This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for the clean up on the adaptive grammar article. Much appreciated!
-- QTJ 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the collaboration on the formal grammar article. It's very easy for me to slip into concision without realizing what the educated layperson will or will not grok at first glance. I think the article's coming along nicely. Thanks!
-- QTJ 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I was not aware of this. Needless to say, I am sorry if I offended you. I would like to mention, however, that American English is quickly becoming an international standard.
UBeR 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind glancing at the articles for homophora, Talk:homophora, endophora, Talk:endophora, and exophora? On 21 October I corrected the articles for both homophora and endophora, after my "disputed" template and remarks went unanswered. One reason I hesitated is that it is just conceivable that some school uses homophora to mean self-reference. I found no support for that though, and corrected the articles to what I did find support for. O'RyanW ( ☺ ₪) 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the revert you made at clitic from:
In the Romance languages, the articles and the non- prepositional object pronoun are all clitics.
into:
In the Romance languages, the articles and most non-emphatic personal pronoun forms are clitics. In Spanish, for example:
with the argument that "they're not all prepositional, either", I disagree with your change. While in some languages (French) emphatic pronouns may appear alone, each and every one of those appears after prepositions as well. Furthermore, subject pronouns are neither emphatic nor clitics.
So, I think my phrasing makes the explanation more accurate than the expression "most non-emphatic personal pronouns". Regards. FilipeS 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
O'RyanW has explained the matter better than I ever could. Thank you! :-)
I would like to add an observation: you should be cautious about using terms such as "emphatic [or "stressed"] pronouns" when describing the Romance languages. There is a longstanding tradition of using such terms, due to French cultural influence, but, while they work well for French (where, as Ruakh has observed, one of the main factors in choosing between pronouns is stress) they are less adequate for other Romance languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, where syntax is more prominent than stress, IMHO. FilipeS 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Your editings and the whole clean-up work are much appreciated. I intend to add new material tommorow. Shalom. Dr Moshe 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos for the good work that you did on the eye dialect article — and so quickly after I had tagged it too! Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted the article to be consistent. "Standardize" had already been written elsewhere in the article, before the occurrence of "standardisation". It just so happens that I am American, too, and standardise is considered wrong according to my Firefox. That is all. -- Karch 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT remove external links (Occitan page) only because you dislike it, if you believe that some informations are not relevant, do start a discussion and provide serious explanations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.96.206 ( talk • contribs).
Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ruakh
I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, but only registered a few days ago. I was surprised with a welcome and some useful links on my talk page from you soon afterwards. Thanks for that. I wonder, though, was that "Welcome" from you automated?
I thought it might have been personal since we had both contributed to the same article around the day I registered, but the slickness of it made it seem automated or at least pre-designed to me.
By the way, from the banners down the right of your page, I see that you and I started out life in close spacial proximity, if not timewise. Grammarmonger 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, by "seeming automated" I didn't mean it in a negative way at all. It was a nice gesture and pointed me to some important guidelines at the same time.
I did a lot of work on that Adjectives page before I registered. I'm still not satisfied with it and I'll probably return to it. I so far haven't made large changes to many pages, mainly minor edits, but that page had an enormous error on it that needed fixing. Grammarmonger 10:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: your comment on this character sequence having other possible interpretations in C++.
I would not claim to be an expert on C++ syntax but I cannot think of any other possible interpretations of x * y ;
. Can you tell me what other possible syntactic/semantic interpretations can be given to this sequence. Thanks.
Derek farn 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
operator*(type_spec, type_spec)
, where the type specifications are compatible with x
and y
, or to a class member function with a prototype of the form classname::operator*(type_spec)
(possibly with const
appended), where x
is an object with that function available (either because it belongs to classname
, or because it belongs to a class that derives from classname
) and the type specification is compatible with y
. In the case of multiple compatible overloaded versions of the operator, the C++ compiler must apply a fairly complex algorithm, based on the types of x
and y
and the properties of the various type specifications, in order to determine which function is the correct one. Now, you might think that this doesn't affect the parse tree — after all, no matter what function actually ends up getting called, we still have *
of (x,y)
— but since the compiler needs to choose from among the overloaded versions that have already been declared, and to ignore any overloaded versions that have yet to be declared, I'm pretty sure it must choose a version at parse-time. Even if that's not the case, and the parsing stage really is as simple as in C, the current description doesn't completely apply to C++, because the term "multiplication" doesn't necessarily apply to the behavior of the overloaded operator. —
Ruakh 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)x * y
. While technically *
is the multiplication operator, I guess it would not be in the spirit of a Wikipedia article at this technical level to use it in such a context without further explanation (the average reader is more likely to be confused that understand that the syntactic token was being referred to).
Derek farn 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)There was my fussy question. You have helped me to understand my fault. The discussion makes no sense anymore. It takes internet bandwidth and reduces readability. Why should it be preserved? -- Javalenok 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I addition to improved readability and network load, the lighter pages need less archivations. Keeping garbage on pages will archive unresolved issues which is extra nonsense. Nonsense is evil. Excuse me to producing it. But I do not understand why are wikipedians oppose to eliminating it. -- Javalenok 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In Singular they, you changed the part that said, "others use the singular form themself analogously to the singular yourself," and you added, "This development was irrelevant in the case of you, since yourself was already in use as a plural when you developed its singular senses." Are you sure about this? I thought the 2nd person plural has always been yourselves, and that yourself was an innovation perfectly analogous to themself. -- Lazar Taxon 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, did I happen upon that snops story just as it got posted or did the two of us just happen to read it at the same time out of some strange coincidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.38.83 ( talk • contribs).
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for the clean up on the adaptive grammar article. Much appreciated!
-- QTJ 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the collaboration on the formal grammar article. It's very easy for me to slip into concision without realizing what the educated layperson will or will not grok at first glance. I think the article's coming along nicely. Thanks!
-- QTJ 01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I was not aware of this. Needless to say, I am sorry if I offended you. I would like to mention, however, that American English is quickly becoming an international standard.
UBeR 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you would mind glancing at the articles for homophora, Talk:homophora, endophora, Talk:endophora, and exophora? On 21 October I corrected the articles for both homophora and endophora, after my "disputed" template and remarks went unanswered. One reason I hesitated is that it is just conceivable that some school uses homophora to mean self-reference. I found no support for that though, and corrected the articles to what I did find support for. O'RyanW ( ☺ ₪) 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the revert you made at clitic from:
In the Romance languages, the articles and the non- prepositional object pronoun are all clitics.
into:
In the Romance languages, the articles and most non-emphatic personal pronoun forms are clitics. In Spanish, for example:
with the argument that "they're not all prepositional, either", I disagree with your change. While in some languages (French) emphatic pronouns may appear alone, each and every one of those appears after prepositions as well. Furthermore, subject pronouns are neither emphatic nor clitics.
So, I think my phrasing makes the explanation more accurate than the expression "most non-emphatic personal pronouns". Regards. FilipeS 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
O'RyanW has explained the matter better than I ever could. Thank you! :-)
I would like to add an observation: you should be cautious about using terms such as "emphatic [or "stressed"] pronouns" when describing the Romance languages. There is a longstanding tradition of using such terms, due to French cultural influence, but, while they work well for French (where, as Ruakh has observed, one of the main factors in choosing between pronouns is stress) they are less adequate for other Romance languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, where syntax is more prominent than stress, IMHO. FilipeS 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Your editings and the whole clean-up work are much appreciated. I intend to add new material tommorow. Shalom. Dr Moshe 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos for the good work that you did on the eye dialect article — and so quickly after I had tagged it too! Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted the article to be consistent. "Standardize" had already been written elsewhere in the article, before the occurrence of "standardisation". It just so happens that I am American, too, and standardise is considered wrong according to my Firefox. That is all. -- Karch 15:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT remove external links (Occitan page) only because you dislike it, if you believe that some informations are not relevant, do start a discussion and provide serious explanations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.185.96.206 ( talk • contribs).
Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ruakh
I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, but only registered a few days ago. I was surprised with a welcome and some useful links on my talk page from you soon afterwards. Thanks for that. I wonder, though, was that "Welcome" from you automated?
I thought it might have been personal since we had both contributed to the same article around the day I registered, but the slickness of it made it seem automated or at least pre-designed to me.
By the way, from the banners down the right of your page, I see that you and I started out life in close spacial proximity, if not timewise. Grammarmonger 12:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, by "seeming automated" I didn't mean it in a negative way at all. It was a nice gesture and pointed me to some important guidelines at the same time.
I did a lot of work on that Adjectives page before I registered. I'm still not satisfied with it and I'll probably return to it. I so far haven't made large changes to many pages, mainly minor edits, but that page had an enormous error on it that needed fixing. Grammarmonger 10:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: your comment on this character sequence having other possible interpretations in C++.
I would not claim to be an expert on C++ syntax but I cannot think of any other possible interpretations of x * y ;
. Can you tell me what other possible syntactic/semantic interpretations can be given to this sequence. Thanks.
Derek farn 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
operator*(type_spec, type_spec)
, where the type specifications are compatible with x
and y
, or to a class member function with a prototype of the form classname::operator*(type_spec)
(possibly with const
appended), where x
is an object with that function available (either because it belongs to classname
, or because it belongs to a class that derives from classname
) and the type specification is compatible with y
. In the case of multiple compatible overloaded versions of the operator, the C++ compiler must apply a fairly complex algorithm, based on the types of x
and y
and the properties of the various type specifications, in order to determine which function is the correct one. Now, you might think that this doesn't affect the parse tree — after all, no matter what function actually ends up getting called, we still have *
of (x,y)
— but since the compiler needs to choose from among the overloaded versions that have already been declared, and to ignore any overloaded versions that have yet to be declared, I'm pretty sure it must choose a version at parse-time. Even if that's not the case, and the parsing stage really is as simple as in C, the current description doesn't completely apply to C++, because the term "multiplication" doesn't necessarily apply to the behavior of the overloaded operator. —
Ruakh 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)x * y
. While technically *
is the multiplication operator, I guess it would not be in the spirit of a Wikipedia article at this technical level to use it in such a context without further explanation (the average reader is more likely to be confused that understand that the syntactic token was being referred to).
Derek farn 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)There was my fussy question. You have helped me to understand my fault. The discussion makes no sense anymore. It takes internet bandwidth and reduces readability. Why should it be preserved? -- Javalenok 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I addition to improved readability and network load, the lighter pages need less archivations. Keeping garbage on pages will archive unresolved issues which is extra nonsense. Nonsense is evil. Excuse me to producing it. But I do not understand why are wikipedians oppose to eliminating it. -- Javalenok 12:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In Singular they, you changed the part that said, "others use the singular form themself analogously to the singular yourself," and you added, "This development was irrelevant in the case of you, since yourself was already in use as a plural when you developed its singular senses." Are you sure about this? I thought the 2nd person plural has always been yourselves, and that yourself was an innovation perfectly analogous to themself. -- Lazar Taxon 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, did I happen upon that snops story just as it got posted or did the two of us just happen to read it at the same time out of some strange coincidence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.38.83 ( talk • contribs).