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: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: docdwarf@clark.net () Subject: Re: Which language pays most -- C++ vs. Java? Date: 1998/02/12 Message-ID: <6bvfcl$3d8@clarknet.clark.net> X-Deja-AN: 324506465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <6at330$7uj$1@mainsrv.main.nc.us> <6bv72g$h7v$1@client2.news.psi.net> <6bv816$iq6@clarknet.clark.net> <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bvea6$k8a$1@client2.news.psi.net>, Frank A. Adrian wrote: >docdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bv816$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. So, a new rule, in midstream... very well, remove the passive voice and change it to the active, I am flexible: 'The more a "programmer" knows, the more "well-rounded this "programmer" is' Simple enough, for most folks. > >>> 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. The active has been applied... next? > >>> 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. To question your assertions is a contest of urination? > > >>> 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. When you can leave behind such turgid prose as 'braying ass' and 'pissing match' perhaps you might be shown more charity; the objection to the passive voice has been removed... next? > >>> 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. You have that now. >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. So now it is a question of importance? Whenever was *that* mentioned, but for now? > In pissing contests with trollers, I strive to put an end to >them. Especially when you are so readily proven wrong... sounds like a barrel of laughs, to me! > In any case the usefulness of this discussion has come to an end - Usefulness to whom, pray tell? >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 have never stated any 'beliefs'; please inform us how you have divined these 'secrets of my soul'. > 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". That's nice... lazy, but nice. > I believe that linguistic history and >most of these (by now weary) newsgroups' readers are on my side. Any evidence for these beliefs beyond your assertions? > 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. 'Clarity' is in the mind of the beholder; I merely wish to see how gracefully you admit to being in the wrong when it is readily demonstrated. > I >refuse to be engaged further. No engagement needed, just an admission of your error. > We are no longer amused. Plural majestatus est... or should I have said 'Plural Majestatus Est, Your Highness'? > Go back under your >bridge, Troll... So, then... from this I am to conclude that anyone who tenaciously proves you to be incorrect is a Troll? How... droll! DD