www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - std.stream.Stream.writeable

reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
std.stream.Stream.writeable ...?

Walter, um - are you aware that there's no 'e' in "writable"?

A niggly thing, I know, but is there any chance you can correct the spelling?

(I guess you could keep the old spelling as a deprecated alias)
Nov 14 2007
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Janice Caron wrote:

 std.stream.Stream.writeable ...?
 
 Walter, um - are you aware that there's no 'e' in "writable"?
 
 A niggly thing, I know, but is there any chance you can correct the spelling?
 
 (I guess you could keep the old spelling as a deprecated alias)


Both are ok, actually.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable
Nov 14 2007
parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable


Oh! <embarrassed>

Well, they're not in England. I also checked in Merriam-Webster before
posting, just to see how the Americans spelt it. It would appear that
different American dictionaries say different things. Hey ho.
Nov 14 2007
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.60.1195068267.2338.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable


 Oh! <embarrassed>

 Well, they're not in England. I also checked in Merriam-Webster before
 posting, just to see how the Americans spelt it. It would appear that
 different American dictionaries say different things. Hey ho.


It's interesting to see this change.  I'm in the -e- insertion camp, I never 
knew the e was dropped in these -able compounds.  I also think 'writable' 
looks like it'd be pronounced 'RIT-able' since the e went away, which might 
by what's driving this change.

SPELLING IS FUN
Nov 14 2007
parent reply Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.60.1195068267.2338.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable


 Oh! <embarrassed>

 Well, they're not in England. I also checked in Merriam-Webster before
 posting, just to see how the Americans spelt it. It would appear that
 different American dictionaries say different things. Hey ho.


 
 It's interesting to see this change.  I'm in the -e- insertion camp, I never 
 knew the e was dropped in these -able compounds.  I also think 'writable' 
 looks like it'd be pronounced 'RIT-able' since the e went away, which might 
 by what's driving this change.
 
 SPELLING IS FUN 
 
 


Heh, whenever I see the variants that include an 'e', I read (e.g.) 
write-ee-ah-blay. This is just because I'm used to it not being there, 
of course.

Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^

  - Gregor Richards
Nov 14 2007
next sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.60.1195068267.2338.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.

 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/writeable


 Oh! <embarrassed>

 Well, they're not in England. I also checked in Merriam-Webster before
 posting, just to see how the Americans spelt it. It would appear that
 different American dictionaries say different things. Hey ho.


 It's interesting to see this change.  I'm in the -e- insertion camp, I 
 never knew the e was dropped in these -able compounds.  I also think 
 'writable' looks like it'd be pronounced 'RIT-able' since the e went 
 away, which might by what's driving this change.

 SPELLING IS FUN


 
 Heh, whenever I see the variants that include an 'e', I read (e.g.) 
 write-ee-ah-blay. This is just because I'm used to it not being there, 
 of course.
 
 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^
 
  - Gregor Richards


I'm in the no-e camp...

The fact that it is a single 't' after the 'i' implies that the word had an 'e'
before
the sufix was added, if there had been no 'e' then the terminal consonant would
have
been doubled to make "Writtable". When compounding words like this one should
also try
to avoid creating false diphthongs.

Seems like this is a very odd occasion where US English has added an un-needed
letter
instead of omiting one. When I was younger I used to resent having to miss out
the u
when typing "color" related code.

As for phonetic spelling, its a nice idea, but it places more burdon on context
when
there are multiple meanings for the same spoken sound.

A...
Nov 14 2007
next sibling parent reply 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> writes:
Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message 

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








[...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






[...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


For me, an e, if you please.... =)
Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
more orthogonal...

Regards, Frank
Nov 14 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 
 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
It's not the main entry.

So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?

--bb
Nov 14 2007
next sibling parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Bill Baxter Wrote:


 0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 
 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


 
 I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
 dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
 It's not the main entry.
 
 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?
 
 --bb


Actually the more pedantic among us (British that is) spell it notable instead.
:)
Dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage dictionary and therefore
favours (note the u) American preferences. Its more egalitarian than some. At
least it doesn't ram them down our throats and claim precedence, unlike certain
APIs. My favourite example of this bad behaviour is colour.  Don't get me
started on centre and meter (a measuring device) versus metre (a unit of
measurement)... 

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm
Nov 14 2007
next sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Bruce Adams wrote:

 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 

 0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


 I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
 dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
 It's not the main entry.

 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?

 --bb


 
 Actually the more pedantic among us (British that is) spell it notable
instead. :)
 Dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage dictionary and therefore
favours (note the u) American preferences. Its more egalitarian than some. At
least it doesn't ram them down our throats and claim precedence, unlike certain
APIs. My favourite example of this bad behaviour is colour.  Don't get me
started on centre and 



 meter (a measuring device) versus metre (a unit of measurement)... 


Indeed. It's a bit bizarre to insist on changing the spelling of a unit which 
you don't even use...

 
 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Don Clugston Wrote:


 Bruce Adams wrote:

 meter (a measuring device) versus metre (a unit of measurement)... 


 
 Indeed. It's a bit bizarre to insist on changing the spelling of a unit which 
 you don't even use...

 
 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm




Actually we are mostly metric. A few imperial measures live on due to
convention (miles) and a couple of things are done both ways. Milk legally has
to be labelled in litres (thanks Brussels) but we all know we buy it by the
pint. We're a bit schizophrenic about weight. Sometimes Kg and sometimes Lbs.
Nov 15 2007
next sibling parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 2007 9:15 AM, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

 Indeed. It's a bit bizarre to insist on changing the spelling of a unit which
 you don't even use...

 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm




 Actually we are mostly metric.


I believe the complaint here was that America changed the spelling of
metre, despite the fact that America does not use the unit. That we
Brits use it is not in dispute.
Nov 15 2007
parent Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Janice Caron Wrote:


 On Nov 15, 2007 9:15 AM, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

 Indeed. It's a bit bizarre to insist on changing the spelling of a unit which
 you don't even use...

 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm




 Actually we are mostly metric.


 
 I believe the complaint here was that America changed the spelling of
 metre, despite the fact that America does not use the unit. That we
 Brits use it is not in dispute.


A fellow Brit I never knew! If there are more of us, perhaps we can have a D
conference
in the UK.
Fair point. I assume laziness why have two spellings for two words that sound
the same.
Okay one person's laziness is another's parsimony (and to another person a
teachers foolish mistake responsible for splitting one language into two -
dialects notwithstanding)
Nov 15 2007
prev sibling parent Jan Claeys <digitalmars janc.be> writes:
Op Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:15:04 -0500, schreef Bruce Adams:


 Kg


*cough*

'kg' is with a small 'k'   ;-)


-- 
JanC
Nov 18 2007
prev sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
Bruce Adams wrote:

 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 

 0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


 I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
 dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
 It's not the main entry.

 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?

 --bb


 
 Actually the more pedantic among us (British that is) spell it notable
instead. :)
 Dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage dictionary and therefore
favours (note the u) American preferences. Its more egalitarian than some. At
least it doesn't ram them down our throats and claim precedence, unlike certain
APIs. My favourite example of this bad behaviour is colour.  Don't get me
started on centre and meter (a measuring device) versus metre (a unit of
measurement)... 
 
 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm
 
 


I think that "notable" and "noticeable" have very subtly different meanings.
I'll
be a little coarse in my illustration if you don't mind. It is is very
different to
talk about a lady having a "very notable VPL" versus a "very noticeable VPL".
That is
to say that the first is worthy of noting, the second merely obvious to the
observer.

A...
Nov 15 2007
parent Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Alix Pexton Wrote:


 Bruce Adams wrote:

 Bill Baxter Wrote:
 

 0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


 I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
 dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
 It's not the main entry.

 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?

 --bb


 
 Actually the more pedantic among us (British that is) spell it notable
instead. :)
 Dictionary.com is based on the American Heritage dictionary and therefore
favours (note the u) American preferences. Its more egalitarian than some. At
least it doesn't ram them down our throats and claim precedence, unlike certain
APIs. My favourite example of this bad behaviour is colour.  Don't get me
started on centre and meter (a measuring device) versus metre (a unit of
measurement)... 
 
 http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones/differences.htm
 
 


 
 I think that "notable" and "noticeable" have very subtly different meanings.
I'll
 be a little coarse in my illustration if you don't mind. It is is very
different to
 talk about a lady having a "very notable VPL" versus a "very noticeable VPL".
That is
 to say that the first is worthy of noting, the second merely obvious to the
observer.
 
 A...


It is true and the two are often substituted incorrectly.  I think I was
replying to a context where notable was more appropriate but I could have just
been sleepy. They have distinct stems - note and notice. Notable being "of
importance/worthy of noting" and noticeable being "worthy of observing".
Nov 15 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 2007 1:00 AM, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?


noticeable

See
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=noticeable&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search

(Incidently, you can check the British spelling of any word, using
Chambers online).
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Janice Caron Wrote:


 On Nov 15, 2007 1:00 AM, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?


 
 noticeable
 
 See
 http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=noticeable&title=21st&sourceid=Mozilla-search
 
 (Incidently, you can check the British spelling of any word, using
 Chambers online).


Ironically this dictionary contains neither writeable nor writable and yet
claims to be 21st century.
Nov 15 2007
parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/15/07, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

 Ironically this dictionary contains neither writeable nor writable and yet
claims to be 21st century.


That's because it assumes its users are intelligent. For example, it
also does not contain the word "writes". The reasoning is: it is
sufficient to include the word "write", and define it as a verb, since
all derivations therefrom are regular. It only lists derivations which
are irregular (e.g. "noticeable")
Nov 15 2007
parent Jan Claeys <digitalmars janc.be> writes:
Op Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:14:26 +0000, schreef Janice Caron:


 On 11/15/07, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

 Ironically this dictionary contains neither writeable nor writable and
 yet claims to be 21st century.


 
 That's because it assumes its users are intelligent. For example, it
 also does not contain the word "writes". The reasoning is: it is
 sufficient to include the word "write", and define it as a verb, since
 all derivations therefrom are regular. It only lists derivations which
 are irregular (e.g. "noticeable")


If all derivations are _regular_, then why doesn't the software recognize 
them and redirect?  ;-)


-- 
JanC
Nov 18 2007
prev sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 0ffh wrote:

 Alix Pexton wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message

 On 11/14/07, Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote:

 Both are ok, actually.


 Oh! <embarrassed>








 [...]

 SPELLING IS FUN






 [...]

 I'm in the no-e camp...


 For me, an e, if you please.... =)
 Really, usually I abide by the spelling I learned, which is English.
 Yet, on this occasion, I'd go with the American way, because it's
 more orthogonal...


 
 I don't know that "writeable" is really the "American way".  In the 
 dictionary.com page it's listed as an alternate acceptable spelling. 
 It's not the main entry.
 
 So how do you brits spell "noticeable"?
 
 --bb


"notice" is a strange word, the sound of the 'i' is not hardened by the 'e' in
the
normal way. Instead, the 'e' is present to soften the 'c' making int "notis"
rather
than "notik". Basically its all c's fault, you'll be surprised just how much
one can
blame on 'c'!!!

A...
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
Alix Pexton wrote:

 than "notik". Basically its all c's fault, you'll be surprised just how 
 much one can blame on 'c'!!!


'Twas midnight in the schoolroom
And every desk was shut
When suddenly from the alphabet
Was heard a loud "Tut-Tut!"

Said A to B, "I don't like C;
His manners are a lack.
For all I ever see of C
Is a semi-circular back!"

"I disagree," said D to B,
"I've never found C so.
 From where I stand he seems to be
An uncompleted O."

C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
You criticise my shape.
I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
And Cow and Cool and Cape."

"He's right" said E; said F, "Whoopee!"
Said G, "'Ip, 'Ip, 'ooray!"
"You're dropping me," roared H to G.
"Don't do it please I pray."

"Out of my way," LL said to K.
"I'll make poor I look ILL."
To stop this stunt J stood in front,
And presto! ILL was JILL.

"U know," said V, "that W
Is twice the age of me.
For as a Roman V is five
I'm half as young as he."

X and Y yawned sleepily,
"Look at the time!" they said.
"Let's all get off to beddy byes."
They did, then "Z-z-z."

      -- Spike Milligan
Nov 15 2007
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:fhhlbd$1a20$1 digitalmars.com...


 C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
 You criticise my shape.
 I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
 And Cow and Cool and Cape."


kat, kow, kool, kape.

Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch is 
kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get 
rid of this 'c' nonsense.
Nov 15 2007
next sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message 
 news:fhhlbd$1a20$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
 You criticise my shape.
 I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
 And Cow and Cool and Cape."


 
 kat, kow, kool, kape.
 
 Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch is 
 kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get 
 rid of this 'c' nonsense. 
 
 


Would you advocate the change to the words "elektrik" and "elektrishian"?
How would you explain that rule?

c is a multi-paradigm letter, its sometimes useful : )

A...
Nov 16 2007
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Alix Pexton wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message
 news:fhhlbd$1a20$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
 You criticise my shape.
 I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
 And Cow and Cool and Cape."


 
 kat, kow, kool, kape.
 
 Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch
 is
 kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get
 rid of this 'c' nonsense.




FWIW, in Norwegian we have k instead of c, except for some names where soft
c is used, and so called imported words like 'service'. Most imported words
get Norwegian spelling if they get defined as part of the language proper
though, in the case of 'service' -> sørvis.

The ch sound is the same as kj in Norwegian and is a similar special case.
Indeed, ki is prounounced the same, but then always with i as the following
vowel, compare Kina to China.


 
 


 
 Would you advocate the change to the words "elektrik" and "elektrishian"?
 How would you explain that rule?


Similar to ch and kj, sh becomes sj in Norwegian. However, I can't explain
how the above would be from those rules alone, as Norwegian have those
words written slightly different - elektrisk and elektriker.


 
 c is a multi-paradigm letter, its sometimes useful : )


Not really.

The Norwegian alphabet have 29 letters, a-z + æ,ø,å (Æ,Ø,Å) - but c, q
and x
aren't in any common use beyond certain imported words (like mentioned
above), xylofon comes to mind, but could probably be spelled as ksylofon
instead. So I'd say that the changes proposed here (the one and only true
forum for English development) are quite possible, and the letters c, q and
x could be removed from the alphabet :D

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Nov 16 2007
parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 The Norwegian alphabet have 29 letters, a-z + æ,ø,å (Æ,Ø,Å) - but c, q
and x
 aren't in any common use beyond certain imported words (like mentioned
 above), xylofon comes to mind, but could probably be spelled as ksylofon
 instead. So I'd say that the changes proposed here (the one and only true
 forum for English development) are quite possible, and the letters c, q and
 x could be removed from the alphabet :D
 


xylofon in Norwegian pronounced like 'syllofon', no 'ksylofon'. And 
thank God for that.  :p
Nov 16 2007
parent reply Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
torhu wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 The Norwegian alphabet have 29 letters, a-z + æ,ø,å (Æ,Ø,Å) - but c, q 
 and x
 aren't in any common use beyond certain imported words (like mentioned
 above), xylofon comes to mind, but could probably be spelled as ksylofon
 instead. So I'd say that the changes proposed here (the one and only true
 forum for English development) are quite possible, and the letters c, 
 q and
 x could be removed from the alphabet :D


 
 xylofon in Norwegian pronounced like 'syllofon', no 'ksylofon'. And 
 thank God for that.  :p


And in English (US) it's pronounced "zylofone".  (English 
needs the "silent e", or the vowel doesn't sound long.  But 
see "Meihim in ce klassrum" [approx.] by Dolton Edwards.  He 
proposed, among other changes, using the letter "c" to denote 
the voiced "th".)
Nov 17 2007
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Charles D Hixson Wrote:


 And in English (US) it's pronounced "zylofone".  (English 
 needs the "silent e", or the vowel doesn't sound long.  But 
 see "Meihim in ce klassrum" [approx.] by Dolton Edwards.  He 
 proposed, among other changes, using the letter "c" to denote 
 the voiced "th".)


Why not bring back theta and eth for that role?
Nov 17 2007
parent reply Alix Pexton <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Charles D Hixson Wrote:
 

 And in English (US) it's pronounced "zylofone".  (English 
 needs the "silent e", or the vowel doesn't sound long.  But 
 see "Meihim in ce klassrum" [approx.] by Dolton Edwards.  He 
 proposed, among other changes, using the letter "c" to denote 
 the voiced "th".)


 
 Why not bring back theta and eth for that role?


English used to have a letter for 'th', it looked very much like a letter 'y'.
If it had been allowed to evolve along with the other letters it might today
resemble the Japanese Yen currency symbol.
This is of course why alot of people refer to things as "Ye Olde..." and
pronounce "Ye" as 'ii' when technically it is 'the'.

A...
Nov 18 2007
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Alix Pexton" <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> wrote in message 
news:fhp6nl$dii$1 digitalmars.com...


 English used to have a letter for 'th', it looked very much like a letter 
 'y'.
 If it had been allowed to evolve along with the other letters it might 
 today resemble the Japanese Yen currency symbol.
 This is of course why alot of people refer to things as "Ye Olde..." and 
 pronounce "Ye" as 'ii' when technically it is 'the'.


Thorn!  It's still around in Icelandic.  There it looks like a P with a 
riser above as well as below.  It makes a great tongue smiley when paired 
with colon.
Nov 18 2007
parent Jan Claeys <digitalmars janc.be> writes:
Op Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:16:30 -0500, schreef Jarrett Billingsley:


 "Alix Pexton" <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> wrote in
 message news:fhp6nl$dii$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 English used to have a letter for 'th', it looked very much like a
 letter 'y'.
 If it had been allowed to evolve along with the other letters it might
 today resemble the Japanese Yen currency symbol. This is of course why
 alot of people refer to things as "Ye Olde..." and pronounce "Ye" as
 'ii' when technically it is 'the'.


 
 Thorn!  It's still around in Icelandic.  There it looks like a P with a
 riser above as well as below.


Actually, Icelandic has 2 characters that correspond to the English 'th':

ð / Ð = "ETH"
þ / Þ = "THORN"

(Which one is used depends on how "th" is pronounced in English, e.g. 
"the" vs. "thin".)


PS: I hope everyone has a 21st century newsreader that supports 
UTF-8 ?  ;-)


-- 
JanC
Nov 18 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Alix Pexton" <_a_l_i_x_._p_e_x_t_o_n_ _g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_> wrote in message 
news:fhjtp6$1qvd$1 digitalmars.com...

 Would you advocate the change to the words "elektrik" and "elektrishian"?
 How would you explain that rule?


Simple.  When you add -shian, drop any final consonant.  Same goes for 
"taktik" -> "taktishian", "musik" -> "musishian", "praktis" -> 
"praktishian", "fizik" -> "fizishian", "politik" -> "politishian"...
Nov 16 2007
next sibling parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/16/07, Jarrett Billingsley <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote:

 Simple.  When you add -shian, drop any final consonant.  Same goes for
 "taktik" -> "taktishian", "musik" -> "musishian", "praktis" ->
 "praktishian", "fizik" -> "fizishian", "politik" -> "politishian"...


Hmm...

Nuclear: I can see Americans writing "nukyular" and Brits writing "nyuklia".
Schedule: I can see Americans writing "shedyool" and Brits writing "skedool".

And what about "February" versus "Febyuary".

All that would happen is, instead of arguing about the correct
spelling, we'd instead by arguing about the correct pronunciation.

(And can you honestly see agreement on how to write the vowel sounds?
Hell, some people's /names/ would have to change their spelling
depening on who was speaking! Unless we can somehow mandate that
everyone must speak with the same accent!)
Nov 16 2007
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.80.1195222368.2338.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 Hmm...

 Nuclear: I can see Americans writing "nukyular" and Brits writing 
 "nyuklia".
 Schedule: I can see Americans writing "shedyool" and Brits writing 
 "skedyool".


In America, I've never heard anyone call it a "shedyool" unless they were 
deliberately mispronouncing it.  And "nukyular" is kind of regarded as an 
"uninformed" pronunciation of the word, like when someone who doesn't know 
anything about nuclear [fire]power is talking about it.
Nov 16 2007
parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/16/07, Jarrett Billingsley <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote:

 Schedule: I can see Americans writing "shedyool" and Brits writing
 "skedyool".


 In America, I've never heard anyone call it a "shedyool" unless they were
 deliberately mispronouncing it.


Sorry. Other way we round. In British English it's shedyool (and for
us it is /not/ a mispronunciation).
Nov 16 2007
prev sibling parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/16/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:

 Schedule: I can see Americans writing "shedyool" and Brits writing "skedool".


Typo: I meant:
Schedule: I can see Americans writing "shedyool" and Brits writing "skedyool".
Nov 16 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bruk Adamz <tortoise_74 ja.vas.co.eu> writes:
Alix Pexton Wrote:


 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message 
 news:fhhlbd$1a20$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
 You criticise my shape.
 I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
 And Cow and Cool and Cape."


 
 kat, kow, kool, kape.
 
 Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch is 
 kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get 
 rid of this 'c' nonsense. 
 
 


 
 Would you advocate the change to the words "elektrik" and "elektrishian"?
 How would you explain that rule?
 
 c is a multi-paradigm letter, its sometimes useful : )
 
 A...


The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be
the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was the
other possibility.
 
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan
that would become known as "Euro-English".
 
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the
sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter. There
will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph"
will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
 
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach
the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will
enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to
akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the
languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
 
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z"
and "w" with "v".
 
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou"
and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor
trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem
of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
 
Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst
plas.
Nov 16 2007
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bruk Adamz wrote:

 Alix Pexton Wrote:
 

 Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote in message 
 news:fhhlbd$1a20$1 digitalmars.com...


 C was vexed, "I'm much perplexed,
 You criticise my shape.
 I'm made like that, to help spell Cat
 And Cow and Cool and Cape."


 kat, kow, kool, kape.

 Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch is 
 kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get 
 rid of this 'c' nonsense. 


 Would you advocate the change to the words "elektrik" and "elektrishian"?
 How would you explain that rule?

 c is a multi-paradigm letter, its sometimes useful : )

 A...


 
 The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will
be the official language of the European Union rather than German, which was
the other possibility.
  
 As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5- year phase-in plan
that would become known as "Euro-English".
  
 In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make
the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of
"k". This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan have one less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome
"ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
  
 In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will
enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterent to
akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horibl mes of the silent "e" in the
languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
  
 By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z"
and "w" with "v".
  
 During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou"
and after ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a reil sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor
trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem
of a united urop vil finali kum tru.
  
 Und efter ze fifz yer, ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted in ze forst
plas.
  


Or there's the original version by Mark Twain:
http://dag.wieers.com/personal/docs/spelling.txt

--bb
Nov 16 2007
prev sibling parent 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> writes:
Alix Pexton wrote:

 c is a multi-paradigm letter, its sometimes useful : )


I herewith declare, that everything that ye may wield,
beyond C, is pury luxury. But, goddamnnit!, I *LOVE*
luxury!!11!1

greezt, frank
Nov 16 2007
prev sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 Anywhere a c is used, some other letter kould be used.  Well almost.  ch is 
 kind of an exseption.  But hard c is /k/, soft c /s/.  Kome on, let's get 
 rid of this 'c' nonsense. 


Latin didn't use K, except for in some imported words.  I think they got 
it from the Greek letter Kappa.  The Romans just used C for the hard 
sound, S was the soft sound, just like you said.  So from an historical 
point of view, it's the K that should go.  Latin also didn't originally 
have separate letters for u and v, or for i and j.  It's no accident 
they look so alike.  X was a fancy way of writing 'gs' or 'cs'.  So it's 
all pretty random. :p
Nov 16 2007
prev sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Alix Pexton wrote:


 As for phonetic spelling, its a nice idea, but it places more burdon on
 context when there are multiple meanings for the same spoken sound.


Really? I never noticed  that with my mother tongue (Norwegian, which use
mostly phonetic spelling). It is just a whole lot easier to learn to write
correctly. Apparently English is the language with the most dyslectics, and
that with a good margin. Chinese have none ...

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

 
 Really? I never noticed  that with my mother tongue (Norwegian, which use
 mostly phonetic spelling). It is just a whole lot easier to learn to write
 correctly. Apparently English is the language with the most dyslectics, and
 that with a good margin. Chinese have none ...
 


Is that based on science or government propaganda?
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Bruce Adams wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

 
 Really? I never noticed  that with my mother tongue (Norwegian, which use
 mostly phonetic spelling). It is just a whole lot easier to learn to
 write correctly. Apparently English is the language with the most
 dyslectics, and that with a good margin. Chinese have none ...
 


 Is that based on science or government propaganda?


Science. In English you have to learn writing almost independently from how
you talk. Chinese (and I suppose other similar languages) isn't necessarily
comparable, as they aren't spellable in the same way.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Nov 15 2007
parent reply 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Bruce Adams wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

 Really? I never noticed  that with my mother tongue (Norwegian, which use
 mostly phonetic spelling). It is just a whole lot easier to learn to
 write correctly. Apparently English is the language with the most
 dyslectics, and that with a good margin. Chinese have none ...


 Is that based on science or government propaganda?


 
 Science. In English you have to learn writing almost independently from how
 you talk. Chinese (and I suppose other similar languages) isn't necessarily
 comparable, as they aren't spellable in the same way.


Right, the problem is that the phenomenon of dyslexia is just not
applicable to the non-phonetic (purely symbolic) writing systems.
That does in no way mean that analphabetism is less of a problem.

While I have to learn 26 letters plus pronunciation rules (which
are not quite as horrendous as the English/American, but still a
bit of work; I envy the Italian people here), educated Chinese
people learn approximately 4000 Symbols (I am told).

Regards, Frank
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
0ffh Wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Bruce Adams wrote:

 Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:

 Really? I never noticed  that with my mother tongue (Norwegian, which use
 mostly phonetic spelling). It is just a whole lot easier to learn to
 write correctly. Apparently English is the language with the most
 dyslectics, and that with a good margin. Chinese have none ...


 Is that based on science or government propaganda?


 
 Science. In English you have to learn writing almost independently from how
 you talk. Chinese (and I suppose other similar languages) isn't necessarily
 comparable, as they aren't spellable in the same way.


 
 Right, the problem is that the phenomenon of dyslexia is just not
 applicable to the non-phonetic (purely symbolic) writing systems.
 That does in no way mean that analphabetism is less of a problem.
 
 While I have to learn 26 letters plus pronunciation rules (which
 are not quite as horrendous as the English/American, but still a
 bit of work; I envy the Italian people here), educated Chinese
 people learn approximately 4000 Symbols (I am told).
 
 Regards, Frank


Just  a thought but is it even possible to be dyslexic in an idiogrammic
language?
The order of the symbols in a word doesn't affect its meaning so much if indeed
at all.
No doubt there are conventions. Any writers of a Chinese or Japanese dialect
here?
I have to get back to my linguistics texts.
Nov 15 2007
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:fhhnat$1dtg$1 digitalmars.com...


 Just  a thought but is it even possible to be dyslexic in an idiogrammic 
 language?
 The order of the symbols in a word doesn't affect its meaning so much if 
 indeed at all.


I'm not meaning to insult you, but where did you hear that?  Word and 
morpheme order in Chinese is just as important as in any other language.

And Japanese, while borrowing several thousand Chinese characters, is of 
absolutely no linguistic relation to it.  It's also written in a mix of 
ideograms and phonetic characters, not pure Chinese characters.
Nov 15 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in message 
 news:fhhnat$1dtg$1 digitalmars.com...
 

 Just  a thought but is it even possible to be dyslexic in an idiogrammic 
 language?
 The order of the symbols in a word doesn't affect its meaning so much if 
 indeed at all.


 
 I'm not meaning to insult you, but where did you hear that?  Word and 
 morpheme order in Chinese is just as important as in any other language.
 
 And Japanese, while borrowing several thousand Chinese characters, is of 
 absolutely no linguistic relation to it.  It's also written in a mix of 
 ideograms and phonetic characters, not pure Chinese characters. 


That's linguistic drift for you. And as you point out neither Chinese nor
Japanese are 100% ideogrammic anymore if they ever were. 

Modern examples like bliss show how hard it is to express certain concepts that
way.
http://www.blissymbolics.org/workshop.shtml#structure

As I understand it dyslexia affects people at the level of letters not words.
There are at least two problems. Tranposing symbols and failing to distinct
symbols that are similar, typically by reflection or rotation. I was just
speculating as to whether the ideogrammic components of the language contribute
to making these kinds of error less likely.
Other possibilities are that the education system is better or there is a
genetic basis that is less common in the east. Studies should easily be able to
prove or refute these kinds of link if there genuinely is a difference in
occurance.

Following up with some research it seems I'm not entirely bonkers. Apparently
there is a difference in frequency the language does make a difference. Except
it could be to do with being a tonal languages or not rather than just the
ideograms or both.
 
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050408.html

Some more heavy going research only for those into cognitive 
psychology & psycholinguistics.
Naturally when you think about it there are going to be multiple points in the
the cognitive pathway where things can go wrong and therefore multiple types of
reading problem.

http://tinyurl.com/yp9h4y

Regards,

Bruce.
Nov 15 2007
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Is there something about this NG that promotes Way OT threads that are still 
interesting? This thread is so OT that it's almost back On topic (lexical 
and syntax parsing errors in natural languages)
Nov 15 2007
prev sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:fhipm8$8os$1 digitalmars.com...


 That's linguistic drift for you. And as you point out neither Chinese nor 
 Japanese are 100% ideogrammic anymore if they ever were.


<nitpick>Japanese never was solely ideographic.  Japanese as a language was 
not written for many years; Chinese was the language of science, religion, 
and education, and to be literate in ancient Japanese culture was to be able 
to speak, read, and write classical Chinese.  Over time, Japanese started to 
be written down, but using Chinese characters for their phonetic value in a 
system called man'yogana.  These phonetic-value characters eventually 
evolved into what today are hiragana and katakana, the syllabic scripts of 
Japanese.  Some older works were written entirely phonetically, in hiragana. 
The modern mixed ideographic/syllabic writing system evolved out of the old 
man'yogana system.  But Japanese, being highly inflectional and 
agglutinative, would never have lent itself well to being written in an 
entirely ideographic way, and it virtually never was.  The structure of 
Japanese inflection, however, does lend itself fairly well to the modern 
pattern of [Chinese Character Root]-[phonetic character affixes].</nitpick>


 Modern examples like bliss show how hard it is to express certain concepts 
 that way.
 http://www.blissymbolics.org/workshop.shtml#structure

 As I understand it dyslexia affects people at the level of letters not 
 words. There are at least two problems. Tranposing symbols and failing to 
 distinct symbols that are similar, typically by reflection or rotation. I 
 was just speculating as to whether the ideogrammic components of the 
 language contribute to making these kinds of error less likely.
 Other possibilities are that the education system is better or there is a 
 genetic basis that is less common in the east. Studies should easily be 
 able to prove or refute these kinds of link if there genuinely is a 
 difference in occurance.

 Following up with some research it seems I'm not entirely bonkers. 
 Apparently there is a difference in frequency the language does make a 
 difference. Except it could be to do with being a tonal languages or not 
 rather than just the ideograms or both.

 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050408.html

 Some more heavy going research only for those into cognitive
 psychology & psycholinguistics.
 Naturally when you think about it there are going to be multiple points in 
 the the cognitive pathway where things can go wrong and therefore multiple 
 types of reading problem.

 http://tinyurl.com/yp9h4y


Interesting stuff :D
Nov 15 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:

 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^
 
  - Gregor Richards


A large corpus in non-phonetic spelling. Besides which, if we used the 
IPA, for example, and had for the past 500 years, it'd be annoying and 
difficult to read works from the 1500's -- though you'd know a lot about 
the dialects.
Nov 14 2007
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Gregor Richards wrote:

 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^


Most english words are expropriated from other languages.
Nov 14 2007
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^


 
 Most english words are expropriated from other languages.


Also, pronounciations have changed over time, yet the spelling did not. 
Thus, the silent e's like in 'have'.
Nov 14 2007
parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Gregor Richards wrote:

 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^


 
 Most english words are expropriated from other languages.


 
 Also, pronounciations have changed over time, yet the spelling did not. 
 Thus, the silent e's like in 'have'.


Ultimately everything can be traced back to the word 'ug'
which http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ug ironically describes as an
acronym for universal grammar.
Nov 14 2007
parent reply 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> writes:
Bruce Adams wrote:

 Ultimately everything can be traced back to the word 'ug'


Everything can be traced back to fear/horror/loathing/disgust?
Sounds like an interesting, if somewhat morbid, philosophy! =)

Regards, Frank

References

   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ug
Nov 14 2007
parent Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
0ffh Wrote:


 Bruce Adams wrote:

 Ultimately everything can be traced back to the word 'ug'


 
 Everything can be traced back to fear/horror/loathing/disgust?
 Sounds like an interesting, if somewhat morbid, philosophy! =)
 
 Regards, Frank
 
 References
 
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ug


That's the modern meaning of the word. Think caveman. Ug kill. Ug eat. Ug want
woman. Ug like pretty stones. Ug sleepy now. Ug say bye.
Nov 15 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Janice Caron wrote:

 std.stream.Stream.writeable ...?
 
 Walter, um - are you aware that there's no 'e' in "writable"?
 
 A niggly thing, I know, but is there any chance you can correct the spelling?
 
 (I guess you could keep the old spelling as a deprecated alias)


I didn't write std.stream.
Nov 14 2007
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:fhg7no$22n0$1 digitalmars.com...

 I didn't write std.stream.


So, is this an acceptance of responsibility, or an acknowledgement that 
there's a problem, or a passive-aggressive dismissal of it, or..?
Nov 14 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Gregor Richards Wrote:


 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^


That's because we're foolish enough to write it in a Roman script. I'd b
perfectly happy writing everything in IPA.
Nov 14 2007
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Robert Fraser wrote:

 Gregor Richards Wrote:
 

 Bloody English, what's wrong with phonetic spelling anyway? ^^


 
 That's because we're foolish enough to write it in a Roman script. I'd b
perfectly happy writing everything in IPA.


That way lies madness! We don't need IPA, we just need a sane script 
that's robust to past and future sound changes in English. Like Cyrillic 
is for Russian.
Nov 14 2007
prev sibling parent reply Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.whoo.co.uk> writes:
Janice Caron Wrote:


 On 11/15/07, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:

 Ironically this dictionary contains neither writeable nor writable and yet
claims to be 21st century.


 
 That's because it assumes its users are intelligent. For example, it
 also does not contain the word "writes". The reasoning is: it is
 sufficient to include the word "write", and define it as a verb, since
 all derivations therefrom are regular. It only lists derivations which
 are irregular (e.g. "noticeable")


But both writable and writeable are legal in certain circles. Only one of them
can be considered regular.
Nov 15 2007
parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:08:09 -0500, Bruce Adams wrote:
 

 But both writable and writeable are legal in certain circles.


"writable"  :- Something that can be turned into a writ.
"writeable" :- Something that can be written on.

Just kidding ;-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
Nov 15 2007