Re: Incorrect use of "it's" in package control files -- file mass bug?
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 11:02:29PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > For what it's worth, the more usual *Latin* phrase is actually "hoc
> > est"!
>
> I guess you wanted to say "ad hoc"
No. "Hoc est", which is also normally translated "that is", and is
the more usual Latin phrase--in Latin writing, not in English
writing--for "that is".
"Ad hoc" means something totally different.
> > The ideographic status of "i.e." and "e.g." (in *English*) have well
> > been demonstrated by asking unprepped native speakers to read text
> > aloud and seeing what they actually say.
>
> Same applies to any abbreviation. Do the same for IANAL, FWIW, IMHO,
> etc.
Oh, it's far less regular than that.
There are at least four ways of reading abbreviations in English, and
which is chosen depends mostly on the abbreviation (often arbitrarily)
and somewhat on the speaker.
First, there are abbreviations which are read as if they were words
themselves. These are the acronyms. For example, "NATO", which is
normally read "NAY-toe", or "AIDS", which is universally read "AYDZ".
Then, there are ones for which the names of the letters are pronounced
in order. This is how I pronounce "IHMO", as "EYE aitch em OH". It
is how a small (and dwindling) minority of English speakers pronounce
"i.e.", reading that as, "EYE EE".
Then, there are the ones for which the words the letters stand for are
read in order. For example, I pronounce "IANAL" as "EYE am not uh
LOY-yer." And there is a itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny percentage of English
speakers who read "i.e." as "id EST".
And there are ideographic ones, for which there is no alphabetic
relation between the letters and the pronounciation. That's the
present example, in which most English speakers pronounce "i.e." as
"that IS" and "e.g." as "fr eg-ZAM-pl".
The surest sign that the ideographic pronounciation is dominant is
that even people who read "EYE EE" or "id EST" don't actually use
those phrases when they are speaking without reading a text. By
contrast, I say "NAY-toe" and even "EYE aitch em OH" in casual speech.
I have even begun saying "ELL oh ELL" now and then! LOL.
A curious thing is that spelling out the letters (option 2) is
psychologically perceived as "faster" than reading the words (option
3). This is normally true, because only one letter is more than one
syllable. But the psychological perception is more dominant than the
facts. Many people say (reading or not) "PEE dub-bl-YOU AY" (five
syllables) instead of "PER-sun with AYDZ" (four syllables), because
psychologically saying the letters is shorter ("more abbreviated")
than just using the words they stand for!
Thomas
Reply to: