OT Where's my royalties?

Ian G Batten

In article <MPG.1b4a6f62549fb464989816@news.clara.net>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > Because English is neither mathematics nor a programming language.
>
> And that means we should add to the complication? It's not just the
> sciences that strive for simplicity you know. Try listening to the local

Languages don't strive for simplicity. If you believe they do, you're
simply wrong. Attempting to impose order on the disordered world around
you? You really _should_ look at the Autistic Spectrum, you know.

> > > And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed to "pin") in the
> > > OED?
> >
> > Please. Learn what a dictionary is.
>
> "dictionary n. a book that lists and explains the words of a language or
> the topics of a subject." - Oxford English Minidictionary.

Oh God: A meta-dictionary-flame. Dictionaries _describe_ language, they
do not _prescribe_ it. See the word ``lists''? Listing does not imply
approving: I can _list_ serial killers without advocating them, can I
not?

> Since the previous post was using (quite rightly) the OED as a

What do you mean ``quite rightly?'' The OED has no official status in
the language: it's the leading historical dictionary, that's all. If
your purpose is to write or read the language as it is today, it's
utterly the wrong choice. Chambers has lots of words, hence its place
close to the heart of crossword setters, I would advocate Collins
Cobuild even for native speakers, but lexicographers speak highly of the
main Collins dictionary. There's a Oxford not-OED dictionary that some
friends worked on that's said to be very good, but I can't recall the
title.

If you happen to meet some real lexicographers, and I'm guessing you've
not done so yet, get them to explain the words ``citation slip'' and
``corpus'', and why the OED uses the former while every reputable
dictionary of the last ten or twenty years uses the latter.

> reference, and as I do not own a copy, I requested the "official"
> definition. The request remains unanswered.

What on earth makes you believe the OED is in any way ``official''?
Another lucky gullible victim of the OUP subliminal ``don't buy
Chambers, don't buy Collins, they're not _official_'' myth.

ian

Ian G Batten

In article <MPG.1b4aa139bc87536398981c@news.clara.net>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Alan Braggins armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk opined the following...
> > It meant a _person_ who computed things.
>
> By all accounts I've seen it mean't either a person / machine that

Mean't? And we're arguing grammar with this man. Don't claim it's
``just a typo'' --- you don't mistakes like that because you've got
chubby fingers.


ian

Chris Malcolm

armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) writes:

>In article <MPG.1b4a710e3af94524989817@news.clara.net>, Jon Senior wrote:

>>> Here's a question for you. What do you call the electronic equipment in
>>> front of you that you type your postings on? The rest of us would call
>>> it a computer, but you can't, because you object to common words having
>>> their meaning changed. Computer meant something completely different
>>> in, say, 1930 to what it means now.

>>I believe that it meant a computational device. Something that computed
>>things. It may be a smaller box, but it still computes.

>It meant a _person_ who computed things.

In the days when only people computed. Presumably you also object to
the modern use of the words "calculator" and "printer"?

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

>Chris Malcolm cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk opined the following...
>> No, what it is usually due to is incorrect assumptions. The problem
>> that thinking has to grapple with is that we are often mistaken about
>> what is going on.

>This is not a problem with a logical language however. This is the
>problem of "defining the problem".

Of course. But the context of my reply was someone objecting to the
illogicalities of English. From the point of view of a somewhat
logical but less than perfectly informed creature trying to think
about the world, the illogicalities of English are a virtue.

>> One useful human response to getting impaled either by the sterility or
>> the excessive fruitfulness of logic, is to brainstorm, an essentially
>> illogical process guided by chance, analogy, intuition, rhyme, error,
>> guessing, etc.. The point is that it works, as has been shown by the
>> success of artificial intelligence techniques based on these illogical
>> methods of escaping from the problems that arise when people who do
>> not know everything try to be too logical about what they think they
>> know.

>These are problems of definition again. "when people who do not know
>everything try to be too logical about what they think they know." - The
>problem is not that logic has failed, but that they do not have all the
>information.

I did not mean to imply that logic could not do its proper logical
job, but that it is sometimes called upon to do a job it cannot do,
just as the best knife in the world may fail when called upon to do
the job of a screwdriver.

>> I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then philosophers wouldn't
>> have had to invent science :-)

>Philosophers never "invented" science. Some of them just got so involved
>that they decided to use a new name. ;-)

It wasn't degree of involvement that separated scientists from
philosophers, it was the realisation that finding out more by means of
experiment was sometimes a more profitable method of disovery than
logical argument.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jon Senior

Ian G Batten I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org opined the following...
> Mean't? And we're arguing grammar with this man. Don't claim it's
> ``just a typo'' --- you don't mistakes like that because you've got
> chubby fingers.

No you make mistakes like that because your brain is switched off. But
thank you for picking up on the mistake and not on the content. And
<pedant> "mean't" is a spelling error, not a grammatical one </pedant>.

Jon

Jon Senior

Chris Malcolm cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk opined the following...
> >This is not a problem with a logical language however. This is the
> >problem of "defining the problem".
>
> Of course. But the context of my reply was someone objecting to the
> illogicalities of English. From the point of view of a somewhat
> logical but less than perfectly informed creature trying to think
> about the world, the illogicalities of English are a virtue.

A different point but true. When you don't have all the information,
logic is naturally going to suffer. At which point the woolly nature of
language becomes useful.

> >Philosophers never "invented" science. Some of them just got so involved
> >that they decided to use a new name. ;-)
>
> It wasn't degree of involvement that separated scientists from
> philosophers, it was the realisation that finding out more by means of
> experiment was sometimes a more profitable method of disovery than
> logical argument.

The first scientists as we call them now considered themselves to be
philosophers. As far as I know, no aspect of philosophy ever cut itself
off properly, they just used more and more specialised language until
they were a separate entity. My old "philosophy of mind" tutor used to
cite cognitive science as an example of this. 15 years ago he could go
to a CS conference and would understand it all. 10 years down the line
the discussions were the same but the terminology was now "customised"
to the extent that he couldn't follow the debates.

Jon

Gawnsoft

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:23:35 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Philosophers never "invented" science. Some of them just got so involved
>that they decided to use a new name. ;-)

Oh? I was still doing classes in 'Natural Philosophy' at Glasgow Uni
relatively recently - although they have now gone with the flow and
teach 'Physics' like everyone else.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Jon Senior

Ian G Batten I.G.Batten@batten.eu.org opined the following...
> > And that means we should add to the complication? It's not just the
> > sciences that strive for simplicity you know. Try listening to the local
>
> Languages don't strive for simplicity. If you believe they do, you're
> simply wrong.

The people who use them tend to.

> Attempting to impose order on the disordered world around
> you? You really _should_ look at the Autistic Spectrum, you know.

Back to trying to diagnose mental illnesses? Please read any of Tim
Hall's recent posts for my disclaimer to those who can't be bothered to
read my posts properly.

> Oh God: A meta-dictionary-flame. Dictionaries _describe_ language, they
> do not _prescribe_ it. See the word ``lists''? Listing does not imply
> approving: I can _list_ serial killers without advocating them, can I
> not?

I was demonstrating that I knew what a dictionary was.

You said "Please. Learn what a dictionary is."
I responded with the OEMD definition to demonstrate that I was already
aware of the meaning.

> > Since the previous post was using (quite rightly) the OED as a
>
> What do you mean ``quite rightly?'' The OED has no official status in
> the language: it's the leading historical dictionary, that's all.

Your words: "the leading historical dictionary".

> If
> your purpose is to write or read the language as it is today, it's
> utterly the wrong choice. Chambers has lots of words, hence its place
> close to the heart of crossword setters, I would advocate Collins
> Cobuild even for native speakers, but lexicographers speak highly of the
> main Collins dictionary. There's a Oxford not-OED dictionary that some
> friends worked on that's said to be very good, but I can't recall the
> title.
>
> If you happen to meet some real lexicographers, and I'm guessing you've
> not done so yet, get them to explain the words ``citation slip'' and
> ``corpus'', and why the OED uses the former while every reputable
> dictionary of the last ten or twenty years uses the latter.
>
> > reference, and as I do not own a copy, I requested the "official"
> > definition. The request remains unanswered.
>
> What on earth makes you believe the OED is in any way ``official''?
> Another lucky gullible victim of the OUP subliminal ``don't buy
> Chambers, don't buy Collins, they're not _official_'' myth.

And once again you decided to ignore the points made in my post,
preferring to continue on a personal rant about dictionaries instead.
Have you actually read anything I've written in this thread, or do you
just choose the topics of your posts based on a keyword search?

For example. Despite *your* request that I "learn what a dictionary is",
neither you nor Tony have provided a definition for PIN (as apposed to
pin) that justifies the use of PIN Number (Which if you trawl back
through the thread, you'll notice was the topic of conversation at the
point where you decided to weigh in!).

Jon

Gawnsoft

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:08:35 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote (more or less):

>Jon Senior wrote:
>> Colin Blackburn colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk opined the following...
>>> I agree on 'almost unique' etc. But tragedy/tragic has nothing
>>> specifically to do with death except in a limited journalistic sense.
>>
>> How about "really unique"? That's always a good one!
>>
>> Jon
>
>Well we could start with the dictionary definition of unique:
>
>Unique - u-nek, adj. sole; without a like; _often used loosely for unusual,
>pre-eminent_; found solely in, belonging solely to etc. (Chambers 20th
>Century)
>
>So it seems unique is no longer what you think it is

Given that a lot of database design is about finding unique
identifiers, a meaning of unique that meant qualifiedly non-unique
would be a pain.

But then, I'm fairly unique in holding that opinion still. ;-)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> A different point but true. When you don't have all the information,
> logic is naturally going to suffer. At which point the woolly nature of
> language becomes useful.
>

As has been pointed out, all the logic in the world will not help with
intrinisically indeterminate situations. That's the basis of both chaos
theory and quantum theory.

Tony

Tony Raven

Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> Given that a lot of database design is about finding unique
> identifiers, a meaning of unique that meant qualifiedly non-unique
> would be a pain.
>
> But then, I'm fairly unique in holding that opinion still. ;-)

Isn't that just a variant on one of the standard paradoxes of set theory?

Tony

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Despite *your* request that I "learn what a dictionary is",
> neither you nor Tony have provided a definition for PIN (as apposed to
> pin) that justifies the use of PIN Number (Which if you trawl back
> through the thread, you'll notice was the topic of conversation at the
> point where you decided to weigh in!).
>

At the risk of Ian's opprobrium I'll use the Concise Oxford which is to hand
rather than fetch the Chambers ;-)

PIN /pin/ n. personal identification number (as issued by a bank etc. to
validate electronic transactions) [abbr.]

So there you have it, PIN is a word in its own right.

Tony

Ian G Batten

In article <MPG.1b4b291baaaafe04989822@news.clara.net>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > Languages don't strive for simplicity. If you believe they do, you're
> > simply wrong.
>
> The people who use them tend to.

They don't. Some, with excessive zeal for imposing order, do. They end
up in the Simplified English Society, or banging on about Esperanto.
The rest of us like our language rich and chewy, filled with ambiguity
and complexity.

> > Oh God: A meta-dictionary-flame. Dictionaries _describe_ language, they
> > do not _prescribe_ it. See the word ``lists''? Listing does not imply
> > approving: I can _list_ serial killers without advocating them, can I
> > not?
>
> I was demonstrating that I knew what a dictionary was.

You can say the words, indeed, but you don't understand them.

> Your words: "the leading historical dictionary".

Exactly. So its relevance to English as it's spoken today is pretty
low. Certainly, an adult learner of English as a foreign language would
do well to go elsewhere if they want to (a) be understood and (b)
understand what's said to them.

> For example. Despite *your* request that I "learn what a dictionary is",
> neither you nor Tony have provided a definition for PIN (as apposed to
> pin) that justifies the use of PIN Number (Which if you trawl back

Common usage and (therefore) corpus evidence. That's all that's
needed. If people who speak English say something, that _is_ English.

ian

Ian G Batten

In article <MPG.1b4b25f324ea4563989820@news.clara.net>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> <pedant> "mean't" is a spelling error, not a grammatical one </pedant>.

You're the one who wants all contractions expanded up.

ian