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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public 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: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "Frank A. Adrian" Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net> X-Deja-AN: 324501379 References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bti3r$e96$1@client3.news.psi.net> <6bv3no$b62@clarknet.clark.net> <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: First DataBank 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: docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net>... >In article <6bv72g$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? Of course, but again, to my ears, it does not sound superior. In fact, the use of the passive "is said to be" is much less pleasing than the active and simpler "they are". When you suggested a solution, I assumed you were referring to an active generic singular pronoun replacement. I take your use of passive voice to be a cheat. >> 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. Absolutely - as a bad example of passive voice where active voice would suffice. >> 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'? No, only that responding to your attempts to turn a simple post into a linguistic pissing match lowers myself. >> 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. My, my. The attempt to put to an end what is at this point obviously a linguistically based troll is now a "paucity of intellectual energy". I deny this as I deny that this thread has any further intellectual value. >>>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? I admitted I could not at the moment find such a usage. I did not admit that one did not exist. >> 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? As I said, I was not aware at the moment. You kindly pointed out a usage which, due to its poor style had slipped my mind. Your uncharitable response to my lapse of memory as laziness says more about your character than mine, I fear. >> 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. I refer more to a solution for an active voice general singular pronoun. And I still believe that such a solution is chimerical (clever of you to try to change the goal in mid-argument, though). >> 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. Well, good enough is often good enough. In important things I do strive for excellence. In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to them. In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end - the points of the combatants are clear: You believe that there is such thing as canonical "proper English usage" and you believe that sticking to this usage is worth the use of poor writing style (which you would term "good writing style"). I believe that there is only "common English usage" and that in an ernest attempt to convey information in a palatable and engaging way, this common usage is wholly acceptable, even when it means bending a few supposed "proper English usages". I believe that linguistic history and most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side. It is clear from the insulting nature of your posts that you wish only to engage me in your attempts to lengthen this rather unartful linguistic troll. I refuse to be engaged further. We are no longer amused. Go back under your bridge, Troll... -- Frank A. Adrian First DataBank frank_adrian@firstdatabank.com (W) franka@europa.com (H) This message does not necessarily reflect those of my employer, its parent company, or any of the co-subsidiaries of the parent company.