English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Tonepoet

00:18

@WillHunting Yeah, I know that many of the reviews on Amazon can be bad, especially the ones by people who are merely stating some thoughts on a product they don't even own! However, the better written reviews have a tendency to be valid.

Tonepoet

07:52

@Lawrence This is roughly off-topic in Sandy Lines, but might be on topic here: I quite loathe how computer jargon colloquially reuses common words with no formal alternative. It forces my hand to use words in an ambiguous manner which I try to avoid whenever I both know better and it is possible. I am tempted to call computer "monitors" displayers instead.

My first wish is for a neologism for the word "Mouse" in reference to the device that controls your cursor.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet :) . Monitors are also called displays. I can't say for sure, but the original monitors might have monitored the state of switches etc in the computers of that time.

I think display (e.g. Flower display) has a legitimate link to the English word. Displayer has a slightly different sense.

Tonepoet

@Lawrence I'd rather even reserve display for other purposes still. Unless they serve to forewarn somebody of something misfortunate, such as how a Heart Monitor potentially forewarns somebody of death, I'd rather avoid that word altogether.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet How about pointer? The physical and graphical elements are both called mouse informally, so the overloading of pointer wouldn't be too alien.

Tonepoet

08:09

@Lawrence Pointer is fine since it controls the thing that points on your screen and therefore can be considered pointing, although it's often used as an alternative for cursor. The only people who I've met who use the same word for both the device and the cursor just aren't very computer savvy.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet if you keep throwing out those poor, defenceless words, you might be left with just a picture frame :) . I can almost anticipate a reply that they might be poor choices, but hardly defenceless. :)

Tonepoet

@Lawrence I already proposed displayer as an apt alternative for a general word which can be applied just as well as monitor might, if it was not for the one unfit semantic nuance, at least. >_> <_<

@Lawrence Besides that, I obviously don't want anything being called a picture frame unless it's framing a painting.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet A digital painting. :P

@Tonepoet :)

Tonepoet

It can only be called a picture frame if it's displaying that application. =P Also, I got that image from here.

P.S. With a hint of paradoxical irony, W.I.N.E. is certainly an emulator.

user227867

08:59

@Tonepoet Actually, I was referring to real vandalism, like ~!@#$%^&*() And amazingly there are only four people in chat now.

Lawrence

@Tonepoet :)

user227867

@Lawrence Have you eaten dinner? =)

Lawrence

@WillHunting Hi Jasper. I certainly have. Lots of times. :)

user227867

@Lawrence You are very funny. =)

Lawrence

@WillHunting Why, thank you. :)

user227867

10:21

@Tonepoet I think the AHD has a chart comparing their symbols and the IPA printed in the book itself.

user227867

Welcome home @MattE.Эллен!

Matt E. Эллен

hi :)

user227867

Why do Collins and Chambers publish a new edition of their dictionary every three years? That seems too frequent.

Helmar

@WillHunting Needed revenue?

user227867

@Helmar What I mean is they can print the old edition for a few more years and spend more time working on a quality new edition.

Helmar

10:30

@WillHunting There'll be typos, so they are releasing new "minor editions" anyway every two years or so, so they just add the new words as well.

user227867

@Helmar I like to have the latest edition of a book, so if I get their dictionary, I will need to spend money on a new edition every three years. =(

Helmar

@WillHunting That's a side effect of their release strategy :/

user227867

@Helmar Of course, I can just stick to the old edition and not upgrade so often. =)

Helmar

@WillHunting Always a possibility :)

user227867

I am going to eat dinner and watch television with my mum now, bye. Remember to watch my movie 'Good Will Hunting' if you have not. =)

Helmar

10:40

bye :)

2

Q: Should the tag interpretation be deleted?

The interpretation seems to provide no value to the taxonomy. Besides the fact, that Criticism, discussion, and analysis of English literature are considered off-topic, the questions seem to be either arbitrarily tagged (1, 2, 3, ...), meaning questions (4,5, ...) or actual off-topic poetry inter...

I went ahead and suggested the synonym

Four votes are needed here: english.stackexchange.com/tags/meaning/synonyms

tchrist

13:33

I see that everyone was up late last night bringing in the crops during this year’s Harvest Moon.

> January: Old Moon, Moon After Yule
February: Snow Moon, Hunger Moon, Wolf Moon
March: Sap Moon, Crow Moon, Lenten Moon
April: Grass Moon, Egg Moon, Pink Moon
May: Planting Moon, Milk Moon
June: Rose Moon, Flower Moon, Strawberry Moon
July: Thunder Moon, Hay Moon
August: Green Corn Moon, Grain Moon
September: Fruit Moon, Harvest Moon
October: Harvest Moon, Hunter’s Moon
November: Hunter’s Moon, Frosty Moon, or Beaver Moon
December: Moon Before Yule, or Long Night Moon

We’ve had this year’s Harvest Moon in September, so next month’s is the Hunter’s Moon.

This of course applies to the “septentrional (read: boreal) moons”, for the “meridional (read: austral) moons” land in different seasons.

@Cerberus What's the etymology of septentrionalis?

Færd

ODO says of as such:

> [OFTEN WITH NEGATIVE] In the exact sense of the word:

> it is possible to stay overnight here although there is no guest house as such

But sometimes I see it used to mean something like therefore at the beginning of a sentence:

> When test results are good, it is because educators functioned effectively; when results lag, it is because educators underperformed . As such , the current model of educational reform can not fail--it can only be failed. (From COCA)

Am I right that this use does not agree with ODO's definition?

Kit Z. Fox

13:51

I'm listening to a couple of people complaining about new math and how it's making kids stupid.

sighs

"He keeps getting 100%, even when all the answers are wrong!"

And then exclaiming how surprised he was when his kid told him how to figure out how many seconds were in an hour. "It's 60 seconds in a minute. You need to multiply that by 60 for the number of seconds in an hour."

But of course, when he showed his kid how to do it the old-fashioned way, his kid was like "this is so much easier!" So that means it's the right way to teach math.

Because 'easy' must mean you're building a strong foundation for future understanding.

rolls eyes

Now he's mansplaining about c-sections and gay doctors.

Færd

The younger the students are, the harder it is to teach them, and the easier to ruin them.

Kit Z. Fox

It's hard to believe that people like this are real.

tchrist

Silly to call something new that's half a century old.

Kit Z. Fox

I remember my husband's reaction to how I showed our eldest about tens-place and hundreds-place. He was floored.

"Wow, that makes so much sense and I had literally never thought about that in forty years. It never occurred to me that numbers work like that."

tchrist

I have no clear idea which is which any longer.

Kit Z. Fox

14:00

Because he was taught that 14 is one number. Never that it was ten plus four.

tchrist

I thought it was two by seven.

Kit Z. Fox

And that you can see that right in the way it is written.

tchrist

:)

Kit Z. Fox

Right, and also that it is two groups of seven or seven groups of two.

So yeah, he memorized his tables quick and that was easy.

Færd

Sorry, what is the old fashion way to calculate how many seconds there are in an hour?

And what is the new method?

Wonders if he sounds dumb

Kit Z. Fox

14:02

I have no idea what the old method is. Memorized, I guess.

tchrist

No, I have no idea of the answers to that question myself.

Kit Z. Fox

New method is dope it out using what you know.

tchrist

The Wikipedia article is singularly unexemplary.

Færd

@KitZ.Fox That's not a method, is it?

Kit Z. Fox

How isn't it? Teach a kid that they can figure it out.

Færd

14:04

Hmmmm

I'm the kid. You teach me.

Kit Z. Fox

Instead of giving the answer to memorize, you give them the questions they can ask themselves to understand how they can get the answer.

Færd

Ah, I guess I'm getting it.

Like, How many seconds in two minutes, and then 10 and ... an hour.

Kit Z. Fox

In other words, help them realize that 60 minutes equals 60 groups of 60 seconds, which means multiply 60 by 60 to find the answer.

It's not a number to memorize. It's something you can figure out.

Færd

Instead of giving them a general algorithm for multiplication problems, that they don't deeply understand why works.

Kit Z. Fox

Don't know what 7x2 is? Well, it means seven groups of 2. Count it out, then you know.

@Færd right. Exactly that.

Not "what's the right answer". Never that. Always "how do we find the answer? How do we know it's right?"

Yes it's harder, but the understanding is deeper and promotes abstract thinking.

Færd

14:10

Got it.

Kit Z. Fox

So I might say 360 seconds in an hour, so yeah, I multiplied wrong, but my reasoning was right, and I know that and if I check it with a calculator, I'll see my mistake.

And I will know that the answer is right.

Sorry, it's a big peeve of mine.

Færd

I didn't know that it's such a spanking new method.

I remember vaguely being taught math like that.

Kit Z. Fox

"I don't understand it and it's not how I was taught and it requires effort and thinking so it must be wrong."

@Færd it's not actually new. It's just called that.

Færd

But I've encountered old people who hadn't been taught like that. In that sense, yes, it's new.

Kit Z. Fox

My husband was taught differently than me, so the transition was at least thirty-five years ago.

But of course, teaching methods are always changing.

Færd

14:15

The teacher must be able to understand the problem first, in order to help the pupils understand it too.

tchrist

> In this and other ways, the New Math proved to be an important link to the computer revolution, as well as the Internet. This naturally includes all manner of programming. In this sense, the New Math was ahead of its time. Many programmers of the 1980s and later[who?] hearkened back to their experience with the New Math.

Kit Z. Fox

Yep. Computational thinking.

Although it's probably just natural aptitude that accounts for the difference between my husband's and my math/comp sci abilities.

:D

tchrist

Hm.

He's not a programmer, right?

Færd

I feel good for you that you're not upset about being smarter than your life partner. It can be tiresome for some.

Well, maybe he's better than you at some other things.

tchrist

14:31

It can be tiresome for all. But it is not the most important thing in all cases, and “smart” is not always universally applied across all faculties.

Færd

Yes. But it's good to be able to find interesting dimensions in your partner to look up to.

And yes, which is why I said better, not smarter.

Kit Z. Fox

14:44

@tchrist he's an electricIan and politician.

He's passionate and educated about things unrelated to software development.

tchrist

@KitZ.Fox At least he knows better than to touch the Third Rail then.

Kit Z. Fox

15:01

He knows how to dope things out. That's what unions teach you.

Færd

15:27

M-W says as such means "in itself", which works better in my example than ODO's definition, "in the exact sense of the word":

2 hours ago, by Færd

> When test results are good, it is because educators functioned effectively; when results lag, it is because educators underperformed . As such , the current model of educational reform can not fail--it can only be failed. (From COCA)

It's not ODO anymore, btw.

Mitch

@Helmar Voted. Thanks for the link

But you might be interested that it motivated me to do this:

0

Q: Tag editing workflow is the worst

Tagging questions makes categorizing questions feasible. To make them important, as they should be, you have to make assigning tags easy and curating tags easy. The question UI workflow makes assigning tags easy. The person asking the question must give at least one tag, the search auto-complete...

feature-request tags

@tchrist a 2x4 is really 1 3/4 x 3 1/2.

That's math!

Færd

What does 1 3/4 mean?

Mitch

@KitZ.Fox 'New math' was introduced in the '60s. (based on set theory, very progressive). but whatever that was, it was considered not very successful because the teachers themselves didn't understand what was going on.

@Færd 1.75. One and three-quarters.

Basically the saw mill was ripping off people (or lying) so regularly that it became standardized.

Færd

Calculates

@Mitch Then I don't get it.

tchrist

15:42

That’s 2×4 = 1¾×3½″ for the non–Unicode-challenged.

Mitch

a 2x4 is supposed to be a beam of would of whatever length but 2 inches width and 4 inches tall.

tchrist

2×4

2×4, two-by-four, or two by four may refer to: Two-by-four, a common size of dimensional lumber named for its unprocessed dimensions, usually measuring 1½ × 3½ inches in practice == Film and TV == 2by4, also known as 2×4, a 1998 film by Jimmy Smallhorne == Sports == 2×4 Roller Derby, a derby based in Argentina == Vehicles == 2×4, referring to a pickup truck that is two-wheel drive with a four-wheel drive suspension. == Music == 2×4 (Guadalcanal Diary album), a 1987 album 2×4 (Einstürzende Neubauten album), a 1984 album "2×4", a 1996 song by Metallica from their album Load "2×4", a 1...

Mitch

oops I was wrong, they cut off even more!

Færd

Ah! That's so cruel a joke for a non-native.

Mitch

@Færd for natives who are new to using lumber too

Færd

15:44

But I'd heard of 2x4.

tchrist

We have 2x4, 4x4, and 2x6.

Mitch

2x8, 2x10,

1x3

tchrist

> In the Americas, two-bys (2×4s, 2×6s, 2×8s, 2×10s, and 2×12s), named for traditional board thickness in inches, along with the 4×4, are common lumber sizes used in modern construction. They are the basic building blocks for such common structures as balloon-frame or platform-frame housing. Dimensional lumber made from softwood is typically used for construction, while hardwood boards are more commonly used for making cabinets or furniture.

Mitch

a 4x8 really is 4'x8' and really does measure exactly 4 feet x 8 feet

tchrist

> Lumber's nominal dimensions are larger than the actual standard dimensions of finished lumber. Historically, the nominal dimensions were the size of the green (not dried), rough (unfinished) boards that eventually became smaller finished lumber through drying and planing (to smooth the wood). Today, the standards specify the final finished dimensions and the mill cuts the logs to whatever size it needs to achieve those final dimensions.

Mitch

15:45

dimensional lumber?

I want to see the undimensional lumber.

tchrist

> Typically, that rough cut is smaller than the nominal dimensions because modern technology makes it possible and it uses the logs more efficiently. For example, a "2x4" board historically started out as a green, rough board actually 2 by 4 inches. After drying and planing, it would be smaller, by a nonstandard amount.

Mitch

You can build a 120 -cell from them

tchrist

> Today, a "2x4" board starts out as something smaller than 2 inches by 4 inches and not specified by standards, and after drying and planing is reliably 1 1⁄2 by 3 1⁄2 inches.

Færd

feels informed

Mitch

There's more!

tchrist

15:47

Mitch

120-cell

In geometry, the 120-cell is the convex regular 4-polytope with Schläfli symbol {5,3,3}. It is also called a C120, hecatonicosachoron, dodecacontachoron and hecatonicosahedroid. The boundary of the 120-cell is composed of 120 dodecahedral cells with 4 meeting at each vertex. It can be thought of as the 4-dimensional analog of the dodecahedron and has been called a dodecaplex (short for "dodecahedral complex"), hyperdodecahedron, polydodecahedron. Just as a dodecahedron can be built up as a model with 12 pentagons, 3 around each vertex, the dodecaplex can be built up from 120 dodecahedra, with 3...

tchrist

> Early standards called for green rough lumber to be of full nominal dimension when dry. However, the dimensions have diminished over time. In 1910, a typical finished 1-inch (25 mm) board was 1¹³⁄₁₆ in. In 1928, that was reduced by 4%, and yet again by 4% in 1956.

Mitch

I'm off to Home Depot to get a bunch of undimensional 2x2s to build my 4D 120-cell

I'll take pictures when I'm done.

Færd

You'll need a 4D camera to take a 3D picture.

tchrist

> In 1961, at a meeting in Scottsdale, Arizona, the Committee on Grade Simplification and Standardization agreed to what is now the current US standard: in part, the dressed size of a 1 inch (nominal) board was fixed at ¾ inch; while the dressed size of 2 inch (nominal) lumber was reduced from 1⅝ inch to the current 1½ inch.

@Færd Time-lapse photography!

Mitch

15:52

@Færd 'New Math' was a special program introduced into math teaching in American schools in the 1960's. That was fifty years ago and people still make jokes about it even though there have been other weird programs put into place and turned over multiple times since then.

@Færd I'll get that at the undimensional camera store.

Færd

@tchrist Except the other dimension is spatial in this case.

Mitch

@Færd you can fake it with animation

Færd

Good way of faking. But still feels like a fake. I have never been able to imagine the 4th dimension.

Mitch

hypernom.com

Eating 4D Polytopes (Hypernom)

►

Færd

I'm almost sure it won't help much, but thanks!

Mitch

15:56

@Færd is your background more humanities or sciences?

Færd

I don't know, but I used to do more science when I was younger.

Mitch

Is your... forget it. Read 'Flatland' by Abbott

Flatland

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott, first published in 1884 by Seeley & Co. of London. Written pseudonymously as "A Square", the book used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to comment on the hierarchy of Victorian culture, but the novella's more enduring contribution is its examination of dimensions. Several films have been made from the story, including the feature film Flatland (2007). Other efforts have been short or experimental films, including one narrated by Dudley Moore and the short films Flatland...

Robusto

@tchrist: I have an encoding question for you. I'm working on revamping my bike club's website and the database appears to be encoded in windows-1250 (Central European) for some strange reason. This makes problems for the cloned version of the site I made for dev purposes but doesn't on the regular site. When I switch the encoding in the browser to windows-1250 all the problem characters display fine, but if I choose "detect" it doesn't. Any thoughts?

tchrist

I love fractions. People don't do fractions anymore. If you have a block that measures 2/3 by 5/8 by 3/4 units, what's its volume in those units? What if that 5/8 were 5/9?

@Robusto Sure, the detection stuff uses statistical correlation of non-ASCII code points based on large corpora, and you may simply not have enough outliers.

Robusto

Hmm.

tchrist

16:00

Always set the encoding. Never rely on auto-detection algorithms or defaults.

Færd

@tchrist Is that a trick question?

tchrist

Better yet, upgrade everything to Unicode encoded in UTF-8.

@Færd Nope. Just teasing.

Robusto

The decoding is set. <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

tchrist

Oh, but are they actually encoded as that?

Robusto

I also try setting it to <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1250"> with the same result.

tchrist

16:01

Look at bits.

cp1250       80  ⇒  U+20AC  ＜ € ＞  \N{EURO SIGN}
cp1250       81  ⇒  U+FFFD  ＜ � ＞  \N{REPLACEMENT CHARACTER}
cp1250       82  ⇒  U+201A  ＜ ‚ ＞  \N{SINGLE LOW-9 QUOTATION MARK}
cp1250       83  ⇒  U+FFFD  ＜ � ＞  \N{REPLACEMENT CHARACTER}
cp1250       84  ⇒  U+201E  ＜ „ ＞  \N{DOUBLE LOW-9 QUOTATION MARK}
cp1250       85  ⇒  U+2026  ＜ … ＞  \N{HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS}
cp1250       86  ⇒  U+2020  ＜ † ＞  \N{DAGGER}
cp1250       87  ⇒  U+2021  ＜ ‡ ＞  \N{DOUBLE DAGGER}
cp1250       88  ⇒  U+FFFD  ＜ � ＞  \N{REPLACEMENT CHARACTER}

Find something that’s one of those and count its bytes.

If it is one byte, it is already in CP-1250. If it’s more than one, it’s probably already in UTF-8.

Robusto

BTW, since you like fractions, there was a puzzle in today's paper you might like: 5/9 is 7/8 of what fraction?

tchrist

% perl -Mbigrat -E 'say 5/9 * 8/7'
40/63

Robusto

Too easy.

tchrist

% perl -Mbigrat -E 'say 40/63 * 7/8'
5/9

Robusto

btw, I shoulda pluralized fraction ...

I just wonder why their database would be using CP1250 ...

They're not Central European ...

And of course, the answer to that question is shrouded in the mists of time, as nobody who's done any work on the site was around when the site was created.

Færd

16:18

@Mitch That's nice! And somewhat familiar.

But try and imagine a 4D sphere.

Robusto

@Færd All spheres are 4D. They can't help themselves.

Færd

I'd've believed it if you'd said 2D.

Robusto

All spheres are part of the space-time continuum. Therefore they must be 4D.

Færd

There's no time in absolute geometry, unless you introduce time into it.

Robusto

Geometry itself is part of the space-time continuum.

Even Platonic ideal forms are mutable, because they only exist in the mind(s) of humans.

Færd

16:25

And still it doesn't feel like a spatial dimension, except, of course, you think relativistically.

GforOevOerD

Hi all

Robusto

@Færd That's because we're not equipped to perceive the fourth dimension in its entirety.

GforOevOerD

What's the adj form of the noun "knowledge" ?

tchrist

For what purpose?

As in, what noun do you wish to apply this to?

Færd

@Robusto Absolute time-less theories exist, and your statement that no such theory exists is an example (which is totally wrong, btw, but can serve the purpose here).

GforOevOerD

16:27

@tchrist Thanks for the answer. I'd like to convert "Knowledge" to the adjectival form.

tchrist

@GforOevOerD I understand that. What do you wish to use it for?

Because you probably should not do that.

You should use the noun attributively.

GforOevOerD

@tchrist My English books asked me to write that.

tchrist

As in knowledge workers.

@GforOevOerD Tell them to stop.

A more knowledgeable book would never ask such a silly thing.

GforOevOerD

@tchrist That's even worse when you get to know that it's been released by Cambridge.

tchrist

Next time, try Oxford? :)

> † ˈknowledge [v.]
knowledge [n.]
knowledgeaˈbility ← knowledgeable
knowledgeable [adj.]
ˈknowledgeableness ← knowledgeable
ˈknowledgeably [adv.] ← knowledgeable
› knowledge about, knowledge by description ← knowledge
knowledge acquisition ← knowledge [n.]
knowledge assessment ← knowledge [n.]
knowledge asset ← knowledge [n.]
knowledge base ← knowledge
knowledge-based [ppl. adj.] ← knowledge
knowledge box ← knowledge [n.]
knowledge-box ← knowledge
knowledge boy ← knowledge [n.]
› knowledge by description ← description

GforOevOerD

16:30

@tchrist Thank you so much. Hmmm, I'm currently using Passages, I don't know anything about Oxford books.

@tchrist Wow! How did you do that?

tchrist

Those are all the related forms. If you want only adjectives, those are these:

Robusto

@Færd Do I smell Russell's Paradox here?

tchrist

> knowledgeable [adj.]
knowledge-based [ppl. adj.] ← knowledge
† ˈknowledged [ppl. adj.] ← ˈknowledge
knowledged [adj.]
knowledgeful [adj.]
ˈknowledgeless [adj.]

I hope you see now why it’s a silly request.

Robusto

@tchrist This.

tchrist

Note all the compound nouns in the first set.

Robusto

16:31

@GforOevOerD: Take note. Attributive nouns are your friends.

GforOevOerD

@tchrist I have progressed much in this book, I'm almost at its end. If I buy Oxford books, would that influence my learning process?

@tchrist Basically, I should use the adjs for people. So, knowledgeable workers.

@Robusto Thanks for the answer. What do you mean?

Færd

@Robusto I don't think so. I'm saying if you say every form of knowledge is mutable, then this very statement will change in time into not every form of knowledge is mutable, which defeats your purpose. There's no paradox, since you haven't yet proved your original proposition, and you won't be able to either.

tchrist

@GforOevOerD It will not; I was just joking.

Robusto

@GforOevOerD Tom just told you. When you use a noun attributively, it functions as an adjective.

GforOevOerD

Thanks guys!

@tchrist Haha, should I stick with Passages? Only one more book is left

Robusto

16:34

For example, how can table be an adjective? It can be if you use it like that, i.e., attributively. "The table leg was broken." (In other words, The leg of the table was broken.)

tchrist

It’s actually still a noun, not an adjective, because it fails the predicate test.

The leg is not a table.

GforOevOerD

@Robusto I understand, thank you. Can we say, knowledgeable people?

tchrist

@GforOevOerD Sure!

GforOevOerD

@tchrist Thank you

Robusto

@Færd Amusing. But if we use the same reasoning, someone eventually will be able to prove that proposition. Just because I cannot is irrelevant.

@GforOevOerD Yes, but make sure that's what you mean.

GforOevOerD

16:37

@Robusto Thanks!

Robusto

A knowledge worker and a knowledgeable worker are two different things.

Færd

@Robusto A paradox occurs when two obviously true statements clash. This is not the case here. The case here is that an uncertain statement clashes with itself, which renders it incorrect and unacceptable, hence the never-provability.

It's dinner time. Bye.

Robusto

cya

I'm out too. Laters.

Tonepoet

17:00

Hi everybody. Lawrence and I were discussing the research requirements of this website and were hoping some moderators would be willing to discuss present day opinions on a question that was reopened by an inactive moderator years ago in the Sandy Lines Chatroom. We are especially interested in the opinions of @tchrist @MetaEd @MattE.Эллен and Andrew_Leach since they all seemed to have involvement at the time.

We are especially interested in knowing if the standards are becoming stricter with time. I would like to thank you for your consideration and apologize for the bother too. Also, I can't ping Andrew here, so I suppose I'll do that in the other chatroom since he commented there recently.

GforOevOerD

17:12

@Robusto I think the first one means one who works to gain knowledge while the second means workers who are informed.

user227867

17:33

@Tonepoet Hi Tonepoet. I just woke up from a post-dinner nap.

Tonepoet

@WillHunting That's interesting timing. I just emailed you that page I mentioned earlier.

Why don't you take a look at it and tell me what you think about it?

user227867

@Tonepoet What is it that you want me to talk about with regard to doubt?

Tonepoet

@WillHunting Well yes actually.

There are a few exemplary quotations on it that are of interest. It's the only place I've ever seen "two doubts" other than here.

user227867

@Tonepoet The sentence with two doubts seems normal to me. I don't feel it is strange.

Tonepoet

17:50

Hmm, you can also see that the word question is scattered throughout the page. It probably means it in a secondary sense of the word, but you can see how somebody reading that might be confused if they weren't already know the words. There are other dictionaries which do that too.

user227867

If I have a question for my teacher, I would say 'I have a question. How do you solve this equation?' and not 'I have a doubt. How do you solve this equation?'

user227867

In the example I just gave, I find the use of 'doubt' wrong.

Tonepoet

@WillHunting If you're patterning it after a conversation, I don't think it would be abnormal to say "I have a doubt about something." | "What is it?" | "Well, why would the Pathagoreans only be famed for triangles if they were such a great thinkers?"

user227867

@Tonepoet Yes, that is because in this case, it really is a doubt. So we have to see case by case.

Tonepoet

@WillHunting Yes, well we have the benefit of preexisting knowledge. Imagine what somebody who barely comprehends English might think if they saw that exchange, consulted a dictionary and saw something like the page I just showed you.

user227867

18:04

@Tonepoet Yes, that is why they need the American Heritage Dictionary for usage guidance. LOL!

user227867

@Tonepoet I have been looking at page previews on amazon.com of ODE and NOAD. I find some differences other than American spellings being used in the latter. NOAD has pronunciation for every entry, not just some, though this is given not in IPA, and NOAD has illustrations! Some definitions are also reworded and some example sentences are different. All these changes make NOAD slightly superior to ODE.

Tonepoet

@WillHunting How does each one define the word doubt, so long as we're discussing the subject?

I'm particularly interested in the noun, of course.

user227867

@Tonepoet I can't see the amazon preview for that, because it is at D and not at the first few pages. =) But you can always compare the online versions.

tchrist

20:13

Johan Larsson

does ^ make you mad?

tchrist

20:29

It makes me laugh.

Færd

Hahaha!

Johan Larsson

pretty sure I posted it before

it is funny

tchrist

It's a matter of cultural stereotypes not something with any basis in reality.

We laugh at stereotypes. Unfortunately.

Johan Larsson

20:46

why is it unfortunate?

Færd

It wouldn't be so hilarious if it was the other way around. I guess it's due to associating Americans with stupidity.

American stupid ones can be publicly known much more easily than stupid people of other nations.

Whatever. Goodnight.

Mitch

@JohanLarsson haha americans are dumb

Johan Larsson

Americans are nice

don't think I ever met one who wasnt

tchrist

21:31

@Færd Thing is, pretty sure that stupid people are associated with just about everything.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…