On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:02:11 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 14/09/2021 11:28, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:10:29 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2021 12:01, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>>> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...
>>>>
>>>> Ok, humble bragging then. Its still lame boasting.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
>>> anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
>>> obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
>>> the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand
>>> the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
>>
>> Not a case of not liking it, I simply don't believe it. If you got a first
>> in maths it must've been from the Mail Order University of Upper Congo.
>
>You were given a link to anonymised versions of my degree certificate
>and my academic record, so you're just bullshitting as usual.

Don't remember. Post them again if you like though its not hard to knock up
some convincinly looking fake cert, scammers do it all the time.

>> Thankis for tacitly acknowledging you can't even remember
>
>On the contrary, I remembered the exchange well enough to be able to
>find it in my posting history and so expose your lie.

Umm, hello? YOU said it, NOT me.

>As above, I wasn't boasting, merely stating the truth in reply to
>something you had started - if you're not prepared to accept the

LOL! :) You're priceless!

>>> At least when I do, I don't see shit like you.
>>
>> Sooner that than some lying old risk averse twat.
>
>I'm not the liar here, that's you, nor am I risk averse, I've done

Noooo, of course not. You just wear your little mask everywhere because you're
a big brave boy, right?

>plenty of dangerous sports like hang-gliding and skiing in my time, and

Skiing! *gasp*!

>I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that you're risk averse too,
>because there seems to be a pattern developing here of you turning out
>to have all the faults that you accuse others of.

I would say I'm in the middle risk wise. I won't be going skydiving anytime
soon but nor do I get scared from the thought of going on PT because of some
paranoia about a now virtually non existent threat.

On 15/09/2021 11:13, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:49:59 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2021 11:34, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>> I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is regarded
>>
>>>> as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official definition,
>>>> I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1 for
>>
>>>> an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a bit
>>
>>>> out of step with common sense.
>>>
>>> Its not out of step, its just that Mr Jive is deliberately (or he really is
>>> just as thick as he appears) conflating the order of magnitude of a number
>> with
>>> the order of magnitude *difference* of 2 numbers. 10 is not an order of
>>> magnitude larger than 9 just because it has an extra digit, 90 however is.
>>
>> No, I'm just sticking to the accepted definition, see below ...
>
> No you're not, you're conflating 2 different things.

No, I'm just sticking to the definition given both by Wikipedia and your
own link.

>>> "An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the
>> value
>>> of a quantity or unit."
>>
>> Which doesn't mention the word 'difference', so that merely restates the
>> Wikipedia definition, and you are misreading it. I read that as ...
>> 9 is 9 x 1,
>> 10 is 1 x 10,
>> .... so 10 is an order of magnitude greater than one.
>
> 9 is also 0.9 x 10

It's also 900/100, and an infinite number of other possible
representations, but none of those are the simplest way of writing 9 ...

> Whoops! Rather leaves your argument in tatters.

.... so it doesn't.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/09/2021 11:18, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:02:11 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/09/2021 11:28, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:10:29 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
>>>> anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
>>>> obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
>>>> the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand
>>>> the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
>>>
>>> Not a case of not liking it, I simply don't believe it. If you got a first
>>> in maths it must've been from the Mail Order University of Upper Congo.
>>
>> You were given a link to anonymised versions of my degree certificate
>> and my academic record, so you're just bullshitting as usual.
>
> Don't remember. Post them again if you like though its not hard to knock up
> some convincinly looking fake cert, scammers do it all the time.

So again, it's you accusing of others of 'not remembering', as still
quoted below, who is now seen to be the one not remembering. There is a
definite pattern here of you turning out to have all the faults that you
like to accuse others of having, so maybe you've faked your own degree
certificates in the past as well. Be that as it may, these are not
fake, merely anonymised with the digital equivalent of Tippex.

On 22/03/2021 12:40, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Of course you will complain that I've anonymised my details - of
> course I have, I'm not prepared to put my private details online even
> for the pleasure of ramming them down your throat, or up your arse,
> whichever you're speaking out of today ...
>
> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png

>>> Thankis for tacitly acknowledging you can't even remember

See above, Mr Forgetful.

>> On the contrary, I remembered the exchange well enough to be able to
>> find it in my posting history and so expose your lie.
>
> Umm, hello? YOU said it, NOT me.

You're confused, but that's no surprise, given the above admission, how
can you possibly be expected to remember, Mr Forgetful?

>> As above, I wasn't boasting, merely stating the truth in reply to
>> something you had started - if you're not prepared to accept the
>
> LOL! :) You're priceless!

Another attempt to wriggle out of losing an argument by mangling
quoting, so here are the two quotes in full again:

On 13/09/2021 17:10, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
> anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
> obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
> the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't
> stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

On 14/09/2021 21:02, Java Jive wrote:
>
> As above, I wasn't boasting, merely stating the truth in reply to
> something you had started - if you're not prepared to accept the
> results of unnecessarily personalising a debate by doubting someone's
> academic ability, don't start the conversation in the first place. If
> you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>>>> At least when I do, I don't see shit like you.
>>>
>>> Sooner that than some lying old risk averse twat.
>>
>> I'm not the liar here, that's you, nor am I risk averse, I've done
>
> Noooo, of course not. You just wear your little mask everywhere because you're
> a big brave boy, right?

I wear it because it is the sensible and recommended thing to do, to
protect others from myself more than to protect myself from others, and
so that others need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the
same space as someone not wearing a mask.

>> plenty of dangerous sports like hang-gliding and skiing in my time, and
>
> Skiing! *gasp*!

Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a dangerous sport, not as
dangerous as hang-gliding, but dangerous none the less.

>> I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that you're risk averse too,
>> because there seems to be a pattern developing here of you turning out
>> to have all the faults that you accuse others of.
>
> I would say I'm in the middle risk wise. I won't be going skydiving anytime
> soon but nor do I get scared from the thought of going on PT because of some
> paranoia about a now virtually non existent threat.

Except that it's not non-existent, many Scottish health areas, even NHS
Highland, are at or near the top of the league of the most infectious
places in Europe right now, and the map of England is also turning
maroon, the second highest colour marking infection rates:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shslon$15oi$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> > Of course you will complain that I've anonymised my details - of
> > course I have, I'm not prepared to put my private details online even
> > for the pleasure of ramming them down your throat, or up your arse,
> > whichever you're speaking out of today ...

Proctoloquism - makes a change from ventriloquism ;-)

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shslon$15oi$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> > www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
> > www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png

I'm intrigued: how is it that modules in Geology/Environment and Elements of
Music can count towards a BSc in Computing/Electronics/Telecoms subjects?
Good that the OU allows such a spread of disciplines.

On 15/09/2021 13:02, NY wrote:
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shslon$15oi$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png
>
> I'm intrigued: how is it that modules in Geology/Environment and
> Elements of Music can count towards a BSc in
> Computing/Electronics/Telecoms subjects? Good that the OU allows such a
> spread of disciplines.

I've forgotten the precise details now, but you had to amass so many
unit credits to get a degree, so many more to get an honours degree, and
the grading of the degree or honours degree was determined by the
average grading over the unit credits amassed. There were rules about
how many unit credits must be gained at each level to qualify, so, for
example, you couldn't get a degree only by passing lots of first level
courses and no second or third level courses - for 'level' you could
approximately read 'year' for a conventional university - but I've
long forgotten exactly how it all worked.

Yes the system was flexible, enabling me to take those two courses
purely out personal interest. I was awarded a credit on the strength of
my previous two years at a conventional university, so had one less
course than most to complete, but for some reason now long forgotten
they ruled that I still had to complete foundation courses in maths and
science, despite having Maths, Applied Maths, and Physics A-levels and
two years studying Maths & Physics at conventional university! Anyhow,
there was no use complaining, so I did them both contemporaneously with
my first year at Agricultural College, which I recall many people seemed
to think was a hell of a lot of work to take on at one go, but, as you
can see, I passed them all fine. And I was glad that I had, because the
science foundation course introduced me to geology, which I found so
fascinating that I decided to do a second-level course in it, which as
you've noted I passed, and I had always been interested in and had a
great love of music, so I took a course in that as well.

Oh, and I've just remembered that I think I was one of the first
students to be able to study towards a BSc rather than a BA. ISTR that
for some reason, again long forgotten, all early OU students, no matter
what their principle subjects, were awarded BAs.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:46:50 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 15/09/2021 11:13, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:49:59 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2021 11:34, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>>> I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is
>regarded
>>>
>>>>> as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official
>definition,
>>>>> I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1
>for
>>>
>>>>> an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a
>bit
>>>
>>>>> out of step with common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Its not out of step, its just that Mr Jive is deliberately (or he really is
>
>>>> just as thick as he appears) conflating the order of magnitude of a number
>>> with
>>>> the order of magnitude *difference* of 2 numbers. 10 is not an order of
>>>> magnitude larger than 9 just because it has an extra digit, 90 however is.
>>>
>>> No, I'm just sticking to the accepted definition, see below ...
>>
>> No you're not, you're conflating 2 different things.
>
>No, I'm just sticking to the definition given both by Wikipedia and your
>own link.
>
>>>> "An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the
>>> value
>>>> of a quantity or unit."
>>>
>>> Which doesn't mention the word 'difference', so that merely restates the
>>> Wikipedia definition, and you are misreading it. I read that as ...
>>> 9 is 9 x 1,
>>> 10 is 1 x 10,
>>> .... so 10 is an order of magnitude greater than one.
>>
>> 9 is also 0.9 x 10
>
>It's also 900/100, and an infinite number of other possible
>representations, but none of those are the simplest way of writing 9 ...

Whoooooooosssssssshhhhh.......

FFS.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:34:43 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Of course you will complain that I've anonymised my details - of
> > course I have, I'm not prepared to put my private details online even
> > for the pleasure of ramming them down your throat, or up your arse,
> > whichever you're speaking out of today ...
> >
> > www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
> > www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png
>
>>>> Thankis for tacitly acknowledging you can't even remember
>
>See above, Mr Forgetful.

The OU! LOL :) Might as well be the university of upper congo! Assuming
they're even real.

>so that others need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the
>same space as someone not wearing a mask.

Aww, diddums is disturbed? Poppet :)

>>> plenty of dangerous sports like hang-gliding and skiing in my time, and
>>
>> Skiing! *gasp*!
>
>Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a dangerous sport, not as
>dangerous as hang-gliding, but dangerous none the less.

Did it when I was a teenager. Les Arc was nice. No more dangerous than cycling
on a main road if you pay attention.

>Except that it's not non-existent, many Scottish health areas, even NHS
>Highland, are at or near the top of the league of the most infectious
>places in Europe right now, and the map of England is also turning
>maroon, the second highest colour marking infection rates:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

So what? Infection isn't illness. I like 99.9% of every other adult in this
country is infected with chicken pox. Get a grip.

On 15/09/2021 15:55, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:46:50 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's also 900/100, and an infinite number of other possible
>> representations, but none of those are the simplest way of writing 9 ...
>
> Whoooooooosssssssshhhhh.......
>
> FFS.

So no real reply, but you couldn't let it lie.

Yawn!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/09/2021 16:00, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:34:43 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course you will complain that I've anonymised my details - of
>>> course I have, I'm not prepared to put my private details online even
>>> for the pleasure of ramming them down your throat, or up your arse,
>>> whichever you're speaking out of today ...
>>>
>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png
>
> The OU! LOL :) Might as well be the university of upper congo! Assuming
> they're even real.

Nyah! Nyah! They're obviously better qualification than you have,
because you were the one that started this topic, but once I'd revealed
mine became strangely too embarrassed to tell us what yours are. Tell
us do! Official pub bore at your local? No, even that would be
flattering you.

Stay in after kindergarten and write out 1000 times: "When I use abuse
to try and cover up losing an argument, no-one is fooled!"

>> so that others need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the
>> same space as someone not wearing a mask.
>
> Aww, diddums is disturbed? Poppet :)

Go back to kindergarten until you've learnt to read, I wrote "so that
*OTHERS* need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the same
space as someone not wearing a mask."

>>>> plenty of dangerous sports like hang-gliding and skiing in my time, and
>>>
>>> Skiing! *gasp*!
>>
>> Whether you like to admit it or not, it's a dangerous sport, not as
>> dangerous as hang-gliding, but dangerous none the less.
>
> Did it when I was a teenager. Les Arc was nice. No more dangerous than cycling
> on a main road if you pay attention.

Doesn't sound exactly as though you were going down a black slope at
about 40-50mph.

>> Except that it's not non-existent, many Scottish health areas, even NHS
>> Highland, are at or near the top of the league of the most infectious
>> places in Europe right now, and the map of England is also turning
>> maroon, the second highest colour marking infection rates:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
>
> So what? Infection isn't illness.

If you'd bothered to look at the second of those two links, you'd have
seen that the hospitalisation and death rates are increasing again, and
that the latter has risen above the five most recent years' average
again, meaning people are avoidably dying again. That sounds like
illness to me.

> I like 99.9% of every other adult in this
> country is infected with chicken pox. Get a grip.

Presumably you mean 'was', but you recovered, as did I, but wrt covid-19
many have not been so lucky, and are continuing to be not so lucky.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:58:32 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6pc3kgt7s3d4dc13cq2cr2tr8dejm9ejhq@4ax.com...
>> Agreed, and if I hear yet another TV pesenter (usually American)
>> calling something "very unique" I switch to something else.
>
>I remember my headmaster at school taking me to task (but with a twinkle in
>his eye) when I talked about having "three alternatives". "Alternative",
>from the Latin "alter" (other), only relates to having *two* choices. I
>think the ship may have already sailed on that one, but every time I hear
>phrases like "there are four alternative ways we can solve this problem" I
>think of Dr Evans and his friendly rebuke.

I would agree with Dr Evans, as would my COD (1951 edition). It says
"(of two things) mutually exclusive". My Chambers (1998) is rather
more forgiving: "either of a pair, or any of a set, of possibilities".
>
>Is it correct to talk about "almost unique"? Or is it better to say "very
>rare"?

I am of the "a thing is either unique or it's not" school, so I'd say
"very rare".
>
>
>Then there is the use of "literally" - as in "I was so scared I literally
>died". No you didn't - you're still alive to tell the tale. It goes a bit
>beyond hyperbole-to-make-a-point. OK, maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)

No, just accurate! Sadly, I think we might be losing that battle.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:49:45 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
>I'm guilty of using decimate wrongly - but at least I do it by accident and
>then correct myself. It's like the Latin word "tango": when I was doing
>Latin O level yonks ago I always had to remind myself that it does *not*
>mean "dance" - it means "touch" as in the phrase "noli me tangere" - "don't
>touch me - get your -ing hands off me".

Yes. Derivation of our word "tangent", of course. Amazingly useful
language, Latin. I'm glad I studied it for four years to O level. And
I doubt whether many former Latin students mis-spell "paraffin".
>

>In both these cases, should one use the words "decimate" and "electrocute"
>correctly (knowing that many people will misunderstand them) or should one
>banish them from one's vocabulary and use an alternative phrase to express
>the meaning that is intended?

I'd use them correctly. If people misunderstand, it's their problem.
On the other hand, that approach can lead to difficulties. Remember
the paediatrician who was accused of being a "paedo"? Or those who
misspell "scot free" with a capital "S". Nothing to do with Scotland.
Probably most dangerous of all these days is the word "niggardly",
which has nothing whatever to do with the "n" word.
>
>> And the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" appears
>> to be dying out too.
>
>As is the distinction between the spellings licence (noun) and license
>(verb) in British English. Likewise for practice/practise. US English uses
>the -ise spelling for both noun and verb forms.

Quite so. It's another example of the pervasive influence of American
English on UK English. cf golf "shots" rather than "strokes".
>
>Many people cannot comprehend the concept of being interested in a topic
>(take an interest - follow the subject) and yet being disinterested
>(neutral, no influence, unbiassed, "on the fence") about it.
>
>
>And then we get onto the hoary "inflammable" problem. "Inflammable" means
>"capable of being inflamed (set alight)" and in this specific case, the "in"
>does *not* (repeat one hundred times!) mean "not flammable". Official fire
>brigade and health & safety documentation never uses "inflammable" nowadays
>because it is liable to be misunderstood. It uses "flammable" and its
>opposite "non-flammable".

Yes. I think these battles are well on the way to being lost. Another
is the use of "student" where I and probably you would use "pupil".

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:23:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Another newcomer is 'disinformation' (which seems to date from the need
>to describe deliberate misinformation about the Covid vaccine). Or is
>there a difference?

Wikipedia says this: "Examples of misinformation are false rumors,
insults, and pranks. Disinformation is a subset of misinformation that
is deliberately deceptive, e.g., malicious hoaxes, spearphishing, and
computational propaganda."

I'm now more confused than ever. What on earth is "spearphishing"?
Something you do on a "deep dive"? I'm so glad I'm retired and no
longer have to cope with business new-speak (aka "drivel"!).

On 16/09/2021 10:05, John Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:58:32 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Then there is the use of "literally" - as in "I was so scared I literally
>> died". No you didn't - you're still alive to tell the tale. It goes a bit
>> beyond hyperbole-to-make-a-point. OK, maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)
>
> No, just accurate! Sadly, I think we might be losing that battle.

Not to be confused with, "I was littorally on the beach.".

John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:58:32 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:6pc3kgt7s3d4dc13cq2cr2tr8dejm9ejhq@4ax.com...
>>> Agreed, and if I hear yet another TV pesenter (usually American)
>>> calling something "very unique" I switch to something else.
>>
>> I remember my headmaster at school taking me to task (but with a twinkle in
>> his eye) when I talked about having "three alternatives". "Alternative",
>> from the Latin "alter" (other), only relates to having *two* choices. I
>> think the ship may have already sailed on that one, but every time I hear
>> phrases like "there are four alternative ways we can solve this problem" I
>> think of Dr Evans and his friendly rebuke.
>
> I would agree with Dr Evans, as would my COD (1951 edition). It says
> "(of two things) mutually exclusive". My Chambers (1998) is rather
> more forgiving: "either of a pair, or any of a set, of possibilities".
>>
>> Is it correct to talk about "almost unique"? Or is it better to say "very
>> rare"?
>
> I am of the "a thing is either unique or it's not" school, so I'd say
> "very rare".
>>
>>
>> Then there is the use of "literally" - as in "I was so scared I literally
>> died". No you didn't - you're still alive to tell the tale. It goes a bit
>> beyond hyperbole-to-make-a-point. OK, maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)
>
> No, just accurate! Sadly, I think we might be losing that battle.
>

Re literally, the OED has accepted the current use that us old fogies
object to.

The is, I believe a case for very unique, consider a set of glass marbles
with random coloured glass inserts. Each one is unique. Then consider one
with, say, a chance perfect geometric insert. That would be very unique.

The language changes over time. We don’t even use it in the same way as a
couple of decades ago, let alone a century ago. Its use isn’t even
consistent across the UK.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:58:32 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>Is it correct to talk about "almost unique"? Or is it better to say "very
>rare"?

"Almost unique" makes no sense. If something is unique it means there
is only one of it. The word comes from the Latin for the number one.
An object of which there is only one cannot be different in number
from anything else of which there is only one, and if there is any
other number of either of them it isn't unique, so the concept of
comparisons based on degrees of uniqueness is meaningless. There's no
such thing as "almost" or "very", or any other qualifier. It either is
or it isn't. If you want to say that something is unusual or exists in
small numbers, or smaller numbers than something else, there are
plenty of valid ways of saying that.

Rod.

"John Armstrong" <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b726kghgh1su21eon2c6517650qmunodj6@4ax.com...

> Yes. Derivation of our word "tangent", of course. Amazingly useful
language, Latin. I'm glad I studied it for four years to O level. And
I doubt whether many former Latin students mis-spell "paraffin".

If Latin had been taught as the derivation of English words, it would have
been so much better than trying to teach it as a fully-blown grammatical
language. I found Latin an order of magnitude (ie about 10x, meaning
"considerably" - see another thread!) more difficult to decipher than French
or German. I could never identify which words in the sentence were the noun,
the verb, the adjective etc. I think it's because modern languages have a
bit of redundancy: auxiliary words such as articles (a noun probably
follows), pronouns (a verb probably follows), and adjectives and adverbs are
usually found very close to the noun or verb that they qualify. And there is
a general subject-verb-object word order - with a fairly well-defined
verb-at-the-end-of-the-clause exception in German. German also makes it even
easier by giving all nouns capital letters. Latin has none of those: random
word order, no auxiliary words as "signposts" - just everything carried by
word endings. I think there must have been a mistake (or a *very* generous
examiner) when I got my O level result: I deserved an F or a U, but never a
C. I can remember a reasonable amount of Latin vocabulary, but I couldn't
form a grammatically correct sentence, or translate one into English to save
my life. I remember having to translate into Latin and being criticized for
using English word order. "But word order has no significance in Latin," I
protested. It seemed that you could use any order you liked (the more
tangled, the better) - but you must not use English word order ;-)

> Quite so. It's another example of the pervasive influence of American
> English on UK English. cf golf "shots" rather than "strokes".

I can see a logic in using "shot" because it implies that you are taking
aim. "Stroke" is correct (in the UK) but it's an idiom that's confined to
golf: you wouldn't use it in any other sport which involved aiming to get a
ball in a hole/net etc. "Beckham runs past the half-way line and takes a
stroke at the goal".

> Yes. I think these battles are well on the way to being lost. Another
> is the use of "student" where I and probably you would use "pupil".

When you are looking for something in a shop, signs nowadays tell you to
"ask a colleague". The shop mean "one of *their* colleagues", not someone
that *you* work for. What's wrong with "assistant"?

Then there is the dreaded "can I get a beer, please". No, you don't mean
"get", unless you are asking to go behind the bar and serve yourself. You
mean "can/may *you* get *me* a beer, please" or "can/may I have a beer,
please". Almost as bad as the people who say "I could care less" which makes
no logical sense at all; what they mean is "I couldn't care less" (I care so
little that I could not care any less than I do). I won't mention "should
of" - oh, damn, I just have!

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:23:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

>>>On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
>>>on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
>>>intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
>>>dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
>>>if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
>>>are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?
>>>
>>>Rod.
>>
>>"Decimate" means to reduce BY one tenth. My Chambers and COD agree.
>>The word dates from Roman days, when, as a punishment for mutiny or
>>cowardice, one man in ten was killed.
>
>It's not 'desecrate' that has been replaced/displaced by 'decimate' -
>it's 'devastate'.

I think you're probably right. "Devastate" is the other word I was
trying to think of. It doesn't mean to reduce to one tenth either.

Rod.

On 16/09/2021 10:54, NY wrote:
>
> If Latin had been taught as the derivation of English words, it would
> have been so much better than trying to teach it as a fully-blown
> grammatical language. I found Latin an order of magnitude (ie about 10x,
> meaning "considerably" - see another thread!) more difficult to decipher
> than French or German. I could never identify which words in the
> sentence were the noun, the verb, the adjective etc. I think it's
> because modern languages have a bit of redundancy: auxiliary words such
> as articles (a noun probably follows), pronouns (a verb probably
> follows), and adjectives and adverbs are usually found very close to the
> noun or verb that they qualify. And there is a general
> subject-verb-object word order - with a fairly well-defined
> verb-at-the-end-of-the-clause exception in German. German also makes it
> even easier by giving all nouns capital letters. Latin has none of
> those: random word order, no auxiliary words as "signposts" - just
> everything carried by word endings. I think there must have been a
> mistake (or a *very* generous examiner) when I got my O level result: I
> deserved an F or a U, but never a C. I can remember a reasonable amount
> of Latin vocabulary, but I couldn't form a grammatically correct
> sentence, or translate one into English to save my life. I remember
> having to translate into Latin and being criticized for using English
> word order. "But word order has no significance in Latin," I protested.
> It seemed that you could use any order you liked (the more tangled, the
> better) - but you must not use English word order ;-)

The completely different word order is throwing me in my learning
of Cymraeg (Welsh to the Saesneg), making my attempts at
translation being quite wrong!

Interesting that Latin shares with Japanese the verb being at the
end of the sentence.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>The is, I believe a case for very unique, consider a set of glass marbles
>with random coloured glass inserts. Each one is unique. Then consider one
>with, say, a chance perfect geometric insert. That would be very unique.

No. It's either unique or it isn't. See my full explanation nearby.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The is, I believe a case for very unique, consider a set of glass marbles
>> with random coloured glass inserts. Each one is unique. Then consider one
>> with, say, a chance perfect geometric insert. That would be very unique.
>
> No. It's either unique or it isn't. See my full explanation nearby.
>
> Rod.
>

The use of English is more nuanced than a computer language - lots of ideas
are conveyed by the stretching and breaking of alleged rules. Remember
dictionary definitions describe use - they don’t impose rules.

In message <shv499$q4j$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes

>
>Then there is the dreaded "can I get a beer, please".

I believe this is direct translation of what the Dutch might say ("Mag
ik een bier kreigen?" = "May I get a beer?") - although it can also
simply be "Mag ik een bier?"

> No, you don't mean "get", unless you are asking to go behind the bar
>and serve yourself. You mean "can/may *you* get *me* a beer, please" or
>"can/may I have a beer, please".

"Get" is very much an overused all-purpose word. It's use includes
Receive (as in "getting a beer"), Become ("It's getting hotter", 'Get
lost!"), Fetch, Bring (to name but a few).

> Almost as bad as the people who say "I could care less" which makes no
>logical sense at all; what they mean is "I couldn't care less" (I care
>so little that I could not care any less than I do). I won't mention
>"should of" - oh, damn, I just have!

Sad, innit!
--
Ian

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 22:06:17 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 15/09/2021 16:00, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:34:43 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course you will complain that I've anonymised my details - of
>>>> course I have, I'm not prepared to put my private details online even
>>>> for the pleasure of ramming them down your throat, or up your arse,
>>>> whichever you're speaking out of today ...
>>>>
>>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/DegreeCert.png
>>>> www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/AcademicRecord.png
>>
>> The OU! LOL :) Might as well be the university of upper congo! Assuming
>> they're even real.
>
>Nyah! Nyah! They're obviously better qualification than you have,
>because you were the one that started this topic, but once I'd revealed
>mine became strangely too embarrassed to tell us what yours are. Tell

I have no intention of giving out private details on a public forum. You did
but then you're an idiot.

>>> so that others need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the
>>> same space as someone not wearing a mask.
>>
>> Aww, diddums is disturbed? Poppet :)
>
>Go back to kindergarten until you've learnt to read, I wrote "so that
>*OTHERS* need not feel uncomfortable or disturbed by being in the same
>space as someone not wearing a mask."

That "others" is obviously you given what you've said in the past. Unless
you're so hideously ugly that people run screaming when they see you unmasked.

>> Did it when I was a teenager. Les Arc was nice. No more dangerous than
>cycling
>> on a main road if you pay attention.
>
>Doesn't sound exactly as though you were going down a black slope at
>about 40-50mph.

I'm not suicidal. But then I don't cycle weaving inbetween trucks in slow
traffic on A roads either as I've seen some soon to be organ donors doing.

>> So what? Infection isn't illness.
>
>If you'd bothered to look at the second of those two links, you'd have
>seen that the hospitalisation and death rates are increasing again, and
>that the latter has risen above the five most recent years' average
>again, meaning people are avoidably dying again. That sounds like
>illness to me.

People die. Get over it. The average age of a covid victim is 82. Its just
pruning the elderly like any other disease.

>> I like 99.9% of every other adult in this
>> country is infected with chicken pox. Get a grip.
>
>Presumably you mean 'was', but you recovered, as did I, but wrt covid-19
>many have not been so lucky, and are continuing to be not so lucky.

The chicken pox virus stays in the body for life and occasionally pops up
again as shingles when someone is low. A genius like you should have known
that.

As for me being lucky, luck doesn't come into it. Its clear now a tiny minority
of people are genetically susceptable to this virus. Most of us arn't. Plus I've
had my jabs anyway if only to keep Mr Customs Officer happy.

On 16/09/2021 10:37, Tweed wrote:
> John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:58:32 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:6pc3kgt7s3d4dc13cq2cr2tr8dejm9ejhq@4ax.com...

>>>> Agreed, and if I hear yet another TV pesenter (usually American)
>>>> calling something "very unique" I switch to something else.
>>>
>>> I remember my headmaster at school taking me to task (but with a twinkle in
>>> his eye) when I talked about having "three alternatives". "Alternative",
>>> from the Latin "alter" (other), only relates to having *two* choices. I
>>> think the ship may have already sailed on that one, but every time I hear
>>> phrases like "there are four alternative ways we can solve this problem" I
>>> think of Dr Evans and his friendly rebuke.
>>
>> I would agree with Dr Evans, as would my COD (1951 edition). It says
>> "(of two things) mutually exclusive". My Chambers (1998) is rather
>> more forgiving: "either of a pair, or any of a set, of possibilities".
>>>
>>> Is it correct to talk about "almost unique"? Or is it better to say "very
>>> rare"?
>>
>> I am of the "a thing is either unique or it's not" school, so I'd say
>> "very rare".
>>>
>>>
>>> Then there is the use of "literally" - as in "I was so scared I literally
>>> died". No you didn't - you're still alive to tell the tale. It goes a bit
>>> beyond hyperbole-to-make-a-point. OK, maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)
>>
>> No, just accurate! Sadly, I think we might be losing that battle.
>>
>
> Re literally, the OED has accepted the current use that us old fogies
> object to.
>
> The is, I believe a case for very unique, consider a set of glass marbles
> with random coloured glass inserts. Each one is unique. Then consider one
> with, say, a chance perfect geometric insert. That would be very unique.

You are sounding like someone who would marvel at a piece of toast
bearing an image of Christ.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:37:08 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Re literally, the OED has accepted the current use that us old fogies
>object to.
>
>The is, I believe a case for very unique, consider a set of glass marbles
>with random coloured glass inserts. Each one is unique. Then consider one
>with, say, a chance perfect geometric insert. That would be very unique.

No, that would be very rare.

>
>The language changes over time. We don’t even use it in the same way as a
>couple of decades ago, let alone a century ago. Its use isn’t even
>consistent across the UK.

--
brightside S9