From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: docdwarf@clark.net () Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 324470404 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net> <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian wrote: >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net>... >>In article <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net>, >>Frank A. Adrian wrote: >>>In short, lighten up, Mr. Language Pedant. >> >>Mr? Why do you call me 'Mr'? Permit me to offer you a challenge, Mr >>Adrian... I say there is a simple, readily accepted substitute for this >>instance of antecedant/consequent disagreement. I say, further, that you >>can neither generate it yourself nor, after I generate it, give any >>passable reason as to *why* this antecedant/consequent disagreement is >>superior to the alternative that you are obviously unable to generate. > >To be honest, I cannot find a solution that sounds superior to my ears than >the use of the plural "they". Good of you to so publically admit your inability... try this one on your ears, then: (pardon my paraphrasing but I cannot remember the original line exactly) 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded" this "programmer is said to be' Ever seen such a usage? > Even though others have proposed >alternatives, they have generally been rebuffed by the only court that holds >sway in the linguistic realm, the court of common usage. The example I just gave is found in this 'court' rather frequently. > As I see the >current situation being satisfactory, I have no need to lower myself to the >level of your suposed challenge. Oh my... *you* could not think of a common usage so to respond is to 'lower yourself'? > If you find the situation intolerable, I >apologize about and withdraw my objection to your post and will certainly >not stand in your way as you make a braying ass of yourself about the >matter. By all means, when I make a braying ass please do mention it... when I point out the paucity of intellectual energy amongst readers out there you may respond as you already have. > >>Are you up to the challenge, Mr Adrian? Do you say there is *no* >>acceptable alternative to the above cited disagreement... or that the >>failure to find one is just a matter of laziness? > >I admit neither. You admitted earlier that you could not find such a usage... are you changing this now? > Perhaps there is an acceptable alternative. Perhaps there >is not. The fact that there is no acceptable alternative NOW, I will not >ascribe to laziness. What about the fact that there *is* an acceptable alternative of which you were aware and which you neglected? It was there if you looked; not-looking is often a sign of laziness, neh? > I might ascribe it to inertia or a lack of concern on >the part of English speakers, but in any case, I find the status quo with >respect to the issue (i.e., overloading use of the plural to also mean the >sex-neutral singular case) quite satisfactory. I have no need to search for >this chimerical solution you prattle on about. So if it is not what you already know then you call it chimerical and the brayings og an ass... how lovely. > If you have a problem with >common usage, please go ahead with your Quixotic quest, friend. If mediocre is good enough for you then you will always be happy, as well... but this is neither here nor there, you have been proven wrong, just admit it and go along with your life. DD k