Schilive

@WalterMitty, so there was a special CRT-only program even in the 60s! Was it more common for scientific use?

@dave, when I said "display", I was thinking of a screen, in contrast with teleprinters and printers. I didn't know it the topic could be so up to interpretation! Which is cool.

@Raffzahn, when I wrote the question, I was actually interested in how common were the CRTs in before the 80s, but I thought this question would be more appropriate for the website and would lead me to the same answer. I didn`t know it was such a broad topic.

@dave, I'll sop asking otherwise I could continue ad infinitum. Thanks a lot!

@dave, that seems awesome. Also, I think it's kinda funny you didn't say "study" or "make calculations". I think I'd love to read someone's book talking about their experience with computers. We can somewhat easily get these technical informations, but the "feel" and subculture gets so easily lost. I love it.

@dave, out of curiosity and if reasonable, what did an undergrad do with a computer at the time?

@manassehkatz-Moving2Codidact, that looks crazy. By over printing, do they mean the character were printed like one or more steps up and down? I am thinking now of trying to make ASCII art on my typewriter. The speed with which videos evolved is absurdly impressive.

@dave, that is really interesting. I thought the transition had to do with computer graphics.

@dave, the distinction people felt at the time between a video terminal and a teletype, was just that one was paper (and noisy) and the other was on glass? I thought there were stuff that were only meant, or could, to run on video terminals.

@manassehkatz-Moving2Codidact, thanks for answering! So the preference was for video, except for prinout. That'd make the apparent speed of the transition really reasonable. And if I may ask, there was no program that only ran on video? Maybe a spinning cube?

@dave, If I may ask a lot of questions... So, in your experience, the norm were teletypes with video terminals being extra? And then around '75, video terminals became the norm? Did video terminals gained that popularity because they got cheaper or was there another reason, if you know? And what was the main use of video terminals? What would make someone decide "I should use the video terminal today, not the teletype."? Thanks for sharing, and I am sorry for so many questions.

Thanks for bringing your experience! That is what I was most interested at. If I may ask, was it a common to see a CRT for graphics? Like, if you were to work on a computer at the time, would a CRT be something just normally expected like a keyboard nowadays?

@stafusa, depois que o Jacinto e outros param de responder ou começaram a responder menos, achei que o site sofreria muito, mas você está sendo espetacular! O PTSE deixa os outros SEs de língua no chinelo, em qualidade, educação e em ser amigável.

Você acha que alguém estranharia se dissesse "Pilha três A" ou soaria idiomático?

@barugaggi, I am sorry if I seem impolite, but. Do you want an answer? If so, please, explain to me as clearly as possible what is your question answering to my comment. Because we cannot understand you. If you want an answer, then you need us to understand you. It is up to you. I will note, though: as users in this website, we own nothing to you.

@Lambie, I agree. The attitude was bad. And for internet people, rude. And only now I have seen OP saying "Are you blind?" to you. So, yeah... You are right: he is being very rude for, and for no reason. You were not rude to him/her.

@Lambie, for me, it is hard to say. Some people have different ways of speaking and some people are really bad at communicating. Linus Torvalds was notorious for being rude and aggressive, like here, which it seemed like it was partially because of his culture and because of his "dysfunctional family". Still, he went and apologized and said he misread people. So, Lambie, really, I don't know. I hope it was de bom grado. My biggest complaint here is that we are being unable to communicate, making this thread futile.

@stafusa, yeah. Almost always when I use "há" speaking, the person I'm talking to doesn't understand it

@barugaggi, I didn't want to close this question, but the fact that we are not being able to communicate makes this question almost useless.Thank you for contributing and you're very welcome to make other questions, but I'll vote to close this question

@barugaggi, I did not understand why you said welcome. Also, I think the reasons Lambie wants to close the question is that it is hard to understand.

@barugaggi, what?

Welcome to Portuguese StackExchange, barugaggi! Thank you for your question, but I do not understand it. Can you be more specific? I believe you are asking why people rarely use haver as there be. The main reason is that that's the way the cookie crumbles: people just prefer ter. Another reason I personally believe is that há is just harder to understand in speech.

@Southman, me intrometendo. Eu sou um brasileiro e me soa bem. As pessoas falam de jeitos diferentes e às vezes parecem estranhas. Isto é comum. Talvez soe mal porque a frase parece poética, mas usa enorme que parece informal? Talvez «um enorme buraco no meio da minha vida» lhe soasse melhor? Talvez se falar a frase em voz alta soe melhor. Sei é lá! Mas concordo com Lambie!

@Kum, the main idea of Stack Exchange is having a place for questions where anyone with the same doubt can see the answer and have their question answered. So, even though you made the question, we see the question more independently of you, but still trying to help you have your doubt answered. This means comments are welcomed; otherwise, why have comments? instead of, for example, just a forum, like Arduino Forum or a one-question-one-answer-system, like CiberDúvidas. Also, we recommend everyone to be nice.

@Kum, because I said it is considered wrong, so it partially answers your question, that is, that it is not used in formal writings, like in law. But wrong things can still be used, which happens in English and both variations of Portuguese.

@Kum, because I do not know wether ele tem pagado-me has use somewhere in Portugal, as it does in Brazil. Also, comments need not be useful, so they need not add value.

Kum, the grammar that is considered correct does not differ that much between Portugal and Brazil. But you can this Portuguese website.

In Brazil, it is acceptable for the pronoun to be with the participle, as in ele tem me pagado and ele tem pagado-me. But both in Brazil and in Portugal, it is informal or poetic or etc. Source: soportugues.com.br/secoes/sint/sint75.php. What I do not know is if it is acceptable in Portugal under some contextl, like in Brazil.

@Lambie, para chamar o Jacinto, acho que tens que escrever "@Jacinto"

Just as a Q.E.D.: you can see it in literaturabrasileira.ufsc.br/_documents/0042-01168.html, dominiopublico.gov.br/download/texto/bv.00054a.pdf, infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/escola, infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/especial, infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/estrela, and in portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/…^estrela$.

Lambie, no. Actually, it is my fault. I am pretty bad at understanding what people say, not so much books, for some reason. I am not trying to teach you anything. I know, for a fact, that you know a lot more than I do. I am just trying to understand what you mean. Because, it is a fact that initial "e" in words starting in -es + consonant isn't always pronounced, especially for poetric metric, but, for me and Sabrina, it looks/looked like you were saying otherwise. Sorry.

Sabrina, yeah, you're right. I'll delete my comment. By the way, I am not Lambie, I'e never touched that question. My full name is "Herr Gabriel Schilive von Neumann Schmidt Schöneste Mann der Welt und des Universums homo bellisimus mundique universi Cândida do Amor Divino".

Lambie, what you mean by "there is not sp or st in initial position"? You mean in speaking it or in writting? If in speaking, you mean it even in colloquial Portuguese?

@Lambie, I believe we're talking about different things. In standard language (if I am using the right term), "estrela" is /istrela/. But, in less formal (I don't know how formal) situations or in poetry, you can omit the "e", and this's not something open to discussion, it's a fact; as I may say "caíno" (instead of "caindo") or "me'mo" (instead of "mesmo"), or even "ambulança" (instead of "ambulância").

Lambie, the pronunciation in infopedia.pt/dicionarios/lingua-portuguesa/espa%C3%A7o. By the way, I think what I said applies more to BP than to EP. And that's old stuff in language; you can see it in the Cantigas de Santa Maria.

Lambie, you can say "st". BUT, a lot of times speakers think they are omitting the "e", they are not. Which remembers me that most people would say they'd never say "estrela" saying "e" as /e/, but it's common, mainly in songs. Which also remembers me that I say "vezes" as /vêzes/ (not /vêzis/, for some reason), and no one ever noticed.

Por sinal, texto diz que todos os ordinais, começando do "tertius", começaram a serem usados também como fracionário, ou seja, por isso que temos "segundo" e "meio"/"metade".

De acordo com anpoll.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/download/266/279 (é um download de PDF, por sinal), "tertius" começou a ser usado também como fracionário no latim tardio. O texto deixa a entender que terço (possivelmente noutra forma) tinha esses dois significados, mas, com o tempo, o significado fracionário prevaleceu — possivelmente por haver terceiro (possivelmente noutra forma), o qual tem apenas o significado ordinal, ou seja, para evitar ambigüidade.

O "possivelmente" é adição minha.

Eu não encontrei "terço" sendo usado como ordinal em galego-português nem em Os Lusíadas. Os Lusíadas tem um vocabulário amplo, mas, ao mesmo tempo, não é uma obra que teria muitos termos numéricos. Olhei num conjunto de 5 volumes de leis portuguesas desd'o século XVI até o XVIII, encontrei 3 usos de terça feira, mas 75 usos de terço como fracionário. No texto, usava-se terço como se seu significado fracionário fosse óbvio, o que me faz entender que seu significado ordinal não era comum.

Portanto, creio que seja mais provável que já se usavam segunda feira etc. como hoje do que que não.

Voltei a ler alguns dos textos em g-p. nos quais eu disse que usavam os termos segunda-feira etc. apenas para dias da páscoa. Em um dos textos, há quarta-feira de cinzas, o que contradiz aquilo o que eu disse; ademais, outros textos também os escrevem sem indicação à páscoa, o que fracamente contradiz o que eu disse; mais importante, porém, é um texto que usa, em ordem, terça feira, , *segunda feira, segunda-feira, sexta-feira, e que aparenta independer da páscoa.

Eu pretendo colocar outros achados nesta discussão, mas não precisas comentar sempre.

Fá-lo-ei!

Eu me animei um poucadinho. Eu acho.

@stafusa, não é má idéia, até porque respostas podem se modificar com o tempo, ou seja, conforme sabemos mais. Uma coisa interessante a ver-se são os dias da semana, pois, fala-se terça-feira, não terceira-feira. Desconfio ser isso porque se escrevia em latim com tertia. Daí poderia se dizer que em 500 ainda não se diferenciava, mas, seu não me engano, isso é latim clássico, então, não é uma boa teoria. Ao mesmo tempo, ainda se usavam lunes, martes etc. no galego-português e só vi terço aí quando fracionário, mas no século XV já se usava terça feira para o dia da semana, >>

>> falo-o apenas pq há usos disso sem contexto de páscoa no texto e o Houaiss dá seu primeiro uso no século XIV, até pq há lunes (ou l~ues) em textos do sé. XV — terça feira era originalmente para quarta-feira da semana de páscoa. Então, duas informações que seriam interessantes havermos: quando segunda-feira começou a denominar o terceiro dia de qualquer semana, e quando terço começou a ser usado como ordinal — talvez terço possa ser ordinal por influência do latim no séc. XV, XVI etc. ou sempre teve esse duplo sentido, apenas não cheguei a ver nos documentos por falta de procura.

Isto não é uma resposta, apenas coisas que descobri. Já se usavam terço (ou teerço) e terceiro (ou tercer) no século XIII; terceiro aparentemente só se usava como ordinal (3º), terço sei apenas que se usava como fracionário (1/3) e com o sentido religioso. No francês, o qual é uma língua galo-românica, e no italiano, ítalo-românica, também há distinção, como disseste, inclusive têm as mesmas origens, “tertĭus” para os fracionários (1/3) e “tertiarĭus” para os ordinais (3º). >>

>> Portanto, imagino que essa distinção tenha começado no latim, porquanto o português aparentemente já a faz há anos — pelo menos desd'a sua primeira fase como português propriamente dito —, uma língua ítalo-românica, uma galo-românica e uma ibero-românica também a fazem com palavras de mesma origem.