Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
csj wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > Wendell Cochran wrote:
> > >
> > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100
> > > Carel Fellinger <cfelling@iae.nl> :
> > >
> > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his
> > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ...
>
> For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this
> construction.
>
> > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia,
> > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you
> > > >> meant to convey by this.
> > >
> > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem
> > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding?
>
> No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking,
> writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates
> of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way
> to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It
> would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of
> the world that limited our rights to modify the language and
> propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually
> say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space
> no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a
> matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film
> mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be.
This paragraph runs close to nonsense! Imagine (you don't need too much
imagination!) if Micro$oft released a product which didn't conform to
the
relevant standard. I don't need to explain to you just how much
ridicule
they would receive; go look around the internet for a while and you'll
see
it. If someone wrote an HTTP server which 'spoke' the author's own
version
of HTTP then they would not be justified by claiming that they were
exercising
"the spirit of the GPL." If someone wrote an SMTP server that said
'RPCT'
instead of 'RCPT' then that would not be acceptable. Why is it in "the
spirit of the GPL," to speak a language in a fashion that people don't
understand? If you want to speak a language of your own devising then
you
are more than welcome to do so, but people will probably not understand
you
and I would thank you not to call it English. Speaking a deviant
language/
protocol/whatever and claiming either that it conforms to the standard
or
that it doesn't, but that that is OK, is the way Microsoft do business,
and it has no place outside Redmond.
Also, to claim that it is OK to speak a language however you want is a
very
poorly thought out thing to do. The purpose of using a language is to
comm-
unicate, and for it to be effective there needs to be agreement between
the
communicating parties on the format and structure of the language. This
applies not only to human language, but it is a very well recognised
principle
of software engineering. Not only should a language be consistently
compiled across various development environments and platforms, it
should also
be consistently used within an organisation to make maintenance a
possible
job. Go and read an IETF standard; they define precisely what they mean
by
a number of terms at the beginning of a document, so that the language
is
used consistently when talking about the subject area of the document.
Is
this contrary to the spirit of the GPL? Then go and have a look at the
GNU
coding standard. It defines not only the syntax and semantics of a
language
and it's use in GNU code, but also how the code should be laid out;
where
braces and brackets appear, when there should be a new-line and so on.
Is
GNU behaving contrary to the spirit of the GPL by standardising their
use of
language? I do not think so.
> > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing
> > > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and
> > > > suggestions in a constructive way.
> > >
> > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is
> > > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not
> > > English.)
> > >
> > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked >>>> defeated me. They
> > > still do.
>
> Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have
> understood the original.
So the entire English speaking world should take a couple of weeks of
German
lessons, and some French while we're there, and perhaps some Russian
would
be of use, heck, why not go and learn Esparanto while we're at it?
There
has to be someone here who speaks it...
> > I fear that I am forced to concur. As a native English speaker (NOT
> > American speaker ;-) I can see the sense of the translation, but when
> > reading the original have no clue what it is about. The phrase 'and
> > here is...' can not be given the object 'nothing,' nor can it be given
> > the object 'no interest'. Although certain idioms include such
> > phraseology as 'and here isn't the Prime Minister of England,' such
> > usage is not correct and is ambiguous and confusing. The correct
> > phrasing of this clause is '...and there is no interest here...'
> > although the 'and' is purely there because it was in the original. I
> > don't think it is legal to begin a paragraph with 'and.' The use of the
> > future tense indefinite 'and would formulate' is also somewhat skewed
> > from the probable intention of the phrase; it implies that we are
> > talking about someone who would even consider doing so, which I don't
> > think is the intent of the writer. The position of 'constructively,'
> > although avoiding the split infinitive of 'to constructively formulate,'
> > is nonetheless somewhat awkward, and probably breaks some rule
> > somewhere. It fits the rhythm of the language far more pleasingly to
> > move this word to the end of the sentence. So, to sum up, a correct
> > phrasing might be:
>
> Language has meaning only within a given context. And in the context
> of this forum, "And here is" makes easy and perfect sense. But "That
> is a cat!" (as proper as the sentence might be) won't, because I
> don't have the reference to know if you're actually pointing to a cat
> or just a scrappy little dog. To me the only criminals are those who
> insist their Shift key is broken.
Language does, of course, only have meaning within its context, but this
is not the *only* thing that gives it meaning. The meaning of language
is determined by *three* things; syntax, semantics and context. You can
not destroy the syntax and semantics of a sentence and expect that the
meaning will be understood solely from the context. God, in his
goodness,
has given us minds that can process language in phenomenal ways, and
that processing is on the whole fairly fault-tolerant, but at some point
a sentence becomes so mangled that its meaning is obscured.
It should be noted that I am not trying to villify or condemn the author
of the original post. He has made a remarkable effort at learning
English,
but his learning is incomplete. I do not blame him for this. I
personally
know about six words of German, and, according to my wife, speak the
most
execrable French she has ever had the misfortune to hear. But the claim
that it does not matter how English is used is one which I will not let
pass.
Regards
Tom
Reply to: