OT Where's my royalties?



On 25/6/04 9:53 pm, in article [email protected],
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>> Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?
>
> LASER. I have no problems with. Nor scuba for that matter,
> although I don't know its origins off-hand.

LASER - light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation
SCUBA - self-contained underwater breathing apparatus

..d
 
David Martin [email protected] opined the
following...
> LASER - light amplified by stimulated emission of
> radiation SCUBA - self-contained underwater breathing
> apparatus

Thankyou.

Jon
 
Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> It's been just under a thousand years since the Norman
> invasion. That seems a good baseline for 'English'.
> However, if you're reduced to nitpicking that figure . . .

No. Seems as good as any other. I wasn't sure what the
significance was.

> >> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who
> >> > teach it, call cats dogs, and vice versa. They also
> >> > answer yes for no, and no for yes. When it has
> >> > reached adulthood, it is "released" into the "wild"
> >> > and left to survive. You encounter this person and
> >> > after a while, work out what has that they're
> >> > knowledge is faulty. Do you correct them?
> >> >
> >> > </thought experiment>
> >>
> >> Well, the analogy isn't nearly the same. Nobody sane
> >> calls a cat a dog. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet is known
> >> as such by millions of people.
> >
> > So in the thought experiment above... is the child
> > insane?
>
> 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?

> > Did you in fact read it, or did you just decide that I
> > referred to cats as dogs and charge on regardless?
>
> No, I read it. And I told you the analogy isn't relevant.
> It isn't.

Is too. ;-) A thought experiment allows you to explore
avenues of thought in a similar manner to a real experiment.
There is nothing impractical or impossible about the
experiment I offered.

> > Personal Idenitification Number Number. You know you're
> > absolutely right there!
>
> *Yes, I am right*. See, people don't say "personal
> identification number number". They say "PIN Number". It's
> not the same thing at all. I can tell the difference, so
> why can't you?

And "pin" means?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pin&db=* will
provide some answers. The page contains two definitions
which are abbreviations. If you treat "pin" as a word in its
own right, then a "pin number" makes no sense (Except
possibly when referring to a large numbered collection of
sharp metallic objects!). If it is an abbreviation, then the
sentence should make sense with the abbreviation expanded.

> > And you think that I would be the one lacking social
> > skills in that situation?
>
> That's right.

OK. Limited circle of friends? Do you find it difficult to
hold normal conversations without resorting to swear words?
Or is it just strangers at whom you are happy to swear?

> > Could you really not deal with them without resorting to
> > insults and foul language?
>
> I could. I would choose not to. See, sometimes it's not
> "resorting" to insults and "foul" language. Sometimes,
> it's heartily deserved as the first response.

Such as when the cagers try to kill me. Even then it's the
adrenaline talking.

> > Yes. It is. Speaking as someone who has relatively
> > recently been educated I can safely say that there is a
> > significant dumbing down occurring in this society. If
> > you are in any doubt, try checking the TV schedules,
>
> 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? How does the 50-year usage of "Phonetic
> Alphabet" lead to dumbing down?

"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides a
continuous tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase.
Scientists have not lased. Laser is an abbreviation. It
already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less
sense as one part of a non-existant verb. For someone to
think "lasing" is possible, implies a major crack in their
comprehension of language. Not the rules of grammar as
defined in a book, but its daily usage.

The usage of "Phonetic Alphabet" does not necessarily lead
to dumbing down (Although in some cases it does lead to
misunderstanding). It does however shown up a lack of
understanding.

> What word would you prefer for that act? And does your
> distaste stretch to all neologisms concerned with new
> technology?

Why does it need "a" word? What was wrong with "firing a
laser"? It has served us well for many years, which seems to
be both your argument for the use of a word, and against it.

> > I presume that you can cite a number of points at which
> > I have forced this issue into an unrelated conversation.
>
> You said yourself that you correct people whenever it
> comes up. It appears to be a crusade.

The key point here is "whenever it comes up". It has come up
now about 3 times in my life. You implied that I go out of
my way to bring the topic up. I do not.

> <snigger> You'll have to do a bit better than that. Having
> little regard or patience for pedants is hardly
> sociopathic behaviour.

I never suggested it was (Although it may be indicative of
such a tendency). Having abusive language as a considered
response to a stranger offering a correction would suggest
sociopathic behaviour.

Jon
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:14:09 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Did any one find out about my royalties then?

Stop trying to change the subject!

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:10:01 +0100, "Clive George"

>"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Who among us who has ever read Richard Scarry to
>> small children can ever forget the wonderful
>> character Able Baker Charlie? (Along with Jason the
>> Mason and Lowly Worm.)
>
>But am I alone in thinking that Richard Scarry books were
>desperately dull?

Maybe not alone, but probably in a very small minority.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:16:43 GMT, Graeme
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote in
>news:57db8bde.0406250652.24b63b03 @posting.google.com:
>
>> Who among us who has ever read Richard Scarry to
>> small children can ever forget the wonderful
>> character Able Baker Charlie? (Along with Jason the
>> Mason and Lowly Worm.)
>>
>
>Lowly Worm was cool! How the hell did he drive that wee car
>with no hands though?

He was a typical bloody cager.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:44:01 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My dictionary gives it pronounciation as du-ter-ium

But what about it's phonetic spelling?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
 
Jon Senior wrote:
>
> "Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides
> a continuous tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase.
> Scientists have not lased. Laser is an abbreviation. It
> already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less
> sense as one part of a non-existant verb. For someone to
> think "lasing" is possible, implies a major crack in their
> comprehension of language. Not the rules of grammar as
> defined in a book, but its daily usage.
>

Laser is an acronym being a word, in this case a noun or
adjective, formed from the initial letters of other words.
Lasing is the present participle (not continuous tense) of
the verb "to lase" which is a verb you will find in any
modern dictionary and is certainly not a "non-existent verb"
nor a major crack in comprehension of the language. It is in
fact a word widely used in the photonics and optics
communities and well accepted in the standard modern
dictionaries as an integral part of the language. If you
doubt me I refer you to any copy of the OED from the mid
1960s onwards.

Tony
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:04:38 +0100, David Martin
<[email protected]> () wrote:

>On 25/6/04 3:35 pm, in article 2k2rg9F17ki2dU1@uni-
>berlin.de, "Robert Bruce" <willbedeletedoffserver@analytical-
>dynamics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>>>
>>> I used to know all of them. Anybody feel like filling in
>>> the gaps?
>>
>> xhosa?
>
>A for 'orses
[...]
>Z for breezes

I'm glad you posted this. Saved me the trouble. :)

--
Matt K Waikikamukau,NZ
 
Dave Kahn wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:44:01 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
> family.com> wrote:
>
>> My dictionary gives it pronounciation as du-ter-ium
>
> But what about it's phonetic spelling?

I would have done that but don't have the necessary
character set installed ;-)

Tony
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:59:05 +0100, Keith Willoughby
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's been just under a thousand years since the Norman
>invasion. That seems a good baseline for 'English'.

At this William rose, cool but 'aughty, And said 'Give us
none of your cheek; You'd best have your throne re-
upholstered, I'll be wanting to use it next week.'

When 'Arold heard this 'ere defiance, With rage he turned
purple and blue, And shouted some rude words in Saxon, To
which William answered - 'And you.'

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain
 
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > >> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who
> > >> > teach it, call
cats
> > >> > dogs, and vice versa. They also answer yes for no,
> > >> > and no for yes.
When
> > >> > it has reached adulthood, it is "released" into the
> > >> > "wild" and left
to
> > >> > survive. You encounter this person and after a
> > >> > while, work out what
has
> > >> > that they're knowledge is faulty. Do you correct
> > >> > them?
> > >> >
> > >> > </thought experiment>
>
> Is too. ;-) A thought experiment allows you to explore
> avenues of thought in a similar manner to a real
> experiment. There is nothing impractical or impossible
> about the experiment I offered.

Doing the experiment you suggest would definitely be
impractical...

cheers, clive
 
In message <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk@?.?.invalid> writes
>Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
>>
>> *Yes, I am right*. See, people don't say "personal
>> identification number number". They say "PIN Number".
>> It's not the same thing at all. I can tell the
>> difference, so why can't you?
>
>And "pin" means?
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pin&db=* will
>provide some answers. The page contains two definitions
>which are abbreviations. If you treat "pin" as a word in
>its own right, then a "pin number" makes no sense (Except
>possibly when referring to a large numbered collection of
>sharp metallic objects!). If it is an abbreviation, then
>the sentence should make sense with the abbreviation
>expanded.
>
Depends on what you mean by 'makes sense' really. While it
is 'incorrect' to use 'PIN number', if someone is asked for
their PIN number, they certainly understand what you mean,
so it certainly makes sense.
--
Chris French, Leeds
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:56:16 +0100, David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On 25/6/04 12:14 pm, in article
>[email protected], "Richard Bates"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Various alternatives..
>
>The best I found are
>
>C as in cue D as in double-U E as in Ewe T as in Oolong
>
>
>http://www.wis.co.uk/justin/phonetic-alphabet.html
>http://www.panix.com/~vr/alphabet.html

A is for 'orses...

--
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
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:53:21 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Gawnsoft [email protected]
>opined the following...
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:08:11 +0100, Jon Senior
>> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):
>>
>> >Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the
>> >following...
>>
>> ...
>> >> > Unchecked, this sort of thing leads to words like
>> >> > Lasing[1]. It is indicative of a general dumbing
>> >> > down and lack of awareness.
>> >>
>> >> Is it bollocks. Is indicative of people who are
>> >> comfortable with a lack of anally-retentive accuracy,
>> >> and who have some ridiculous phobia about neoligisms,
>> >> as if William Shakespeare was the last person who was
>> >> allowed to make up words.
>> >
>> ...
>> >> "Lasing" is a fantastic addition to the English
>> >> language.
>> >
>> >And here we must part company!
>>
>> Do you object to Shakespeare?
>
>Not particularly.
>
>> During his lifetime, he near doubled the number of words
>> in the English language.
>
>By adding new ones, not by changing the meaning of the
>existing ones.

'Lasing' is a new word.

So why do you object to its addition?

>
>> Do you object to 'television' or 'televising'?
>
>No. Well. I object to a number of things shown on
>television, and thus, televised!
>
>> Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?
>
>LASER. I have no problems with. Nor scuba for that matter,
>although I don't know its origins off-hand.

LASER is an abbreviation, which becomes the acronym laser.

Just as 'Self contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus' gets
abbreviated to 'SCUBA', and becomes the acronym 'scuba'.

>
>> How about 'cellphone'?
>
>Nope.
>
>Why?

Because you onjected to 'lasing', seemingly because it was a
newly-minted word. (Or 'inkhorn word' as they were known in
Shakespeare's time).

--
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
 
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:22:41 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or
less): ...
>"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides
>a continuous tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase.
>Scientists have not lased.

True - in the same way that broadcasters don't televise.

>Laser is an abbreviation.

No, LASER is an abbreviation. 'laser' is an acronym.

> It already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less
> sense as one part of a non-existant verb. For someone to
> think "lasing" is possible, implies a major crack in their
> comprehension of language. Not the rules of grammar as
> defined in a book, but its daily usage.

So you assert, but you've yet to demonstrate.

--
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
 
chris French wrote:
>
> Depends on what you mean by 'makes sense' really. While it
> is 'incorrect' to use 'PIN number', if someone is asked
> for their PIN number, they certainly understand what you
> mean, so it certainly makes sense.

I suspect if you asked for their PI number they would look
thoroughly confused and try to tell you its 3.142.......

Tony ;-)
 
chris French wrote:

> Depends on what you mean by 'makes sense' really. While it
> is 'incorrect' to use 'PIN number', if someone is asked
> for their PIN number, they certainly understand what you
> mean, so it certainly makes sense.

I used to use a PIN number to get money out of an ATM
machine at the TSB bank.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
toes of giants. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > During his lifetime, he near doubled the number of words
> > in the English language.
>
> By adding new ones, not by changing the meaning of the
> existing ones.

Well, _someone_ was changing the language between Chaucer
and Shakespeare. The latter you can read easily, even with
the spelling not modernised. The former is very hard work,
probably impossible, for the untrained reader without a
parallel translation.

> > Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?
>
> LASER. I have no problems with. Nor scuba for that matter,
> although I don't know its origins off-hand.

How come you capitalise Light Amplification by Stimulated
Emmission of Radiation, but don't capitalise Self Contained
Underwater Breathing Apparatus?

ian
 
Jon Senior wrote:

> Keith Willoughby [email protected] opined the following...
> And "pin" means?
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pin&db=* will
> provide some answers. The page contains two definitions
> which are abbreviations. If you treat "pin" as a word in
> its own right, then a "pin number" makes no sense

Sure it does. Everyone knows what a PIN number is. All the
sense in the world.

> (Except possibly when referring to a large numbered
> collection of sharp metallic objects!). If it is an
> abbreviation, then the sentence should make sense with the
> abbreviation expanded.

Why?

[...]

>> 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? How does the 50-year usage of
>> "Phonetic Alphabet" lead to dumbing down?
>
> "Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides
> a continuous tense for a non-existant verb.

The verb exists. Deal with it.

> I do not lase. Scientists have not lased. Laser is an
> abbreviation.

Acronym.

> It already made little sense as a noun. It makes even less
> sense as one part of a non-existant verb.

You seem to have a different meaning than most people for
"it makes no sense". The word 'lase' may not meet your high
standards for neologisms, but it makes perfect sense.

> For someone to think "lasing" is possible, implies a major
> crack in their comprehension of language. Not the rules of
> grammar as defined in a book, but its daily usage.

You're entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. It's a new word.

> The usage of "Phonetic Alphabet" does not necessarily lead
> to dumbing down (Although in some cases it does lead to
> misunderstanding). It does however shown up a lack of
> understanding.

No. *****ing about it shows a lack of understanding of how
language is used. We've been calling a lizard a "slow worm"
for hundreds of years, for exampe, and English has
survived. Most people manage to deal with these
inconsistencies in language.

>> What word would you prefer for that act? And does your
>> distaste stretch to all neologisms concerned with new
>> technology?
>
> Why does it need "a" word?

I'm afraid you'll have to ask the people who started using
it. They obviously saw a need.

> What was wrong with "firing a laser"?

Nothing. What's wrong with 'lasing'?

> It has served us well for many years, which seems to be
> both your argument for the use of a word, and against it.

Not at all. It's my argument in favour of "NATO Phonetic
Alphabet" and "lasing". It's not my argument against
"phonetics" as a scientific discipline, nor against "to fire
a laser", because I'm not against them at all. You're the
one proscribing words.

>> > I presume that you can cite a number of points at which
>> > I have forced this issue into an unrelated
>> > conversation.
>>
>> You said yourself that you correct people whenever it
>> comes up. It appears to be a crusade.
>
> The key point here is "whenever it comes up". It has come
> up now about 3 times in my life. You implied that I go out
> of my way to bring the topic up.

No, I didn't. I said whenever you get the opportunity. Ie,
whenever it comes up. The other interpretation of that is
"every single waking hour", which would be . . . a perverse
interpretation.

> I do not.
>
>> <snigger> You'll have to do a bit better than that.
>> Having little regard or patience for pedants is hardly
>> sociopathic behaviour.
>
> I never suggested it was (Although it may be indicative of
> such a tendency). Having abusive language as a considered
> response to a stranger offering a correction would suggest
> sociopathic behaviour.

Maybe where you come from. Where I come from - Earth -
correcting strangers on their use of correct words is
considered rude behaviour.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ "The truth is,
these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."