English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Jez

00:14

@MετάEd mmm yes, "gay". it seems that Wiktionary's bizarre policy is to list a word's definitions in the order in which they were historically used

MετάEd

@Jez Run screaming away from Wiktionary.

Mitch

@Jez that's what OED does

Jez

hence the first definition of "test" is about a physical hearth, which is ludicrous as it's almost never used to mean that anymore

MετάEd

And I will run screaming away to the grocery store. Nite.

Mitch

@MετάEd But yes, I agree with that sentiment.

Jez

00:15

@Mitch well it seems dumb to me. i use a dictionary because I want to (primarily) know what a word means now, not what it first meant

that's what the etymology section's for

Mitch

@Jez OK then. don't use OED

Jez

i don't

it's a shame wiktionary has the same policy though

Mitch

wiktionary is crap

Jez

i was about to correct it, but then i saw their entry for "nice"

the real definition is at number 6.

...........

so, i'm creating a test

Mitch

@Jez they mark all the earlier ones with obsolete, pretty clear that you shouldn't use those.

Jez

00:18

and if you don't know what that is, look it up. oh, you did. well it isn't a hearth. :-)

seriously WTF is the use of knowing the order in which meanings of a word developed? how is that more useful

it's basically useless

Mitch

but you could say the same thing about spelling. they assume a dictionary is supposed to tell you the right spelling, but it is terrible being used for that because to find the word you already have to know how to spell it.

Jez

that's less of a problem. you may well be looking up a word that's already been spelt out

Cerberus

@MετάEd Stop speaking blasphemous languages! Heresy!

Mitch

same with meanings, it's all about recognizing the spelling/meaning. the dictionary is not a learning text, it is a reference to see things that are already known. A dictionary is not a good text to reconstruct a language (though I agree with you I wish it were)

Jez

see things that are already known? erm, no.

i have discovered many a meaning of a word i didn't know with a dictionary. although, one that lists the common usages first, not wiktionary-style.

wiktionary-style gives you bullshit definitions because the word "originally meant that and a handful of people still use it that way so we won't call it obsolete"

Mitch

00:33

wiktionary-style gives you bullshit definitions because the people who edit there don't know English very well.

Jez

ok then, s/wiktionary/OED/

Mitch

No not at all.

Jez

99.9% you are not interesting what the oldest definition is, but what the most common current definition is

Mitch

write a letter to OED

Or write a bot to rearrange all of wiktionary

Jez

i'd need a bot to rewrite the editors' brains

Mitch

00:39

ugh...I just had a terrible thought... wikipedia is becoming the de facto reference for everything no matter what the quality comparison is with Encyclopedia Britannica or Larousse or whatever. Wikipedia has great coverage and lots of little problems with accuracy and bias (especially in history) but the math and science stuff gets better and better

the ugh is that wiktionary may becaome the same sprt of reference. Whatever the OED has, people just make up shit in wiktionary and that will somehow become the standard.

Jez

the OED is retarded too as we've established

Mitch

It's not descriptivism gone amok, it's amateurs making mistakes that get set in stone.

Cerberus

@Mitch Example?

Jez

oed.com/…

heh

1. The cupel used in treating gold or silver alloys or ore; now esp. the cupel, with the iron frame or basket which contains it, forming the movable hearth...

that is not how people use the word "test". you. fucking. idiots.

i've learnt something new. i really had no idea the OED did that.

Mitch

@Jez I don't think you have a good context. OED has a good reason for doing many things it does. there's many essays at it's beginning describing these choices, and one of them is explaining the chronological order. that wiktionary does it is simple cargo cult thinking.

Jez

00:43

@Mitch i cant think of a single good reason for the chronological order. presumably they use the BS argument that "which use is the most common current use is just a matter of opinion" - yeah, so? informed opinion is useful. and which words make it into the dictionary at all is also a matter of opinion.

Cerberus

@Mitch I don't know. The potential content of a dictionary is far more limited than that of a dictionary. That is why there are plenty of fairly decent English dictionaries already available online; by decent I mean reliable and complete. This is not the case for encyclopaediae, except Wikipaedia. I don't think Wiktionary will become super popular.

Mitch

@Cerberus look at wiktionary's test and OED's. Wiktionary obviously paraphrased OED and totally screwed it up. Now Jez thinks wiktionary says that a 'test' used to mean 'hearth' and that is obviosuly not the case (I trust OED here)

Jez

@Mitch what

OED has the same definition

Mitch

@Jez chrono order of meaning is consistent with their 'citation' order of instances in literature, the first printing of the word followed by later instances.

Jez

@Mitch but they don't have any means of indicating how commonly used the definition is.

if they combined it with a "commonness rating" or something it might be OK

Mitch

00:47

you quoted OED: 1. The cupel used in treating gold or silver alloys or ore; now esp. the cupel, with the iron frame or basket which contains it, forming the movable hearth...

Jez

but as it is there is no way to figure out what the word probably means

Mitch

what's the corresponding quote from wiktionary?

Jez

"A cupel or cupelling hearth in which precious metals are melted for trial and refinement."

Mitch

@Jez most dictionaries don't give a relative frequency. OeD (and wiktionary) sometimes say rare, obsolete, archaic, but that's it.

Jez

@Mitch yes they do. they put the most frequently used definitions at the top.

Mitch

00:49

@Jez I agree, but they'd probably have to have a legitimized corpus, and then give a diachronic frequency (like google ngrams)

Cerberus

@Mitch Hmm why would Jez think that? Wiktionary clearly gives the etymology.

I don't see a huge problem with Wiktionary.

@Jez That would be a good idea.

Robusto

b

Cerberus

Umm.

Mitch

@Jez exactly. that is a poor rephrasing of the OED which gets it wrong. a test was never a 'hearth', hearth, in the OED definition, is only referred to tangentially.

Cerberus

@Robusto Are you Rob's kitty?

Robusto

00:50

@Cerberus mt

Cerberus

@Robusto What is this?

Robusto

short for "mistell"

I was typing in another window and this one accidentally got focus as I was typing.

Cerberus

Let me consult Wiktionary...

Now we know.

Jez

@Cerberus yes, but failing that, the most common definitions going first gives a rough idea as to the probable meaning of the word

which is a hell of a lot more useful for what you use a dictionary for than the chronological order of word meanings

Cerberus

Who are "you"?

Jez

00:53

"one"

Cerberus

The chronological order gives you an idea of the etymology, which in turn lets the Grundbedeutung shimmer through.

Jez

there's an etymology section.

put the etymology there.

Mitch

etymology is not simple

Cerberus

@Jez The etymological section doesn't tell you how the various senses evolved.

Mitch

the different definitions are those -in- english and chronologically by their first printing in English. The etymology is from other languages

Cerberus

00:55

Etymology can be from English and from other languages.

Jez

@Cerberus frankly, i don't care. if you want that info, put it in Etymology.

in definitions, put the most common definitions first

im amazed this isn't just obvious

Robusto

@Jez Those things change. Chronology doesn't.

Jez

@Robusto that's no excuse. there are new editions of dictionaries. it's even less of an excuse for wiktionary, which can change at will.

Cerberus

@Jez Or you could say the Oxford English Dictionary is basically an etymological dictionary.

@Robusto Very good point.

Jez

@Cerberus hardly. i had considered that half an hour ago. it's no justification.

Robusto

01:00

@Jez It's not an excuse, it's a reason. This way anyone can come to the dictionary and see the chronological chain of meaning for the word. It's an orientation of sorts.

Jez

dictionaries have to change all the time as the language evolves

@Robusto great. unfortunately it sucks for the 99% of people wanting to come to the dictionary and see what a word they just saw means NOW.

Robusto

@Jez Where do you get the figure of 99%?

Is that 99% of you, personally?

Jez

just about anyone i've ever heard of using a dictionary ever

Robusto

If so, I believe it.

@Jez Pfft, come back when you actually have an argument and some statistics.

Mitch

@Robusto I agree with his 99% metaphorically = most

Cerberus

01:02

@Jez Changing by adding things is a lot more feasible than redoing lots of research all the time.

@Jez That is not what the Oxford English Dictionary is for.

Robusto

99% of people don't want to learn how to use a dictionary properly. So fuck 'em.

Jez

so you often have people going, "hmm, i don't know that word. i'll look it up in the dictionary and get a list of 5 things it could mean, depending on chronology"

Cerberus

Another argument: if you order by frequency, you lose any ordering by related meaning. It will look chaotic.

Jez

@Cerberus well i shall take the into account in future by avoiding the OED, not that i use it much already

i fail to see much utility in it

Robusto

@Jez Isn't there a seat in the snug of your local that's missing your ass?

Cerberus

01:03

@Jez The Oxford English Dictionary is not a learner's dictionary; it is an academic dictionary.

Jez

@Robusto that wasn't an answer

Mitch

@Cerberus I tried to explain that.

Robusto

@Jez You just want to rant.

Jez

i'm not a learner

Cerberus

Why not?

Robusto

01:04

You can't argue, so you just blather.

Jez

i'm a proficient speaker

Mitch

I have the accent down

mostly

Cerberus

You want to learn the meaning of a word. Ergo you are a learner in that particular situation.

Jez

meh, ok.

so basically dont bother with the OED if you want to learn the meaning of a word.

i doubt Dr. Johnson would've approved.

Cerberus

You should also remember that the Oxford English Dictionary is not specifically about current English.

It is about all Englishes.

Mitch

01:06

I wouldn't let him prescribe me anything so I think that's fair.

@Cerberus even ... shudder ... Scots English

Cerberus

By the way, today this kid asked me whether it was correct to say, "I explained him that this wasn't possible".

Jez

so where's a scenario where I would want to use the OED, then? out of interest.

Cerberus

I told him it was wrong, but I found it hard to explain why.

Mitch

Did you explain him?

Cerberus

Heh.

Mitch

01:07

was the kid in school? EFL?

Cerberus

I just said to was the idiomatic preposition to use with explain, i.e. that this was just a particularity of the word explain.

School.

Mitch

There's no why!

Cerberus

He's 13 or so.

Jez

@Cerberus the noun that the transitive form of explain takes is what is being explained, rather than to whom.

Mitch

I had a French teacher that, when we had questions about some grammatical point, would tell us to figure out the reason why it should be a certain way.

Cerberus

01:08

@Jez Yes, but you can leave out to with similar verbs.

I sent her a letter.

I explained her the idea.

Jez

@Mitch LOL. with french???? half of it is "because the French say so"

Mitch

And in some sense he was right because patterns do tend to fall into rules.

but there's no reason to the reason.

@Cerberus That's starting to sound OK. dialectical but OK.

I think we should repeat it ourselves more

Cerberus

@Mitch Not to me. You're being ss'ed.

Jez

[SD Remix] DuckTales - Fun on the Moon

►

Cerberus

Well, yes, dialectical, sure.

Mitch

01:10

@Cerberus ha ha. ss you!

what does 'ss' mean?

Robusto

@Mitch Schütz Staffeln?

Mitch

the disease of foreign language teachers, getting used to the mistakes the students say.

Cerberus

@Mitch Yes, that is what this is about: often times, a phaenonemon is part of some pattern, and knowing the pattern renders our learning more effective. But sometimes no pattern is known and it is just idiom.

@Mitch Semantic satiation.

Mitch

semantic satioation semantic satiation semantic satiation semantic satiation.

Robusto

@Cerberus Maybe this one has something to do with verbs that are only ever transitive? Just a thought.

Mitch

01:12

Ugh. I just want a ham and cheese sandwich. Fried. no batter.

Robusto

@Mitch You can't have ham and cheese if you are undergoing semitic satiation.

It ain't kosher.

Mitch

I was at a bar mitzvah last week. They had pigs in blankets...

finish your own joke

A priest a mullah and a rabbi were playing golf...

...and the bartender says, 'We're all out'.

rimshot

@Robusto That sounds like a really good dessert... that turns and eats out your heart with bitterness.

Cerberus

@Robusto Not sure what you mean: explain is only every transitive, but send is not?

Robusto

Jesus Christ and Moses were playing golf. Moses hits a drive about 250 yards, lands dead center of the fairway. He smiles as he cedes the tee box to JC, who steps up and without even looking whacks the ball into the rough.

But then a gopher grabs the ball in its mouth and runs it out onto the fairway. A falcon swoops down and picks up the gopher, flies it toward the green, and drops it a little ways from the pin. The gopher runs over and drops the ball in the hole.

Moses looks over at JC and says, "Look, are you gonna play golf or are you gonna fuck around?"

@Cerberus I dunno. I haven't thought through it that far.

Cerberus

OK.

By the way, do you notice the improvement in performance, e.g. when opening apps?

Browsing web pages?

Robusto

01:19

@Cerberus I notice a big improvement in everything, speedwise. Especially the keyboard swype recognition, which was getting horrible on the G2.

When the G2 got upgraded to lollipop you could tell the new OS was looking for a faster processor.

Mitch

Ugh... computers. which law is that that says 'processing expands to fill all available resources, even when new resources are added'?

Cerberus

@Robusto Interesting. I experience no speed issues with Swype whatsoever.

Mitch

I feel like thae same things are possible with the same range of response times as when the first GUIs came out. (Macintosh/Windows/X11)

Robusto

@Mitch Hardware and software are in a constant battle for equilibrium. Hardware makes a leap, then software wrings every last CPU cycle out of it and then some, at which point hardware makes another leap, etc.

Cerberus

@Robusto Do you still have your G2?

Robusto

01:23

@Cerberus I use the LG keyboard.

@Cerberus Yeah.

Cerberus

I don't remember the LG keyboard's being slow...

As a test, it would be interesting to see whether the keyboard is still slow after factory-resetting the G2.

Mitch

@Robusto but it's like layer after layer of new software, repeating and translating to lower layers with minimal functional improvement, ech layer taking up more processing and more memory all to the same user result as existed >20 years ago.

Cerberus

To some degree, I think that is true...

Mitch

Also, why are there no moonbase plans as a staging area on the way to Mars?

Robusto

@Mitch Also, there's never enough time to fix the bugs, but there's always time to add more features.

Cerberus

01:26

But what is also true is that we install tons of crap on our computers, and a new computer is still crapless so it will feel faster no matter what.

Robusto

@Mitch Because it's just not far enough away to be of any use, and there aren't any helpful resources there.

Mitch

@Cerberus It's not totally true. I can talk to my phone and have it reasonably respond with an answer sometimes. That is definitely progress.

@Robusto lower gravity is a great resource.

Cerberus

@Mitch You actually use that?

Mitch

haha. no.

Robusto

@Mitch But you have to GO to the moon, LAND there (wasting resources), then TAKE OFF again (wasting more resources).

And the moon is only 0.17% as far from the Earth as Mars is.

That's like saying, "I'm going to go to the store. Why don't I pull out of the garage, park in front of the house, and then start the car again and drive the rest of the way to the store?"

Mitch

01:29

I remember (because I'm old as fuck) way back in ~90 our whole floor got new PCs... and they all came with cameras and microphones, and software to control Windows by voice. No sane person bothered with that beyond the first fun day of hearing coworkers dorky 'close window' 'open system icon' 'take picture of my junk'

@Robusto progress!

Robusto

Also, landings and takeoffs are the most dangerous part of the trip. Why add an extra cycle?

Mitch

Hey man I want a moon base and they should build it. I think that's enough justification for them.

@Robusto OK fine. plans for a much more comprehensive space station. staging is important. they have to assemble a whole bunch of different things in space before it all goes to mars.

Robusto

Is this right? I just did the math and it seems the moon orbits the earth at a relative speed of 1706 km/hr?

Mitch

wait... do these first plans involve people returning from Mars?

Robusto

Can it be that slow?

Mitch

01:33

@Robusto 300KM away...8K radius surface speed of earth ->25K in 24 hours

or 1K per hour

so 2K k/h seems slow

(I was doing miles)

Robusto

Actually it's more like 384,500 km from earth.

Google says 384,400 km.

Mitch

KM was poor abbrev for 1000 miles

it's not 298K miles?

Robusto

No, it's around 240,000 miles

Mitch

oops...yep.

Robusto

But eventually it will get to 298k miles, since it is receding from the earth at a few centimeters a year.

Mitch

01:36

360Kkm

Robusto

> The Moon continues to spin away from the Earth, at the rate of 3.78cm (1.48in) per year, at about the same speed at which our fingernails grow.

Mitch

@Robusto for the purposes of argument, let's go with, say, now.

@Robusto ah thanks... goes to clip nails

OK the rotation of the earth is totally irrelevant..wait no it is relevant because the moons rotation is locked with revolution around earth, the point of the moon is just in proportion with the speed of earht's rotation.

wait that's stupid again.locked with earth over a month

Cerberus

@Mitch 360 Mm

Mitch

so 2 pi (distance of moon)/28days/24 hours ~= 2*22/7 * 238K/26^2

2*22*34/676

= a number

so the moon goes at (a number) miles per hour

around 2 miles an hour.

Robusto

The little dog laughed to see such a sight.

Mitch

01:43

I love math.

ooh I forgot a thousand. so 2K that makes me feel a little better

@Robusto not exactly 1706km/h but in the right ball park.

Robusto

And the dish ran away with the spoon.

Mitch

OK. How did your cow do it?

> 3,683 kilometers per hour: The Moon travels around Earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour). During one complete trip around Earth (one orbit) it travels a distance of 1,423,000 miles (2,290,000 kilometers) in about 27.3 days.

Sorry I googled for ti.

Robusto

10:22

@Mitch Easy. Flying cow.

skill patrol

Danu

12:04

Hi all

I've got a small question. Here it goes: In a set of lecture notes that I'm editing I've come across the following: "...to discuss Gauß's divergence theorem..."

Now, I was wondering whether Gauß's is correct or whether I should correct it to Gauß'

skill patrol

It belongs to him, right?

Danu

...I'm talking about the issue of "my parents' house" (as opposed to "my parents's house")

Basically, should the ß be treated as a (double) s in this situation?

skill patrol

Like this? Gauss's law.

Danu

If I were to choose to write it as Gauss, I'd 100% go for Gauss'

not Gauss's

skill patrol

Gauss's law

In physics, Gauss's law, also known as Gauss's flux theorem, is a law relating the distribution of electric charge to the resulting electric field. The law was formulated by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835, but was not published until 1867. It is one of Maxwell's four equations, which form the basis of classical electrodynamics, the other three being Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction. Gauss's law can be used to derive Coulomb's law, and vice versa. == Qualitative description == In words, Gauss's law states that: The net electric flux...

Edit please :-)

Danu

12:20

I think it's not a matter of right and wrong, so I won't. I just prefer it this way.

skill patrol

I'm not familiar with the "beta" symbol, sorry.

Danu

@skillpatrol It's the "sharp s" from German.

ß

In the German alphabet, the letter ß, called "Eszett" (IPA: [ɛsˈtsɛt]) or "scharfes S", in English "sharp S", is a consonant that evolved as a ligature of "long s and z" (ſz) and "long s over round s" (ſs). When speaking it is pronounced [s] (see IPA). Since the German orthography reform of 1996, it is used only after long vowels and diphthongs while ss is written after short vowels. The name eszett comes from the two letters S and Z as they are pronounced in German. In German, it is also called scharfes S (IPA: [ˈʃaɐ̯.fəs ˈʔɛs, ˈʃaː.fəs ˈʔɛs], meaning "sharp S". Its Unicode encoding is U+00DF...

skill patrol

@Danu I would just leave it the way the prof. wrote it.

Robusto

@Danu We don't write it Gauß in English. It's Gauss (we don't use the eszet at all, in fact). But the rule on possessives is that we only drop the final s if the word is plural. Therefore, it's Gauss's law, but parents' home.

skill patrol

We need @Cerberus

1

Q: Possessive case for a certain proper noun - ss apostrophe

In the case of the proper noun Ross, which of the following would be correct? Ross's Ross'

Danu

12:43

@Robusto I've been here before and got some really different opinions on that :P

(the ß, that is)

Robusto

@Danu Well, lucky you. At last you've found an opinion that matters.

Danu

@Robusto The person answering me last time similarly felt very strongly about this issue, but took the opposite point of view.

Robusto

@Danu Who was that?

Danu

I'm trying to remember... I can probably find it in the transcript.

skill patrol

tchrist?

Robusto

12:45

I doubt that.

Danu

Feb 16 at 0:06, by tchrist

@Danu Leave it: always attempt to spell people’s names as they do. If their names are not written in the Latin script, then you can transliterate it and put the original in parens. This is purely Latin, so don’t mangle it.

tchrist indeed

skill patrol

He answered the above linked question

Robusto

Well, this points to a further dimension to the question.

30

A: Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?

The most useful rule — and the most general and the easiest to remember — is simply that you add ’s whenever you actually say an extra /əz/ at the end when forming the possessive, compared with how you say the non-possessive version. Let your own ear be your guide. That’s all there is to it. No ...

I would go with what he says there.

I thought your question was simpler.

Danu

I do the singular possesives with bare apostrophe thing

sigh this is all way to complicated

Robusto

So you would write "Gus' car"?

skill patrol

12:48

I haven't found any instances where a stylebook instruct its followers to treat the possessive of a singular proper name differently if it ends in a double s (as with Ross) than if it ends in a single s (as with Barnes).

Robusto

It would properly be "Gus's car" . . .

Danu

@Robusto Yup

Robusto

I wouldn't, obviously.

Danu

@Robusto Is that tone really necessary?

RegDwigнt

The question is, do you also say "Gus' car"?

Robusto

12:50

@Danu What "tone" are you talking about?

@RegDwigнt I wouldn't, obviously.

Danu

@Robusto You come across as a little condescending, to me.

RegDwigнt

The 49th shade of gray.

Robusto

@Danu I think you inferred something that wasn't there. I was being condescending earlier, but not there.

skill patrol

@Danu you gotta get to know his style pal :-)

RegDwigнt

I fail to see any condenscension in the last dozen messages or so.

Robusto

12:51

But my condescension was intended to be humorous:

7 mins ago, by Robusto

@Danu Well, lucky you. At last you've found an opinion that matters.

Danu

@Robusto I only mentioned it now because of your earlier message which gave me the same feeling.

@Robusto Alright, I didn't get the humorous part---I guess it's the classic "jokes over the internet" thing.

RegDwigнt

Feelings, nothing more than feelings.

Danu

No hard feelings :)

Robusto

@Danu On the internet, nobody can tell you're joking. And vice-versa.

RegDwigнt

I can tell you're joking for $3000.

skill patrol

12:53

24 mins ago, by skill patrol

@Danu I would just leave it the way the prof. wrote it.

Robusto

Me, I seldom use smileys unless I'm dealing with children—and then only sparingly. Why teach them bad habits?

Danu

@Robusto When you're joking, nobody can tell you're on the internet? :D

Robusto

When you're nobody, the Internet can't tell you're a joke.

Danu

@Robusto I disagree that it's a bad habit; it clarifies the intent.

RegDwigнt

Anyway. If you say "Gausez", then write Gauß's. If you say "Gaus", then write Gauß'.

For once, English is perfectly logical and super straightforward, and you're letting the chance slip?

I wouldn't.

skill patrol

12:55

^

The real master

Robusto

@Danu You are entitled to your opinion. Freedom of speech means everyone has the right to be wrong.

skill patrol

:-)

Danu

@Robusto Really, dude?

Robusto

:)

RegDwigнt

@Robusto wait wait wait. That is a right? I thought it was an obligation. Rats.

Robusto

12:55

That clear it up for you?

Danu

2/10

Robusto

You're getting awfully prickly.

Danu

:)

RegDwigнt

Can we move on to discussing Sean Connery instead?

Or Craig Ferguson, for all I care.

Robusto

What happened to him?

RegDwigнt

12:56

He woke up and then did things.

skill patrol

We don't condescend here.

Danu

@skillpatrol I'll condense you!

RegDwigнt

That makes no dense at all.

skill patrol

::runs and hides::

:D

Robusto

@RegDwigнt We're so alike, he and I. I never realized.

RegDwigнt

12:58

Yeah I fear several minds are about to be boggled.

Robusto

@skillpatrol True. We merely descend. It's a legacy from pineapple.stackexchange.com.

RegDwigнt

Actually, you've even managed to one-up him by not starring in the League of Extraordinary Boringmen.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…