[gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Philip Webb]

I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
& would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
that  virtual/editor  requires it & that  @system  requires  virtual/editor .

How can I tell Portage that Vim or Ed satisfy  virtual/editor ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Daniel Frey]

On 04/28/2014 07:32 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
> & would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
> that  virtual/editor  requires it & that  @system  requires  virtual/editor .
> 
> How can I tell Portage that Vim or Ed satisfy  virtual/editor ?
> 

Have you tried:

$ emerge -C app-editors/nano && emerge app-editors/vim virtual/editor

Dan

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On Monday 28 Apr 2014 15:32:22 Philip Webb wrote:
> I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
> & would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
> that  virtual/editor  requires it & that  @system  requires  virtual/editor
> .
> 
> How can I tell Portage that Vim or Ed satisfy  virtual/editor ?

I think if you set your /etc/env.d/99editor to the application you want (not 
nano, in your case) then portage should not bother you again - but could be 
wrong.  This was discussed many moons ago in this list, but my memory is not 
what it used to be.  :p

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Michael Mair-Keimberger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:32:22AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
> & would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
> that  virtual/editor  requires it & that  @system  requires  virtual/editor .
> 
> How can I tell Portage that Vim or Ed satisfy  virtual/editor ?
> 
> -- 
> ========================,,============================================
> SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
> ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
> TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
> 
> 

You can set your editor of choice with eselect:

eselect editor list
eselect editor set $(editor_of_choice)

Usually nano can be removed with emerge --deplcean, but it might be
included in your world file.
emerge --deselect nano should remove it from your world file too :)

-- 
greetings
Michael Mair-Keimberger

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Dale]

Philip Webb wrote:
> I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
> & would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
> that  virtual/editor  requires it & that  @system  requires  virtual/editor .
>
> How can I tell Portage that Vim or Ed satisfy  virtual/editor ?
>

As Mick said, it has been a while.  I think if you emerge the editor you
want and change any config files that need to be changed then portage
will let you unmerge nano.  If I recall correctly, once some other
editor is installed that will satisfy the virtual then it should let you
unmerge the others without complaining.  On this one tho, there may be a
config that needs to be edited as well.   I would search for any mention
of nano in /etc and change anything that shows up containing it. 

Hope that helps.  They do get confusing at times. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Philip Webb]

140428 Michael Mair-Keimberger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:32:22AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
>> I never use Nano -- Vim or Ed are available in a raw terminal --
>> & would like to unmerge it, but Portage tells me
>>  virtual/editor  requires it &  @system  requires  virtual/editor .
> You can set your editor of choice with eselect:
>   eselect editor list
>   eselect editor set $(editor_of_choice)

I've done that, but it doesn't alter Portage behaviour.

> Usually nano can be removed with emerge --depclean

Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated.

I've checked 'man portage' & 'man emerge' & the  virtual/editor  ebuild.
Acc to 'man portage' it sb possible to tell the virtual to accept Vim or Ed
via  /etc/make.profiles -> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
by adding a file 'virtuals' w a line 'virtual/editor<tab>app-editors/vim',
but this has no effect.  The ebuild has a long list of possible editors,
incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano,
so Portage must be getting its instruction from somewhere else.

Does anyone have better info ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1049 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:17:08 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:

> > Usually nano can be removed with emerge --depclean  
> 
> Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated.

Deprecated? Really? I must have missed that. Brute force, maybe, but it
is the answer.
 
> I've checked 'man portage' & 'man emerge' & the  virtual/editor  ebuild.
> Acc to 'man portage' it sb possible to tell the virtual to accept Vim
> or Ed via  /etc/make.profiles
> -> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0 by adding a file
> 'virtuals' w a line 'virtual/editor<tab>app-editors/vim', but this has
> no effect.  The ebuild has a long list of possible editors, incl Vim Ed
> Nano, but nothing singling out Nano,

Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes the first
available dependency as satisfying the virtual. Unmerge nano and portage
will look at the rest of the list, be satisfied with vim and not try to
re-emerge nano.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Philip Webb]

140429 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:17:08 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated.
> Deprecated? Really? I must have missed that.
 
  root:565 ~> emerge -C nano
   * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, use
   * `emerge -pv --depclean <atom>` to check for reverse dependencies before
   * removing packages.
   !!! 'app-editors/nano' (virtual/editor) is part of your system profile.
   !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
   >>> Waiting 10 seconds before starting...
   >>> (Control-C to abort)...
   Press Ctrl-C to Stop in: 10 9^C
   Exiting on signal 2
  root:566 ~> emerge -pv --depclean nano
   Calculating dependencies... done!
   app-editors/nano-2.3.2 pulled in by:
    virtual/editor-0 requires app-editors/nano

I'ld say that means 'deprecated' as much as anything does, 
ie "in order to be safer" do it in a different but recommended way.

> Brute force, maybe, but it is the answer.
>> The ebuild has a long list of possible editors,
>> incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano,
> Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes
> the first available dependency as satisfying the virtual.

Doesn't Portage check whether any of the others are installed ?!

> Unmerge nano and portage will look at the rest of the list,
> be satisfied with vim and not try to re-emerge nano.

The output above mentions "your system profile".
My  @system  contains  virtual/editor , but not  app-editors/nano .

I'ld call this a bug in Portage.
Any other comments before I "damage my system" (output above) ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2635 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:16:03 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:

> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:17:08 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> >> Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated.
> > Deprecated? Really? I must have missed that.
>  
>   root:565 ~> emerge -C nano
>    * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer,
> use
>    * `emerge -pv --depclean <atom>` to check for reverse dependencies
> before
>    * removing packages.
>    !!! 'app-editors/nano' (virtual/editor) is part of your system
> profile. !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
>    >>> Waiting 10 seconds before starting...
>    >>> (Control-C to abort)...
>    Press Ctrl-C to Stop in: 10 9^C
>    Exiting on signal 2
>   root:566 ~> emerge -pv --depclean nano
>    Calculating dependencies... done!
>    app-editors/nano-2.3.2 pulled in by:
>     virtual/editor-0 requires app-editors/nano
> 
> I'ld say that means 'deprecated' as much as anything does, 
> ie "in order to be safer" do it in a different but recommended way.

I wouldn't. If it was deprecated, it would say so. All this message says
it that using -c is safer than -C, not that -C should not be used. rm -f
is less safe than rm -i but it is not deprecated.

> >> The ebuild has a long list of possible editors,
> >> incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano,
> > Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes
> > the first available dependency as satisfying the virtual.
> 
> Doesn't Portage check whether any of the others are installed ?!

Apparently not. As long as the dependency is satisfied, so is portage.
Extra checking would only slow down portage's dependency resolution even
more.

> > Unmerge nano and portage will look at the rest of the list,
> > be satisfied with vim and not try to re-emerge nano.
> 
> The output above mentions "your system profile".
> My  @system  contains  virtual/editor , but not  app-editors/nano .

And the output above shows that nano is considered part of @system
because of the virtual.

> I'ld call this a bug in Portage.
> Any other comments before I "damage my system" (output above) ?

How could removing nano damage your system? Or do you have something that
relies on nano to be able to boot? I uninstall nano like this whenever I
install a Gentoo system, as I use either Joe or Emacs. I suppose that, at
a pinch, Vim would do instead of a proper editor :P


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon

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

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Philip Webb]

140429 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:16:03 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
PW> Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated.
NB> Deprecated? Really? I must have missed that.
PW>   * This action can remove important packages!
>     * In order to be safer, use `emerge -pv --depclean <atom>`
> I'ld say that means 'deprecated' as much as anything does, 
> ie "in order to be safer" do it in a different but recommended way.
NB> I wouldn't.  If it was deprecated, it would say so.

'Deprecate' has  2  meanings here : (1) technical, in software circles,
(2) common, = 'disapprove of', 'advise against' etc.

NB> All this message says is that using -c is safer than -C,
> not that -C should not be used.
PW> The ebuild has a long list of possible editors,
> incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano.
NB> Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes
> the first available dependency as satisfying the virtual.
PW> Doesn't Portage check whether any of the others are installed ?!
NB> Apparently not. As long as the dependency is satisfied, so is portage.
> Extra checking would only slow down dependency resolution even more.

Not much & it trades off against avoiding long scary output.

NB> Unmerge nano and portage will look at the rest of the list,
> be satisfied with vim and not try to re-emerge nano.
> I uninstall nano like this whenever I install a Gentoo system,
> as I use either Joe or Emacs.

Yes, Portage does as you describe :

  root:567 ~> emerge -C nano   
   * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer ...
   Waiting 10 seconds before starting ...
   All selected packages: app-editors/nano-2.3.2 ...
   Waiting 5 seconds before starting ...
   Unmerging (1 of 1) app-editors/nano-2.3.2 ...
  root:568 ~> emerge -cpv vim
   Calculating dependencies ... 
    app-editors/vim-7.4.131 pulled in by ...
    virtual/editor-0 requires app-editors/vim
    No packages selected for removal by depclean
  root:569 ~>

I sometimes have the feeling Portage's behaviour is not fully thought out
& often that Portage advisory messages are written by Martians (grin).

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 29 Apr 2014 08:19:15 Philip Webb wrote:

> I sometimes have the feeling Portage's behaviour is not fully thought out
> & often that Portage advisory messages are written by Martians (grin).

Regular readers* will know that I have my problems with portage from time to 
time, but accusing it of those sins is going much too far, grin or not.

It's very well thought out (with the possible exception of subslots, which 
I'll leave for others to comment on) and manages the installed system 
extremely well. I'd hate to have to start from scratch with a replacement for 
it.

Come back in a month and I'm sure you'll feel better about it  :-)

*	Off-topic note for American readers: as far as I'm concerned, "regular" 
does not mean "ordinary". That neologism is even polluting our high streets 
over here.

-- 
Regards
Peter

[gentoo-user] Re: virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[walt]

On 04/29/2014 05:49 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
 
> Regular readers* will know...

> *	Off-topic note for American readers: as far as I'm concerned, "regular" 
> does not mean "ordinary". That neologism is even polluting our high streets 
> over here.

I've used both of those words all my life but never looked them up in a dictionary.

Until today, of course:
 
A thing is ordinary when it is apt to come round in the regular common order or
succession of events.
[1913 Webster]

Can you give us an example of how we misuse the word "regular"? (a word I don't
ordinarily use ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 373 bytes --]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:05:04 -0700, walt wrote:

> Can you give us an example of how we misuse the word "regular"? (a word
> I don't ordinarily use ;)

"He's just a regular guy".

Every time I hear that I have to remind myself that this is not referring
to his bowel movements...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Regular v Ordinary

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 29 Apr 2014 16:05:04 walt wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 05:49 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Regular readers* will know...
> > 
> > *	Off-topic note for American readers: as far as I'm concerned, 
"regular"
> > does not mean "ordinary". That neologism is even polluting our high
> > streets
> > over here.
> 
> I've used both of those words all my life but never looked them up in a
> dictionary.
> 
> Until today, of course:
> 
> A thing is ordinary when it is apt to come round in the regular common order
> or succession of events.
> [1913 Webster]

Seems it goes back a lot further than I realised.

> Can you give us an example of how we misuse the word "regular"? (a word I
> don't ordinarily use ;)

I don't suppose it's misuse, just different use, which is fine when separated by 
a few thousand miles :-) . It just annoys me when I'm offered a regular coffee, 
when I would have said standard, or medium (size). It's happened particularly 
since our high streets were flooded with Starbucks and the like. To me, 
"regular" is closely associated to "regularity", as one might think of in 
personal habits (sorry!). Or, "regular as clockwork" is a common phrase and 
gets my meaning across.

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Regular v Ordinary

[godzil]

Le 2014-04-30 09:47, Peter Humphrey a écrit :
> On Tuesday 29 Apr 2014 16:05:04 walt wrote:
>> On 04/29/2014 05:49 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I don't suppose it's misuse, just different use, which is fine when
> separated by
> a few thousand miles :-) . It just annoys me when I'm offered a regular 
> coffee,
> when I would have said standard, or medium (size). It's happened 
> particularly
> since our high streets were flooded with Starbucks and the like. To me,
> "regular" is closely associated to "regularity", as one might think of 
> in
> personal habits (sorry!). Or, "regular as clockwork" is a common phrase 
> and
> gets my meaning across.

I suspect that your habits for "regular" or "ordinary" came from French, 
where the first translation of regular is "régulier", "habituel" which 
mean that it is something is a habits.

And "ordinary" will be translate to "ordinaire" that have the means of 
"common", "standard".

I know that some difference from UK and US English come from the nearby 
European country (monstly France) (i.e: colour vs color, behaviour vs 
behavior, etc.)

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Regular v Ordinary

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 30 Apr 2014 10:21:11 godzil wrote:

> I suspect that your habits for "regular" or "ordinary" came from French,
> where the first translation of regular is "régulier", "habituel" which
> mean that it is something is a habits.
> 
> And "ordinary" will be translate to "ordinaire" that have the means of
> "common", "standard".
> 
> I know that some difference from UK and US English come from the nearby
> European country (monstly France) (i.e: colour vs color, behaviour vs
> behavior, etc.)

Yes, true, except that "habits" is not the right word: "usage" would be 
better, which in this context in English means "custom".

Countries being adjacent is not the explanation. I haven't seen an authority 
on this, but I believe that a good half of English words come from French (as 
a result of the most recent invasion of these islands in 1066), most of the 
rest coming from Latin and Greek. (That's now largely forgotten in USA, where 
efforts are now directed at absorbing German, Italian and Spanish.) There's a 
smattering of words from India and other parts of the Empire as well. Hardly 
any from Italian or Spanish, which accounts for a lot of differences between 
American and English.

The spelling differences you mention are I think a result of attempts to 
"simplify" the language by your founding fathers. Similarly, today, sentence 
structure is changing, with a wholesale ditching of previously useful tenses 
and, for instance, an insistence on putting adverbs before their verbs. Are 
those German influences? And why do so many insist on a single word never being 
both a noun and a verb (use, usage)? What do you do with "compact", which can 
be noun, verb or adjective?

I could go on, but I'd better not  :-)

-- 
Regards
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Regular v Ordinary

[godzil]

Le 2014-04-30 12:47, Peter Humphrey a écrit :
> On Wednesday 30 Apr 2014 10:21:11 godzil wrote:
> 
>> I suspect that your habits for "regular" or "ordinary" came from 
>> French,
>> where the first translation of regular is "régulier", "habituel" which
>> mean that it is something is a habits.
>> 
>> And "ordinary" will be translate to "ordinaire" that have the means of
>> "common", "standard".
>> 
>> I know that some difference from UK and US English come from the 
>> nearby
>> European country (mostly France) (i.e: colour vs color, behaviour vs
>> behavior, etc.)
> 
> Yes, true, except that "habits" is not the right word: "usage" would be
> better, which in this context in English means "custom".
> 

Thanks

> Countries being adjacent is not the explanation. I haven't seen an 
> authority
> on this, but I believe that a good half of English words come from 
> French (as
> a result of the most recent invasion of these islands in 1066), most of 
> the
> rest coming from Latin and Greek. (That's now largely forgotten in USA, 
> where
> efforts are now directed at absorbing German, Italian and Spanish.) 
> There's a
> smattering of words from India and other parts of the Empire as well. 
> Hardly
> any from Italian or Spanish, which accounts for a lot of differences 
> between
> American and English.
> 
Yes that true, lots of English words came from old French, and funnily 
some word that were "lost" goes back into French :)
But I don't agree, on the origin of "Old English" it is more a 
germano-celtic language than a latino-greek one. French clearly come 
from Latin and Old Greek, like Spanish or Italian. On the contrary, the 
German language have nearly no roots in Latin and Greek.

> The spelling differences you mention are I think a result of attempts 
> to
> "simplify" the language by your founding fathers.

Wikipedia have a nice article on this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences 
(I tried to read it, but now my head is hurting!)

> Similarly, today, sentence
> structure is changing, with a wholesale ditching of previously useful 
> tenses
> and, for instance, an insistence on putting adverbs before their verbs. 
> Are
> those German influences? And why do so many insist on a single word 
> never being
> both a noun and a verb (use, usage)? What do you do with "compact", 
> which can
> be noun, verb or adjective?
> 
> I could go on, but I'd better not  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: OT: Regular v Ordinary

[walt]

On 04/30/2014 01:47 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> It just annoys me when I'm offered a regular coffee, 
> when I would have said standard, or medium (size). It's happened particularly 
> since our high streets were flooded with Starbucks and the like.

If someone offered me a "regular" coffee I'd ask for a definition of "regular"
because I wouldn't have a clue what's being offered.

My impression is that many Merkin words entered the British argot during WWII,
when, indeed, we referred to petrol(gasoline) as "regular" or "leaded", a good
example of our misuse of "regular", and one I'd forgot(ten) about.

You and Neil both mentioned "regular guy", which I remember hearing most recently
in a movie about WWII, and not since.

Our tasteless Merkin TV commercials used the word "regular" for decades to describe
our ideal bowel habits, so I share your immediate association with that word.  But
I doubt anyone less than thirty years old would remember that era.  (Please let me
know if I'm wrong about that!)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: Regular v Ordinary

[Todd Goodman]

* walt <w41ter@gmail.com> [140430 20:43]:
> On 04/30/2014 01:47 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > It just annoys me when I'm offered a regular coffee, 
> > when I would have said standard, or medium (size). It's happened particularly 
> > since our high streets were flooded with Starbucks and the like.
> 
> If someone offered me a "regular" coffee I'd ask for a definition of "regular"
> because I wouldn't have a clue what's being offered.
> 
> My impression is that many Merkin words entered the British argot during WWII,
> when, indeed, we referred to petrol(gasoline) as "regular" or "leaded", a good
> example of our misuse of "regular", and one I'd forgot(ten) about.
> 
> You and Neil both mentioned "regular guy", which I remember hearing most recently
> in a movie about WWII, and not since.
> 
> Our tasteless Merkin TV commercials used the word "regular" for decades to describe
> our ideal bowel habits, so I share your immediate association with that word.  But
> I doubt anyone less than thirty years old would remember that era.  (Please let me
> know if I'm wrong about that!)

You might want to check the definition for "merkin"...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: Regular v Ordinary

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 256 bytes --]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:44:51 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

> You might want to check the definition for "merkin"...

I suspect Walt is well aware of it...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If Yoda so strong in force is, why words in right order he cannot put?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OT: Regular v Ordinary

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 30 Apr 2014 14:00:40 godzil wrote:

> Yes that true, lots of English words came from old French, and funnily
> some word that were "lost" goes back into French :)
> But I don't agree, on the origin of "Old English" it is more a
> germano-celtic language than a latino-greek one. French clearly come
> from Latin and Old Greek, like Spanish or Italian. On the contrary, the
> German language have nearly no roots in Latin and Greek.

I wasn't thinking so far back, but yes, Old English did derive from the 
Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others. The words of theirs that we still use are 
all the little words that no-one ever looks up in a dictionary. I'm not so 
sure about Celtic though; I think there was very little mixing, and nowadays 
the remains of Celtic are in Cornish, Welsh and Irish and Scottish Gaelic, not 
English to any great degree. There ought to be a Breton language descendant of 
Celtic in north-west France as well, and perhaps there is, but I'll have to 
leave that to others.

Before the Normans (whose ancestors were also from Scandinavia!) the major 
invader was the Vikings. Surprisingly, although the place is littered with 
Viking place names, as far as I know few language words survive from that 
period.

There are also many traces of Old German and Dutch, but I still maintain that 
most of the longer words come down from our long and complicated relationship 
with France, with scholastic regulation (if that's the word) according to 
Latin and Greek.

> Le 2014-04-30 12:47, Peter Humphrey a écrit :
> 
> > The spelling differences you mention are I think a result of attempts
> > to "simplify" the language by your founding fathers.
>
> Wikipedia have a nice article on this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differenc
> es (I tried to read it, but now my head is hurting!)

I'll have a look at that - thanks.

-- 
Regards
Peter

[gentoo-user] Re: OT: Regular v Ordinary

[walt]

On 05/01/2014 01:53 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:44:51 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
> 
>> You might want to check the definition for "merkin"...
> 
> I suspect Walt is well aware of it...

Actually, no, not the definition according to wikipedia, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkin

First I laughed, and then continued to read in disbelief at the
endless creativity of my fellow humans.  Where have I been all
my life? :/

Re: [gentoo-user] virtual problem : how can I unmerge Nano ?

[Philip Webb]

140429 Philip Webb wrote:
> 140429 Neil Bothwick wrote:
PW> The ebuild has a long list of possible editors,
> incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano.
NB> Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes
> the first available dependency as satisfying the virtual.
PW> Doesn't Portage check whether any of the others are installed ?!
NB> Apparently not. As long as the dependency is satisfied, so is portage.
> Extra checking would only slow down dependency resolution even more.

I have submitted Bug 510390.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca