[gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

I just got this elog from updating my gentoo system.  It's from
freetype-2.4.2:
---------------------------- begin ------------------------------
LOG (postinst)

The TrueType bytecode interpreter is no longer patented and thus no
longer controlled by the bindist USE flag.  Enable the auto-hinter
USE flag if you want the old USE=bindist hinting behavior.
----------------------------- end  -------------------------------

So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
>   auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of the
(recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-libs/freetype)

The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.  Is it
recommenting the unpatented  auto-hinter, or making a recommendation of the
TrueType bytecode interpreter?  I'm guessing the former, but not with
complete confidence.

I want clear font rendering, which I guess means using hints, and I've added
the auto-hinter use-flag in package.use.

I hope I guessed right.
-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:21:20 -0700, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:

> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
> >   auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead of
> > the  
> (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-libs/freetype)
> 
> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.  Is it
> recommenting the unpatented  auto-hinter, or making a recommendation of
> the TrueType bytecode interpreter?  I'm guessing the former, but not
> with complete confidence.

I'm confident it means the latter.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Peter Humphrey]

On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:

> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
> libs/freetype)
> 
> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.

No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of 
brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that 
the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the 
phrase "the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without 
brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>
>    
>> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
>> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
>> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
>> libs/freetype)
>>
>> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
>>      
> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of
> brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that
> the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the
> phrase "the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without
> brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous.
>
>    

Well Peter is not alone.  I saw that a week or so ago and I couldn't 
figure out what the heck any of it meant.  Sort of reminds me of what 
euse -i gives me, Greek or may as well be anyway.  Most of them doesn't 
make much sense unless you already know what they are, then you have no 
need to look.

I usually go to the forums and search around to see what things mean.  I 
just forgot to do that in this case.

So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 471 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:20:09 -0500, Dale wrote:

> So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here?

Nothing, unless you're using the bindist USE flag, in which case you
should replace it by auto-hinter. All that's happened is that control of
that feature has passed from one USE flag to another, because of a
licensing change.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who
think.(Horace Walpole)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:20:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> So, all that said, what the heck are we supposed to change here?
>>      
> Nothing, unless you're using the bindist USE flag, in which case you
> should replace it by auto-hinter. All that's happened is that control of
> that feature has passed from one USE flag to another, because of a
> licensing change.
>
>    

Oh.  Why didn't they just say that then?  :-)

"if using bindist USE flag please change over to auto-hinter unless you 
have a good reason not to switch."

See, I like it simple.  I can understand that.  Change over unless you 
know a really good reason not too.

My note:  "changed USE flag in make.conf.  Done."

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:38:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of 
> brackets (parentheses if you're American);

If you're British too:

Defined usage:
  () parentheses
  [] brackets
  {} braces

General usage:
  () brackets
  [] square brackets
  {} curly brackets

I'll let you decide which is the more intuitive usage.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 10:03 on Friday 20 August 2010, Neil Bothwick 
did opine thusly:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:38:10 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of
> > brackets (parentheses if you're American);
> 
> If you're British too:
> 
> Defined usage:
>   () parentheses
>   [] brackets
>   {} braces
> 
> General usage:
>   () brackets
>   [] square brackets
>   {} curly brackets
> 
> I'll let you decide which is the more intuitive usage.

The former, obviously.

Stuff has names, people should learn the names.

"Arrogant jerk on second floor with a beard and no head hair" is definitely 
more intuitive to my new staff, but for anyone here longer than a week it is 
far simpler to just use the name of the thing instead of some description, and 
refer to me as "Alan"


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 487 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:50 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> "Arrogant jerk on second floor with a beard and no head hair" is
> definitely more intuitive to my new staff, but for anyone here longer
> than a week it is far simpler to just use the name of the thing instead
> of some description, and refer to me as "Alan"

I thought you were talking about me until I realised I was reading it
downstairs :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Hm..what's this red button fo|'»\x7f.'NO CARRIER

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 20 August 2010 09:03:46 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> Defined usage:
>   () parentheses
>   [] brackets
>   {} braces

"Defined"? Defined where?

In English*, a parenthesis is a separate expression** marked off from the 
rest of the sentence with brackets. Round ones, that is. A parenthesis 
is not a punctuation mark, unless you want to be loose and informal 
about it.

* This is what I learned at school, it accords with all my experience so 
far except in American fora, and I see no need to change my 
understanding.

** Thus becoming a "parenthetical expression".

I'll get off my soapbox now...   :-)

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:53:55 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

Sorry for the delay in responding, been on holiday.

> > Defined usage:
> >   () parentheses
> >   [] brackets
> >   {} braces  
> 
> "Defined"? Defined where?

The OED.

> In English*, a parenthesis is a separate expression** marked off from
> the rest of the sentence with brackets.

The OED defines parenthesis in the singular as "a word clause or sentence
inserted as an explanation or afterthought...", which agrees with you,
but the plural form of parentheses as "a pair of round brackets used for
this".

So your statement is correct, but not relevant to the text you
quoted :P  ;-)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We all know what comes after 'X', said Tom, wisely.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 01:38 on Friday 20 August 2010, Peter Humphrey 
did opine thusly:

> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> > So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
> > auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
> > of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
> > libs/freetype)
> > 
> > The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
> 
> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of
> brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that
> the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the
> phrase "the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without
> brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous.


The parenthesis is actually correct as the recommendation is just an aside 
comment in this context. The sentence expands to:

instead of the TrueType bytecode interpreter (TrueType is the recommended 
interpreter to use btw)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Bill Longman]

On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> 
>> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
>> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
>> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
>> libs/freetype)
>>
>> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
> 
> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary inclusion of 
> brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove them and you see that 
> the TrueType byte-code interpreter is recommended. Or, just consider the 
> phrase "the recommended TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without 
> brackets. I can't see how that could be thought ambiguous.

I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the parenthetical
"recommended" is offset if it's just part of the sentence. If it were as
you say, there would be no need to put them there. As it is written it
sounds like it's making an aside claiming that one of them is
recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to discern its antecedent.

That's my first impression. And I'm sticking to it.

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote:
> On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> >> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
> >> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
> >> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
> >> libs/freetype)
> >> 
> >> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
> > 
> > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary
> > inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove
> > them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is
> > recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended
> > TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't
> > see how that could be thought ambiguous.
> 
> I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the
> parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the
> sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them
> there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming
> that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to
> discern its antecedent.

Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To 
associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to 
continue flogging a dead horse...)		:-)

I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Bill Longman]

On 08/20/2010 07:58 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote:
>> On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
>>>> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
>>>> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
>>>> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
>>>> libs/freetype)
>>>>
>>>> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary
>>> inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove
>>> them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is
>>> recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended
>>> TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't
>>> see how that could be thought ambiguous.
>>
>> I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the
>> parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the
>> sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them
>> there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming
>> that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to
>> discern its antecedent.
> 
> Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To 
> associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to 
> continue flogging a dead horse...)		:-)

Yet you yourself just put a parenthetical aside after its antecedent,
not before it.

Double flog. Double :-).

> I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful.

Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Kevin O'Gorman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6720 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org>wrote:

> On Friday 20 August 2010 14:20:35 Bill Longman wrote:
> > On 08/19/2010 04:38 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > On Thursday 19 August 2010 21:21:20 Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> > >> So I looked up "auto-hinter" in the flagedit(1) program. It says:
> > >> auto-hinter: Local Flag: Use the unpatented auto-hinter instead
> > >> of the (recommended) TrueType bytecode interpreter (media-
> > >> libs/freetype)
> > >>
> > >> The placement of the "(recommended)" is just a bit ambiguous.
> > >
> > > No, it isn't. You may be being confused by the unnecessary
> > > inclusion of brackets (parentheses if you're American); remove
> > > them and you see that the TrueType byte-code interpreter is
> > > recommended. Or, just consider the phrase "the recommended
> > > TrueType bytecode interpreter", with or without brackets. I can't
> > > see how that could be thought ambiguous.
> >
> > I have to agree it's ambiguous. You have to wonder why the
> > parenthetical "recommended" is offset if it's just part of the
> > sentence. If it were as you say, there would be no need to put them
> > there. As it is written it sounds like it's making an aside claiming
> > that one of them is recommended and, by its placement, it's hard to
> > discern its antecedent.
>
> Its placement puts it squarely with the noun phrase following it. To
> associate it with the preceding one instead would be perverse. (Just to
> continue flogging a dead horse...)              :-)
>
> I agree though that the brackets are neither necessary nor helpful.
>
>
Interesting replies all, especially the OT ones about parentheses, about
which more later.

For the me the confusion arises because I've become used to seeing
"(recommended)" coming just after the item being  described as such. So I
would see options a, b (recommended), or c.  This was my reason for making
the guess I did, although the rest of the punctuation was less clear than my
example, thus the ambiguity.  As was pointed out, it also struck me that if
"recommended" was intended to apply to the second option, the () thingies
were better omitted.

<OT>
As to the thingies, I enjoyed discovering that to many people a parenthesis
is not a glyph or punctuation mark, but instead the contents of the language
set aside in one way or another.  I had always regarded parentheses as the
round glyphs (), but this turns out to be normative primarily in
mathematics, computer programming languages and similar fields.  But I find
several competing meanings and sources using
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesis&ia=luna
==================================================================================================
  pa·ren·the·sis  [image: parenthesis
pronunciation]<http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P01/P0114800>
 /pəˈrɛnθəsɪs/ <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
Show
Spelled[puh-ren-thuh-sis]
<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html> Show IPA
 –noun, plural -ses [image: parenthesis
pronunciation]<http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P01/P0114900>
 /-ˌsiz/ <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html> Show
Spelled[-seez]
<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html> Show IPA.
1.
either or both of a pair of signs ( ) used in writing to mark off an
interjected explanatory or qualifying remark, to indicate separate groupings
of symbols in mathematics<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mathematics>
 and symbolic logic, etc.
2.
Usually, parentheses. the material contained within these marks.
3.
Grammar . a qualifying, explanatory, or appositive word, phrase, clause, or
sentence that interrupts a syntactic construction without otherwise
affecting it, having often a characteristic intonation and indicated in
writing by commas, parentheses, or dashes, as in William Smith—you must know
him—is coming tonight.
4.
an interval.

 Dictionary.com, "parenthesis," in *Dictionary.com Unabridged*. Source
location: Random House, Inc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parenthesis. Available:
http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: August 20, 2010.
------------------------------
*Origin: *
1560–70;  < LL < Gk parénthesis  a putting in beside. See
par-<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/par->,
en- <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/en->2 ,
thesis<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thesis>
   Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


=================================================================================================
also this:
*parenthesis * (pəˈrɛnθɪsɪs) [image: [Click for IPA pronunciation
guide]]<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
  — *n * , *pl * *-ses * 1. a phrase, often explanatory or qualifying,
inserted into a passage with which it is not grammatically connected, and
marked off by brackets, dashes, etc 2. Also called: *bracket * either of a
pair of characters, (), used to enclose such a phrase or as a sign of
aggregation in mathematical or logical expressions 3. an intervening
occurrence; interlude; interval 4. *in parenthesis * inserted as a
parenthesis   [C16: via Late Latin from Greek: something placed in besides,
from *parentithenai, * from para- 1  + en- ² + *tithenai * to put]
Dictionary.com,
"parenthesis," in *Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th
Edition*. Source location: HarperCollins Publishers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parenthesis. Available:
http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: August 20, 2010.
=================================================================================================
And, finally

 Word Origin & History

parenthesis
1550, "words, clauses, etc. inserted into a sentence," from M.Fr.
parenthèse,  from L.L. parenthesis  "addition of a letter to a syllable in a
word," from Gk. parenthesis,  lit. "a putting in beside," from parentithenai
 "put in beside," from para-  "beside" + en-  "in" + tithenai  "put, place,"
from PIE base *dhe-  "to put, to do" (see
factitious<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factitious>).
Extension of the word to the curved brackets that indicate the words
inserted is from 1715.

Dictionary.com, "parenthesis," in *Online Etymology Dictionary*. Source
location: Douglas Harper, Historian.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parenthesis. Available:
http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: August 20, 2010.

</OT>
-- 
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 83406 bytes --]

[WAY OT] Parenthese, was Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Mike Edenfield]

On 8/20/2010 11:40 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:

> As to the thingies, I enjoyed discovering that to many people a
> parenthesis is not a glyph or punctuation mark, but instead the contents
> of the language set aside in one way or another.  I had always regarded
> parentheses as the round glyphs (), but this turns out to be normative
> primarily in mathematics, computer programming languages and similar
> fields.  But I find several competing meanings and sources using
> http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesis&ia=luna
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesis&ia=luna>

In American English usage, the three forms of puncutation mark have
distinct names.  Contrary to previous assertions, these names are not
informal; authoritative American English dictionaries like M-W define
"bracket", "brace", and "parenthesis" separately as punctuation marks.

In British English they're all called "brackets", e.g. square, curly, or
round.

The Romance languages are somewhat varied, but they mostly use the Greek
word parenthesis to derive their term for () marks; in some cases, that
word is use for *all* brackets; in other cases [] and {} have separate
terms:

() = parenthèses (Fr.), paréntesis (Sp.), parentesi tonde (It.)
[] = crochets (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi quadre (It.)
{} = accolades (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi graffe (It.)

For what it's worth, Unicode defines U+0028 AND U+0029 as "LEFT
PARENTHESIS" and "RIGHT PARENTHESIS" (also "OPENING PARENTHESIS" and
"CLOSING PARENTHESIS").

--Mike

Re: [WAY OT] Parenthese, was Re: [gentoo-user] I can RTFM, but can I understand it: re elog messages

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 19:07 on Friday 20 August 2010, Mike Edenfield 
did opine thusly:

> On 8/20/2010 11:40 AM, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> > As to the thingies, I enjoyed discovering that to many people a
> > parenthesis is not a glyph or punctuation mark, but instead the contents
> > of the language set aside in one way or another.  I had always regarded
> > parentheses as the round glyphs (), but this turns out to be normative
> > primarily in mathematics, computer programming languages and similar
> > fields.  But I find several competing meanings and sources using
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesis&ia=luna
> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=parenthesis&ia=luna>
> 
> In American English usage, the three forms of puncutation mark have
> distinct names.  Contrary to previous assertions, these names are not
> informal; authoritative American English dictionaries like M-W define
> "bracket", "brace", and "parenthesis" separately as punctuation marks.
> 
> In British English they're all called "brackets", e.g. square, curly, or
> round.

Yuck. Too many times I've had someone dictate text and this happens:

Them: <blah> <blah> open bracket <blah> <blah> ....
Me:   Which bracket?
Them: huh?
Me:   You said open bracket. What kind of bracket?
Them: Curly?
Me:   You mean brace.
Them: Yes, that's the one! Is that what it's called then?

Way too many words. Just give the bloody thing a name.

Like Eskimo's with 20+ words for different kinds of snow.
Say "snow" to any Eskimo, see what happens :-)




> 
> The Romance languages are somewhat varied, but they mostly use the Greek
> word parenthesis to derive their term for () marks; in some cases, that
> word is use for *all* brackets; in other cases [] and {} have separate
> terms:
> 
> () = parenthèses (Fr.), paréntesis (Sp.), parentesi tonde (It.)
> [] = crochets (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi quadre (It.)
> {} = accolades (Fr.), corchetes (Sp.), parentesi graffe (It.)
> 
> For what it's worth, Unicode defines U+0028 AND U+0029 as "LEFT
> PARENTHESIS" and "RIGHT PARENTHESIS" (also "OPENING PARENTHESIS" and
> "CLOSING PARENTHESIS").
> 
> --Mike

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: [WAY OT] Parenthese

[Alex Schuster]

Wow, what's going on here?

Alan McKinnon writes:

> Like Eskimo's with 20+ words for different kinds of snow.
> Say "snow" to any Eskimo, see what happens :-)

Actually, they have only two words for snow: qanik for falling snow and 
aput for lying snow.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAY OT] Parenthese

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 21:32 on Friday 20 August 2010, Alex Schuster 
did opine thusly:

> Wow, what's going on here?
> 
> Alan McKinnon writes:
> > Like Eskimo's with 20+ words for different kinds of snow.
> > Say "snow" to any Eskimo, see what happens :-)
> 
> Actually, they have only two words for snow: qanik for falling snow and
> aput for lying snow.
> 
> 	Wonko

Yeah, I've heard the argument and counter-arguments too. But I'm not Inuit and 
don't speak their lingo.

The principle still stands though. Replace Eskimo and snow with English and 
the massive litany of words encompassing "love and affection". There's way 
more than 20 of those.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAY OT] Parenthese

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 20 August 2010 21:14:00 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> I've heard the argument and counter-arguments too.

Thanks all for an entertaining discussion. Thanks also for not taking it 
too seriously.

I'll subside now.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.