OT Where's my royalties?



anonymous coward [email protected]ere opined the following...
> Cladistically, I like to argue that dolphins _are_ fish.


Go on then.

> On the same
> reasoning, I don't see why one shouldn't argue that a slow worm is a worm,
> but one that happens to be unusually closely related to many lizards.


Generally, genetics. Having looked up cladistics, I'm not really any the
wiser as to its purpose, other than to increase the number of known
"species".

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:
>>>
>>> "Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides a continuous
>>> tense for a non-existant verb.

>>
>> The verb exists. Deal with it.

>
> So I gather... I stand corrected (If horrified!).
>


Why are you horrified. Its a perfectly correct process. The word "laser" was
created by those working in the field just like the word television,
telephone, x-ray and many other new words in the language were. It follows
the rules for the creation of a verb from the noun or do you object to having
your arm x-rayed, Wimbledon televised and you telephoning (or even e-mailing)
someone?. You seem to want to set yourself up as an arbitrary arbiter of what
can and can't come into the English language. Unfortunately that job is
already taken by the OED which documents and decides on the permanancy of the
many new words entering the language every day.

Tony
 
Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Again... PIN Number
> contains redundancy.
>


I think you are making a basic grammatical mistake of thinking PIN is an
abbreviation standing for Personal Identification Number so that you double up
on "number" if you say PIN number. In fact it is an acronym which is a word
in its own right formed from the initial letters of other words and accepted
as a word in the OED. As an acronym there is no redundancy in PIN number. If
you broke all acronyms down into the words they were derived from then
frequently it would create nonsense sentences whereas correctly used as a word
in its own right its fine. For example scuba-dive is fine and recognised by
the OED whereas self contained underwater breathing apparatus dive clearly
isn't.

Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, not just like PIN. PIN tends to get used (annoyingly) as an
> adjective, despite being a noun.


Not everything that precedes a noun is an adjective. Do you object to
``petrol engine'' and ``bike rack'' on the same basis? Neither petrol
nor bike is an adjective. I think the concept you're reaching for is
``compound noun''.

ian
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> can and can't come into the English language. Unfortunately that job is
> already taken by the OED which documents and decides on the permanancy of the
> many new words entering the language every day.


Wrong (and although I take Keith's point about appeals to authority, I
know a _lot_ of dictionary people). OED documents the words that are
used. It takes no stance on permanency. The test is if a word is in
sufficiently widespread use as to justify inclusion, not some guess as
to the word's longevity. Indeed, one might half-seriously argue that
permanent words have _less_ need to be in a dictionary --- it's the
words that are obsolete in 2104 which will need to be documented so that
people reading books written in 2004 can be understood.

ian
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > The child doesn't exist. It's all very well postulating situations that
> > don't exist as "thought experiments", but it bore no relationship to reality.

>
> Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?


Casper Hauser is the only recorded remotely comparable case, and even
that is hedged around with a lot of uncertainty.

> Laser is an abbreviation


It's an acronym, not an abbreviation. You don't even believe it's an
abbreviation yourself, as you'd then have to spell it `LASER' or even
`L.A.S.E.R''. Indeed, it's passed beyond the word of acronyms like NATO
and UNSCOM, and passed into the world of nouns which don't require upper
case. Deal with it.


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.

What do you call the large metal objects in the countryside that hold up
electricity wires? The rest of us call them pylons, but you presumably
don't, because it has a pre-existing and well-established meaning which
_isn't_ large metal etc.

ian
 
Ian G Batten wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> can and can't come into the English language. Unfortunately that job is
>> already taken by the OED which documents and decides on the permanancy of
>> the many new words entering the language every day.

>
> Wrong (and although I take Keith's point about appeals to authority, I
> know a _lot_ of dictionary people). OED documents the words that are
> used. It takes no stance on permanency. The test is if a word is in
> sufficiently widespread use as to justify inclusion, not some guess as
> to the word's longevity. Indeed, one might half-seriously argue that
> permanent words have _less_ need to be in a dictionary --- it's the
> words that are obsolete in 2104 which will need to be documented so that
> people reading books written in 2004 can be understood.
>


You are indeed correct about permanancy and I used sloppy language (always a
hazard in this type of discussion). By permanancy I meant (and I stand to be
corrected on this) that it could be demonstrated to have entered the language
and was not just a one off occurrence.

Tony
 
Ian G Batten <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.


http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/blog/archive1/People_as_Computers.html

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-390476; Room F2-025 x 3147
mailto:[email protected] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html
 
In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>> No, hang on. The subject is the use of neologisms, not what's on TV. How
>> does the creation of the word 'lasing' indicate 'dumbing down'? Who on
>> Earth is using 'lasing' in a 'dumb' manner?

>
>"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides a continuous
>tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase.


I'm sure you don't, but if you _were_ to emit coherent light as a result
of stimulation in a population inverted state, how else would you describe
it succinctly?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?lase
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I think you are making a basic grammatical mistake of thinking PIN is an
> abbreviation standing for Personal Identification Number so that you double up
> on "number" if you say PIN number.


But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number. So why add the
extra word? Other than because you didn't understand what PIN meant?

> In fact it is an acronym which is a word
> in its own right formed from the initial letters of other words and accepted
> as a word in the OED.


And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed to "pin") in the
OED?

> As an acronym there is no redundancy in PIN number. If
> you broke all acronyms down into the words they were derived from then
> frequently it would create nonsense sentences whereas correctly used as a word
> in its own right its fine. For example scuba-dive is fine and recognised by
> the OED whereas self contained underwater breathing apparatus dive clearly
> isn't.


So I can't go on a self contained underwater breathing apparatus dive?
While long-winded (Hence the acronym) it makes perfect grammatical
sense. The expansion elaborates on the acronym as an explanation of its
meaning. And the OED would have no problem with the above sentence
because... its a sentence!

Jon
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number. So why add the
> extra word?


Because English is neither mathematics nor a programming language.

> And what is the definition of the word PIN (As apposed to "pin") in the
> OED?


Please. Learn what a dictionary is.

> meaning. And the OED would have no problem with the above sentence
> because... its a sentence!


The OED would have problem with the above sentence, because it's (note
not its) not a grammar, but a dictionary. If you want a descriptive
grammar,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000370257X/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-3717367-5708644
would do nicely, but I suspect that what you want is a prescriptive
grammar. And no one has written one of those for half a century or
more.

ian
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

>Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...


>> There is also a virtue to it. We use these ambiguities to think round
>> corners in situations where logic would lead one either to the wrong
>> conclusion or a sterile dead end. Were language purely logical, that
>> dream of logicians for a language so pure and logical that it would be
>> impossible to form and invalid argument in it, then our language would
>> be seriosuly restricted in its power as a cognitive tool. The
>> vagueness and ambiguity of language is a powerful tool (allied to its
>> underlying logic) which is responsible for the very considerable
>> linguistic augmentation of human mental powers over those of our dumb
>> fellow creatures.


>A fascinating and bizarre take on life (Especially for an informatics
>man!). I would have said that the ambiguity allows for beauty in the
>form of poetry, or the cutting double-edged speeches often made. Given
>that so much of "pure thought" comes down to logic, it seems strange to
>suggest that a logical language could lead to the "wrong conclusion".
>Surely that would suggest a failure in either the logic, or the
>language, not the fact that the language was logical!


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. Logic is wonderful when we know exactly what is
going on, as in mathematics, or any branch of science in which we
already know enough to be able to use mathematical models. Essentially
the problem is "what do you do next when you're stuck?" The
mathematician Polya has written an excellent book about what
mathematicians do when they're stuck, i.e., logic has failed. A great
deal of human thinking, and a great deal of scientific hypothesising,
is about what you do next when you're stuck, when logic has failed
you.

Another problem is what you do when logic is too successful, i.e.,
there are dozens of logical implications leading to hundreds more, and
so on. That's the problem that arises when playing chess, for
example. Nobody (or machine) can afford to think that perfectly
logical and predictable game through to the end.

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.

I'm tempted to suggest that if logic worked then philosophers wouldn't
have had to invent science :)
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +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/]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Surely that would suggest a failure in either the logic, or the
> language, not the fact that the language was logical!


I presume that the Goedel's ``On Formally Undecidable Propositions''
(1931) isn't something that you know much about? I suggest you go and
read about it --- http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html might be a start
--- and then come back to us.

Summary: in any sufficiently complex (which in this context means ``not
very complex at all'') axiomatic system, there will be propositions
which cannot be proven true or false within the confines of the system
itself.

ian
 
Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the following...
> Not everything that precedes a noun is an adjective. Do you object to
> ``petrol engine'' and ``bike rack'' on the same basis? Neither petrol
> nor bike is an adjective. I think the concept you're reaching for is
> ``compound noun''.


While you are correct, in both of your examples there is a case for the
preceding word being treated as an adjective, on the grounds that it
adds description to the noun. :)

Jon
 
Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the following...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
> > But it is. PIN contains all the meaning of PIN number. So why add the
> > extra word?

>
> 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
accents in Cambridgeshire and see if you can find the t's. They don't
just avoid them for effect!

> > 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.

Since the previous post was using (quite rightly) the OED as a
reference, and as I do not own a copy, I requested the "official"
definition. The request remains unanswered.

> > meaning. And the OED would have no problem with the above sentence
> > because... its a sentence!

>
> The OED would have problem with the above sentence, because it's (note
> not its)


Yeah yeah. <note to self - when arguing grammar, speeling, or language,
always check posts thoroughly before sending>

> not a grammar, but a dictionary. If you want a descriptive
> grammar,
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/000370257X/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-3717367-5708644
> would do nicely, but I suspect that what you want is a prescriptive
> grammar. And no one has written one of those for half a century or
> more.


Wrong. The OED would have *no* problems with the sentence since every
word in it is correct.

TR: "For example scuba-dive is fine and recognised by the OED whereas
self contained underwater breathing apparatus dive clearly isn't."
JS: "And the OED would have no problem with the above sentence
because... its <sic> a sentence!"

So if you had actually read the thread, you'd have understood why I
posted what I did, and who it was that suggested that the OED would be
having problems with a sentence.

Jon
 
Ian G Batten [email protected] opined the following...
> > Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?

>
> Casper Hauser is the only recorded remotely comparable case, and even
> that is hedged around with a lot of uncertainty.


And again... Are you suggesting that the experiment is impossible? Yes
or no? Please provide a justification.

> It's an acronym, not an abbreviation. You don't even believe it's an
> abbreviation yourself, as you'd then have to spell it `LASER' or even
> `L.A.S.E.R''. Indeed, it's passed beyond the word of acronyms like NATO
> and UNSCOM, and passed into the world of nouns which don't require upper
> case. Deal with it.


Accepted. Several times. "Deal with it".

> 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.

> What do you call the large metal objects in the countryside that hold up
> electricity wires? The rest of us call them pylons, but you presumably
> don't, because it has a pre-existing and well-established meaning which
> _isn't_ large metal etc.


If you define a pylon as a pyramidal shaped tower then its meaning is
unchanged. If you specifically refer to an electricity pylon (Compound
noun or adjective!) then obviously it is not synonymous with an Egyptian
gateway.

Jon
 
Chris Malcolm [email protected] 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".

> Logic is wonderful when we know exactly what is
> going on, as in mathematics, or any branch of science in which we
> already know enough to be able to use mathematical models. Essentially
> the problem is "what do you do next when you're stuck?" The
> mathematician Polya has written an excellent book about what
> mathematicians do when they're stuck, i.e., logic has failed. A great
> deal of human thinking, and a great deal of scientific hypothesising,
> is about what you do next when you're stuck, when logic has failed
> you.
>
> Another problem is what you do when logic is too successful, i.e.,
> there are dozens of logical implications leading to hundreds more, and
> so on. That's the problem that arises when playing chess, for
> example. Nobody (or machine) can afford to think that perfectly
> logical and predictable game through to the end.


You use heuristics as a general rule. ;-)

> 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'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. ;-)

Jon
 
In article <[email protected]>, 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.
 
Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the following...
> It meant a _person_ who computed things.


By all accounts I've seen it mean't either a person / machine that
computed things. The key point being the presence of a computational
process, not the thing doing it. With the aid of some particularly
perverse chemistry, I can "compute" things using DNA. This would be a
computer. But it still wouldn't resemble the thing on my desk.

Jon
 
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:08 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:

>So I can't go on a self contained underwater breathing apparatus dive?
>While long-winded


But being long winded should't matter if the tanks are full.


Tim