky, and I just can't.
I will admit that the English language changed in ways that were
detectable between 1900 and 1965. For example, "transistor" was
added to the language.
But for the most part, there really weren't any in-your-face differences
between the grammar and usage of formal writing, even if some new
slang terms arose, new events and technologies required names, and
some terms formerly regarded as slang became part of the general
vocabulary.
And "computer" meant a clerk (usually female) who operated a
calculating machine, as late as the Lensman series.
Post by Quadibloc
Nothing earth-shattering like the use of singular "they" to avoid using
the old rule that the male includes the female, or the replacement of "thou"
by "you".
Ah, yes. "The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter,
and the singular number the plural."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-03 18:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
Becky Chambers uses "xie" (pronounced Z; I asked her) for all
genders, all species, no matter how many genders they have. And
at least one species has genders that are determined by social
role.

And Graydon Saunders's Commonweal stories have a character named
Halt (simultaneously creepy and benevolent) who has no pronouns
at all; one speaks of Halt doing whatever Halt wants to do, all
in Halt's good time. (Halt's date of birth is recorded as "the
memory of man runneth not to the contrary".)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
William Hyde
2021-07-03 20:49:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
I recall people with the same attitude towards Ms in the early 70s ("But it
means Manuscript!"). A man may have mistaken his wife for a hat, but
it isn't clear to me that a woman has yet been mistaken for a manuscript.

Nero Wolfe, that woke fella, pointed out over seventy years ago that we
need more pronouns in English.

If you don't accept new pronouns, you're going to get "they" instead. The new
pronouns add to the language, singular they detracts from it. I have already
run into problems with it on several occasions. "Ze" or "Zhe" would have
worked much better for me.

Whether they will ever agree on a consistent set of such is an open question.

William Hyde
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-03 21:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
If you don't accept new pronouns, you're going to get "they" instead. The new
pronouns add to the language, singular they detracts from it. I have already
run into problems with it on several occasions. "Ze" or "Zhe" would have
worked much better for me.
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-03 22:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
And this is a good thing.

Plenty of languages lack grammatical gender; we shouldn't take the
Indo-European default as normative just because a history of colonial
expansion makes it very common today. Many other languages have more
than just two or three noun classifications. Even English has almost
entirely lost gender concord for everything except pronouns and a few
fussy adjectives borrowed from French.

We English speakers don't need more pronouns. (Some other language
communities may, but that's up to the speakers of those languages to
figure out collectively, through the normal process of cultural
evolution.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
David Johnston
2021-07-03 22:47:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by William Hyde
If you don't accept new pronouns, you're going to get "they" instead. The new
pronouns add to the language, singular they detracts from it. I have already
run into problems with it on several occasions. "Ze" or "Zhe" would have
worked much better for me.
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
I doubt it. But there is a kind of fiction where it is standard practice.


Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-05 15:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
I'm confident that it will not replace "it". But then I suspect
you didn't want to say that.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 16:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
I'm confident that it will not replace "it".
Probably not; but you never know.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-06 02:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I've already mentioned that IMO, before the end of this century
"they" will have replaced all third-person pronouns, ignoring
both gender and number, just as "you" replaced all second-person
pronouns, ignoring both number and social rank.
I'm confident that it will not replace "it". But then I suspect
you didn't want to say that.
And lots of languages that lack masculine-feminine gender binary still
have animate-inanimate, or human-nonhuman, noun classification. Even
Finnish has separate pronouns for human and nonhuman referents,
although there's no concord. (Swedish, AIUI, has two genders, common
and neuter, and does have gender concord.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Dimensional Traveler
2021-07-03 22:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking
about them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could
correct that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
I recall people with the same attitude towards Ms in the early 70s ("But it
means Manuscript!"). A man may have mistaken his wife for a hat, but
it isn't clear to me that a woman has yet been mistaken for a manuscript.
Nero Wolfe, that woke fella, pointed out over seventy years ago that we
need more pronouns in English.
If you don't accept new pronouns, you're going to get "they" instead. The new
pronouns add to the language, singular they detracts from it. I have already
run into problems with it on several occasions. "Ze" or "Zhe" would have
worked much better for me.
Whether they will ever agree on a consistent set of such is an open question.
That will depend on how long the people insisting on new pronouns keep
demanding new ones as soon as their last demand is being met just so
they can keep rubbing other people's faces in their own difference from
"normal" people.
--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2021-07-04 19:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
I recall people with the same attitude towards Ms in the early 70s ("But it
means Manuscript!"). A man may have mistaken his wife for a hat, but
it isn't clear to me that a woman has yet been mistaken for a manuscript.
Well, there was Mitt Romney's "binder full of women."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.
William Hyde
2021-07-04 20:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:49:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
I recall people with the same attitude towards Ms in the early 70s ("But it
means Manuscript!"). A man may have mistaken his wife for a hat, but
it isn't clear to me that a woman has yet been mistaken for a manuscript.
Well, there was Mitt Romney's "binder full of women."
Also Fritz Leiber's "Desk Full of Girls". Though that didn't work out well for the
desk owner.

Wait ... you set me up for that, didn't you? You wanted to subtly bring some SF back
to an SF group. Cunning devil!

William Hyde
Magewolf
2021-07-05 00:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 03 May 2021 00:55:47 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Kevrob
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Using someone's preferred title or, yes, pronouns when talking about
them is not a matter of being woke, but of being courteous.
I don't know about James, but if I was being unintentionally
discorteous I wouldn't mind someone pointing it out so I could correct
that.
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
I recall people with the same attitude towards Ms in the early 70s ("But
it means Manuscript!"). A man may have mistaken his wife for a hat, but
it isn't clear to me that a woman has yet been mistaken for a
manuscript.
Nero Wolfe, that woke fella, pointed out over seventy years ago that we
need more pronouns in English.
If you don't accept new pronouns, you're going to get "they" instead.
The new pronouns add to the language, singular they detracts from it. I
have already run into problems with it on several occasions. "Ze" or
"Zhe" would have worked much better for me.
Whether they will ever agree on a consistent set of such is an open question.
William Hyde
If it was about pronouns there might be some kind of consensus but since
a lot of it is about being the most special and unique as soon as one
starts to gain traction the herd of cats splits and come up with three
more.
Quadibloc
2021-07-05 07:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.

John Savard
Michael F. Stemper
2021-07-05 13:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Horny Goat
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.
Quadibloc
2021-07-05 13:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael F. Stemper
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 15:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Michael F. Stemper
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.
But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
possible."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Robert Woodward
2021-07-05 16:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Michael F. Stemper
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.
But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
possible."
I will point out what was being suppressed was "they" being used as
singular indefinite (in general referring to one or more), which is NOT
the same thing as referring to a specific individual.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Quadibloc
2021-07-06 23:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Michael F. Stemper
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.
But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
possible."
I'll admit I'm happy to tolerate the split infinitive.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-07 00:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Michael F. Stemper
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the
eighteenth
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
century onwards. It may have been used long ago, when the English language
was different, and would have seemed archaic to us, but it was regarded as
incorrect from at least 1800 until at least 1965, so it was clearly not to be found
in what people have come to regard as normal and grammatically correct
modern English.
But the definition of "normal and grammatically correct modern
English" has been laboriously pulling away over the centuries
from its original form, which amounted to "as much like Latin as
possible."
I'll admit I'm happy to tolerate the split infinitive.
Teresa Neilsen Hayden pointed out that you can always say, "It's
not a split infinitive, it's a phrasal infix!"

That said, I try to avoid the construction when possible.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Garrett Wollman
2021-07-07 03:47:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Teresa Neilsen Hayden pointed out that you can always say, "It's
not a split infinitive, it's a phrasal infix!"
As Jespersen put it:

The name ["split infinitive"] is misleading, for the preposition
'to' no more belongs to the infinitive as a necessary part of it,
than the definite article belongs to the substantive, and no one
would think of calling "the good man" a split substantive.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Christian Weisgerber
2021-07-05 16:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Michael F. Stemper
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
Even that article admits that it was regarded as incorrect from the eighteenth
century onwards.
That's when people started studying the grammar of English and
started having ideas how the language _should_ be, because of what
they considered logical, or what was obviously correct because it
was this way in Latin, etc.

As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains:

As most commentators note, the traditional pronoun for [referring
to indefinite pronouns and singular nouns] is the masculine third
person singular, he, his, him. This tradition goes back to the
18th-century grammarians, who boxed themselves into the position
by first deciding that the indefinite pronouns must always be
singular. They then had to decide between the masculine and
feminine singular pronouns for use in reference to the indefinites,
and they chose the masculine (they were, of course, all men).
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Joy Beeson
2021-07-06 02:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:03:23 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Horny Goat
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
That argument reminds me of a discussion on some other newsgroup.
Someone argued that it was silly to be horrified at machines that
ground up garbage and mixed it with grey water because there is always
some garbage in dishwater.

The response was "There's a difference between 'some' and 'lots'."
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Robert Carnegie
2021-07-06 09:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:03:23 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
Post by Michael F. Stemper
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Horny Goat
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.
If somebody can't handle it after eight centuries, they ought to go
back to grammar school.
<https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/>
That argument reminds me of a discussion on some other newsgroup.
Someone argued that it was silly to be horrified at machines that
ground up garbage and mixed it with grey water because there is always
some garbage in dishwater.
The response was "There's a difference between 'some' and 'lots'."
Referring to food waste, I think my parents' waste
disposal drain machine came with advice to run
more water while using the machine. Solved?
Dorothy J Heydt
2021-07-05 14:58:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by The Horny Goat
Generally I agree with you BUT I will not use made up pronouns (Ze,
Zhir etc) - I'll call them by name instead of pronouns instead. I
respect the English language and will not defecate on it.
If some made-up neuter animate pronoun becomes generally accepted,
I would be fine with that. The use of "they" as singular, however, has the
potential to cause confusion.
The use of "you" as singular has the same potential. Hence the
many nonce-words to signify "you plural, as distinguished from
singular"), some of which have become entrenched in their speakers'
groups.

I remember an article written, rather tongue-in-cheek, by a man
from the northeast part of the US who had married a southern
woman. One of the usages he mentioned was "Why don't all you-all
come over this evening?" Meaning, he said, "all you-all, not
just some of you-all."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2021-05-03 16:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Defekt (LitenVerse, book 2) by Nino Cipri
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/everythings-broken
--
The commentariat gigged James for Unwoke Pronoun Use!
Has the self-criticism session been scheduled, or is surprise
one of the chief weapons of the Fannish Inquisition?
..and how will we know that we are in "late capitalism," until the
era is over? "Modern-day capitalism" would be a more modest,
We don't.

We have no idea what /this/ time will be considered 500 years from
now. "The Later Dark Ages", for all /we/ know.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Loading...