On 9/26/2021 6:45 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>>
>>>> Is this US English?
>>>
>>> It is also real English.  (American English gets some elements wrong,
>>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Norwegian we have silikon (a polymer) and silicium, with atomic #14,
>>>> it seems like you have more or less conflated the two?
>>>
>>> The element is "silicon" in English ("silisium" in Norwegian, with an
>>> "s" and not a "c" - I thought /you/ were the native speaker!).
>>
>> Sorry, I sometimes type out the English word even when I try to use a
>> Norwegian word in the middle of an English message.
>
> As a Scot with a Norwegian wife, and kids brought up with both
> languages, we can mix Norwegian and English within a single word!
>

FWIW: I am an American, but my ethnic background contains a lot of Scots
and Norwegian as well. Single biggest group though, it turns out, is
Ashkenazim, so like, a lot of my ancestors also spoke Yiddish.

But, like most proper Americans, I only speak English.

Can sort of partially understand Spanish as well, but in a cultural
sense, knowing or using any languages other than English is seen as
un-American and may result in hostility, though Mexicans sort of get a
free pass because, well, they are Mexicans.

But, it isn't good enough to count for anything, so the official answer
stands, that I only speak English, and the proper American variety,
without any of those funky British spellings or pronunciations.

Well, and people are also expected to be
"Evangelical"/"Conservative"/"Baptist"/... which I am left to realize,
that actually, I am not (*1).

Or, more or less, that is how culture goes here.

*1: Decided to leave out going into too much detail about this, but my
belief system is more open ended, allowing multiple sets of
possibilities to coexist, and am personally inclined to suspect that the
evangelicals may have got a few things "seriously wrong" in their
theology (like, they miss the "forest for the trees" so much with their
attempts to interpret things from the Bible, that they have managed to
miss what it is they are actually looking at; turning it into some
complicated mess of doctrinal points that only hold together with some
pretty heavy doses of circular reasoning).

But, it is enough of an issue, and their culture has gotten abrasive
enough, that I am at the limits of how much I can play along with these
games.

Like, I fall into some other category.

But, trying to sort out what category this is exactly, is more
difficult, as most traditional labels and definitions don't apply.

Most definitions and labels tend to assume an absolutist worldview of
one sort of another, but, if one tends towards a more existentialist
worldview, it falls apart some. But, this itself makes hair, since if
one admits to being an existentialist or relativist, then many people
assume that they also believe all the "new age" stuff, which is very
much not the case (eg, there is a very big difference between
"experiencing the world" and "being able to pull random crap out of ...").

I sort of fall more into the "transient glimpse of existence floating
over a void of endless nothingness" sense. Or, say, if everything is
ultimately nothingness, but we exist at a place and time where life can
proclaim its own existence, before eventually being forced to return
back into the void. But, even when life returns to the void, it will
still have a sense of existence as evidenced by there having been a
place and time where it was able proclaim its own existence.

Also it can be noted that I don't personally support hedonism or
destructive selfish behaviors (in a way, life has itself shown that
"this is not the way").

Nor will I claim that there is nothing (if there were nothing, this
whole topic would be moot, as the question couldn't even be raised in
the first place).

....

Some other thoughts I have get a bit more convoluted and I don't feel
particularly inclined to try to describe them.

But, yeah, the whole "labels" thing is still an issue.

And "culture" still kinda sucks in some ways.

>>
>> I have far more issues with tunnels...
>>
>>> "Silicone" is the polymer family ("silikon" in Norwegian).  But many
>>> people, especially non-chemists, pronounce it the same as "silicon" -
>>> typically in the context of artificial boobs.  This leads a lot of
>>> English speakers to assume that microchips and breast enlargements are
>>> basically made of the same stuff.
>>>
>>> The Norwegian language makes a bigger distinction.  This in turn causes
>>> confusion when non-native speakers are trying to talk about
>>> semiconductors, and all the Norwegians are distracted by thinking of big
>>> boobs.
>>>
>>>
>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>
>> Because both are "effektive"?
>> :-)
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>

David Brown wrote:
> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>
>> Because both are "effektive"?
>> :-)
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>

It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues at
all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating both
into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more likely to
lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly separates them.

I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans" &
"Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using just
two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect) a
single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate between
the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and much
smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 27/09/2021 08:35, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>
>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>
>
> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues at
> all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating both
> into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more likely to
> lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly separates them.
>
> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans" &
> "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using just
> two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect) a
> single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate between
> the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and much
> smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>

Yes, these are fun. English is better for that than Norwegian, IMHO, as
you can throw in words that have the same spelling but different
pronunciations and meanings - like reed, read (present tense), red, read
(past tense), or bow (for arrows), bow (for a king) and bough (of a tree).

I'm sure the programmers behind Google Translate use a different term
than "fun" here... :-)

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:

> David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>
>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Indeed.
>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>>
>
> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
> separates them.
>
> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)

In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
robots incessantly trying to:
a) ascertain my link to humanity
b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:31:40 PM UTC+3, cla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> writes:
>
> > David Brown wrote:
> >> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> >>> David Brown wrote:
> >>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
> >>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
> >>>> /efficient/ solutions.
> >>>
> >>> Because both are "effektive"?
> >>> :-)
> >>>
> >> Indeed.
> >> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
> >> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
> >>
> >
> > It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
> > mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
> > at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
> > both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
> > likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
> > separates them.
> >
> > I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
> > & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
> > just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
> > a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
> > between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
> > much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
> robots incessantly trying to:
> a) ascertain my link to humanity
> b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/Yx0laChAAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/A3-pICksAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/u5CD_-EyAQAJ

How did I found it?
I search in google's comp.arch group for a word Bokmål
Why this word? I don't know.

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:31:40 PM UTC+3, cla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> writes:
>>
>> > David Brown wrote:
>> >> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> >>> David Brown wrote:
>> >>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>> >>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>> >>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>> >>>
>> >>> Because both are "effektive"?
>> >>> :-)
>> >>>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>> >> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>> >>
[..]

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/Yx0laChAAQAJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/A3-pICksAQAJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/u5CD_-EyAQAJ

величезне дякую!! it was Ivan(zini) not Terje, all along! wonder why i
mixed them up? perhaps it was because at the time Terje was milling?

in light of the precious gift presnted above, i'll refrain form
criticism of what lies beneath ;)

>
> How did I found it?
>
> I search in google's comp.arch group for a word Bokmål
> Why this word? I don't know.

It's the name of the dominant (or so i've been told) written variety of
norwegian (med dansk fargetone)

On 27/09/2021 12:41, Michael S wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:31:40 PM UTC+3, cla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> writes:
>>
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>> separates them.
>>>
>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>> robots incessantly trying to:
>> a) ascertain my link to humanity
>> b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/Yx0laChAAQAJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/A3-pICksAQAJ
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/DeGUdZhh1Jc/m/u5CD_-EyAQAJ
>
> How did I found it?
> I search in google's comp.arch group for a word Bokmål
> Why this word? I don't know.
>

Bokmål is one of the two official variants of Norwegian. It means "book
language", as it is a Norwegian version of the written Danish language
that books were written in, when Norway was controlled by Denmark. The
other variant is "Nynorsk" - "New Norwegian" - which is an invented
amalgamation of various bits of dialect and regional variation collected
together when Norway got its independence. Since no one could agree
which of these two languages should be the "real" Norwegian, the obvious
solution was to invent more variations that combine them. Thus we have
Riksmål (which is almost the same as Bokmål, and exists almost entirely
as the language of one of the large newspapers in Norway - which most
people think is published in Bokmål), and Samnorsk (which disappeared
before anyone noticed its creation).

The whole situation is an enormous waste of money and school pupils'
time (as they have to learn to write in Bokmål and Nynorsk). The great
majority of Norwegians write in Bokmål, and - like people the world over
- speak their local dialect with little regard for what anyone wants to
call it. The differences between the two "languages" is a lot smaller
than the difference between, say, Glaswegian and The Queen's English.
Unfortunately, there is a small but highly vocal minority of Nynorsk
fanatics who insist on their right to waste everyone else's time and
effort. The result of trying to make people duplicate things in two
Norwegian varieties is that it is often simpler and cheaper to write in
English.

As for a fifth language, I suppose the reference was to "Sami", spoken
by the Laplanders in the north of the country (and north Sweden, Finland
and Russia). Ironically, while Norwegians have to live with the idea of
two Norwegian variations being called separate languages and both taught
in schools and required for some jobs, most Norwegians think "Sami" is a
single language. There are, in fact, several related Sami languages
with significant differences (think French and Italian, or Spanish and
Portuguese). The Sami languages are analogous to the Gaelic languages
(Gaelic, Welsh, Irish) in the UK, or native American languages in the
USA - and equally unrelated to the country's main language. Almost no
one who is not of Sami heritage speaks any of the Sami languages.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 27/09/2021 12:41, Michael S wrote:
>> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 12:31:40 PM UTC+3, cla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>
[..]

>
> As for a fifth language, I suppose the reference was to "Sami", spoken

I might be wrong, but perhaps the saying Ivan referred to was making fun
ot the fact that there are a lot of dialects in .no, people in Bergen
probably do not sound like those from Kirkeness or what have you. It
appears to me that there are several _small_ countries in .eu where
people from one place might not understand what countryman from across
the hill are talking about (Slovenia comes to mind)

There are numerous examples of English (_inside the UK_!) sounding
rather alien... (And I'm not even talking about flock herders from NI or
semi-sober glaswegians)

[..]

clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
> robots incessantly trying to:
> a) ascertain my link to humanity
> b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>

Glad that you try to attribute it to me, and I sort of agree with the
premise, but it wasn't me who wrote it.

Norwegian used to be extremely dialect-specific, to the point where we
had radio/tv shows where specialists would be able to pinpoint to within
5-10 km where the reader of a given sample text came from.

This has changed quite a bit with improved communication, making it much
harder/impossible to do so with a sample from a younger person.

Living languages change all the time of course (with the possible
exception of Icelandic which mostly just grows, inventing new proper
Icelandic terms for new stuff), when I grew up Nynorsk (an artificial
amalgamation of lots of dialects) only shared about 30% of its
vocabulary with Bokmål, the official/mainstream language, and both were
compulsory all the way to High School (Gymnas).

Since then we have partly merged the two languages, but at the same time
English as the first foreign language is taught from first (or second
grade?) instead of waiting until the fourth year.

Second/third foreign language will typically wait until a few years
later but in reality most Norwegians are really only bilingual.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:

> clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to
>> your
>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>> robots incessantly trying to:
>> a) ascertain my link to humanity
>> b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>
>
> Glad that you try to attribute it to me, and I sort of agree with the
> premise, but it wasn't me who wrote it.
>

Yes, sorry for implicating you. Tusen pakk to Michael S. for performing
great detective work and finding the real originator of my memory - Ivan
Godard.

[..]

On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>> impossible to express properly in the other. It goes both ways.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>> separates them.
>>
>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>
> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
> robots incessantly trying to:
> a) ascertain my link to humanity
> b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>

That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.

On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>> separates them.
>>>
>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>
>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>   a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>   b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>
>
> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.

I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.

On 9/27/2021 12:04 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>>> separates them.
>>>>
>>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>>
>>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
>>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>>   a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>>   b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>>
>>
>> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
>> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
>> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.
>
> I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
> of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
> world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.
>

Probably true, there are a lot of them in the US, and they are a few of
the major demographics I think (along with English and German).

My parents were both native to the pacific northwest (Oregon), where
Scots and Norwegian are a lot more common. Both were from mixed
backgrounds, and my name is Irish despite this being a relatively small
part of my ancestry (last name was Irish, so they went all-in with it;
and when I was younger, I was mostly just told that I was Irish...).

But, I am currently living in Oklahoma where they are a minority (most
of the locals being from an English or German background; at least of
those who are not Native American).

In my case, despite being ethnically around 3/8 Jewish (and pretty much
none of my ancestry being from Appalachia or the Ozarks), I still
generally get classified as a "hillbilly" (Scots-Irish) as far as the
locals are concerned (I generally look more Scots-Irish in terms of
appearance).

But even as such, the general hostility towards hillbillies is less than
the general hostility towards Jews, and there have been incidents where
people going out wearing kippah and tzitzit have been beaten in the
streets and similar, so as such, it is probably better that they don't
realize.

Well, and likewise, why it is better to try to pass oneself off as a
non-denominational christian, rather then be like, "Actually, I follow
what is, if anything, closer to being an Existentialist interpretation
of Judaism" (and likely have the locals start to lose their crap).

Would be better though if this sort of thing were less of an issue.

....

On 9/27/2021 12:07 PM, BGB wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 12:04 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>>>> separates them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>>>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>>>
>>>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>>>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>>>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>>>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>>>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me
>>>> how to
>>>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>>>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>>>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>>>    a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>>>    b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>>>
>>>
>>> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
>>> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
>>> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.
>>
>> I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
>> of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
>> world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.
>>
>
> Probably true, there are a lot of them in the US, and they are a few of
> the major demographics I think (along with English and German).

Not according to

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Ancestry

While German is the largest, both Scots and Norwegians are only modestly
represented - way fewer than say Mexicans, and even other European
countries. But (scroll down on that page), it does vary a lot by
state/city/area.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 9/27/2021 2:56 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 12:07 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 12:04 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>>>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>>>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>>>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>>>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>>>>> separates them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans"
>>>>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>>>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>>>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>>>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>>>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>>>>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>>>>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>>>>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>>>>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me
>>>>> how to
>>>>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>>>>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>>>>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>>>>    a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>>>>    b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
>>>> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
>>>> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.
>>>
>>> I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
>>> of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
>>> world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.
>>>
>>
>> Probably true, there are a lot of them in the US, and they are a few
>> of the major demographics I think (along with English and German).
>
> Not according to
>
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Ancestry
>
> While German is the largest, both Scots and Norwegians are only modestly
> represented - way fewer than say Mexicans, and even other European
> countries.  But (scroll down on that page), it does vary a lot by
> state/city/area.
>

OK, though it seems both groups are a little more common around
Portland, Oregon, which is around the area both my parents are from...

There are apparently a few other misc groups thrown in, but most are
from scattered ancestors from a few centuries ago, which I don't put as
much weight into.

Meanwhile, one of my major ancestral groups is apparently pretty rare in
the US as a whole...

On 9/26/2021 11:45 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 08:35, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues at
>> all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating both
>> into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more likely to
>> lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly separates them.
>>
>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers", "Beans" &
>> "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using just
>> two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect) a
>> single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate between
>> the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and much
>> smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>
>
> Yes, these are fun. English is better for that than Norwegian, IMHO, as
> you can throw in words that have the same spelling but different
> pronunciations and meanings - like reed, read (present tense), red, read
> (past tense), or bow (for arrows), bow (for a king) and bough (of a tree).

Note that your first two examples show different spellings, same
pronunciation, different meanings.

But, hodge podge that English is, there are examples of pretty much
every combination. e.g. same spelling and pronunciation, different
meanings - right (vs left or vs wrong).

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 5:49:59 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>
> But, hodge podge that English is, there are examples of pretty much
> every combination. e.g. same spelling and pronunciation, different
> meanings - right (vs left or vs wrong).
<
I grew up in a state that had a river and a county with the same spelling
but different pronunciations.

On 9/23/2021 1:55 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> John Dallman wrote:
>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>
>> Is this US English?
>
> It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)

You probably blame us for "corrupting" the Canadians about this as well.
:-)

One of the differences which strikes me as odd is that we Americans make
decisions, whereas people who learned British English take them.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 9/27/2021 5:11 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 1:55 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>
>>> Is this US English?
>>
>> It is also real English.  (American English gets some elements wrong,
>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>
> You probably blame us for "corrupting" the Canadians about this as well.
>  :-)
>
> One of the differences which strikes me as odd is that we Americans make
> decisions, whereas people who learned British English take them.
>

My father was English, my mother Main Line Pennsylvania - her family
came with Penn - and I've been told my writing and speaking style is
"oddly antiquated", which I take to be how the resulting accent sounds
to contemporary American ears. I still use the conditional and
subjunctive; don't hear either much any more.

Though that's when I'm not in Maine speaking the Clamdigger I grew up
with. "Down the road" has four syllables.

On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-5, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 1:55 PM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> >> John Dallman wrote:
> >>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
> >>> tko...@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
> >>
> >> Is this US English?
> >
> > It is also real English. (American English gets some elements wrong,
> > such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
> You probably blame us for "corrupting" the Canadians about this as well.
> :-)
>
> One of the differences which strikes me as odd is that we Americans make
> decisions, whereas people who learned British English take them.
<
In Britain, companies are plural, while in American they are singular.
> --
> - Stephen Fuld
> (e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me how to
>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>   a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>   b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>
>
> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.

It isn't relaly that surprising when you know the real story about
famine in Norway and the resulting emigrations to the US: There were
more Norwegians (per capita) than Irish!

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/27/2021 12:07 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 12:04 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that can
>>>>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>>>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>>>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>>>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>>>>> separates them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers",
>>>>>> "Beans"
>>>>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words, using
>>>>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local dialect)
>>>>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>>>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle, and
>>>>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to your
>>>>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>>>>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>>>>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>>>>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me
>>>>> how to
>>>>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>>>>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>>>>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>>>>    a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>>>>    b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
>>>> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a connection
>>>> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.
>>>
>>> I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
>>> of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
>>> world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.
>>>
>>
>> Probably true, there are a lot of them in the US, and they are a few
>> of the major demographics I think (along with English and German).
>
> Not according to
>
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Ancestry
>
> While German is the largest, both Scots and Norwegians are only modestly
> represented - way fewer than say Mexicans, and even other European
> countries.  But (scroll down on that page), it does vary a lot by
> state/city/area.
>
>
I saw those stats when I tried to check my numbers, and I believe they
are at least partially wrong, in that they mostly measure main claimed
heritage.

We know that per capita more people left Norway than Ireland, i.e. from
Google:
"Between 1820 and 1925 as many as 860,000 Norwegians emigrated to the
U.S", so that with 100-200 years history since then, far more than the
stated 4.45M will have at least some Norwegian ancestry, even if they
have a majority from say Germany.

When I first visited my relatives in San Diego in 1981, local papers
wrote that "70% of all Californians claim at least some Norwegian ancestry."

After all, not all blondes in Ca are bottle products.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

On 28/09/2021 02:11, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 9/23/2021 1:55 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>
>>> Is this US English?
>>
>> It is also real English.  (American English gets some elements wrong,
>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>
> You probably blame us for "corrupting" the Canadians about this as well.
>  :-)
>
> One of the differences which strikes me as odd is that we Americans make
> decisions, whereas people who learned British English take them.
>

Let's not expand a difference between the USA and the UK in the
/language/ into a general cross-Atlantic war! Otherwise, I'll be forced
to quote John Cleese...

For most of the spelling differences between English and American, the
American spellings are older and more traditional - basically, you
missed out on the trend in the UK for making spellings look more French
in order to seem sophisticated and cultured. (The English hated the
French /people/ and the country of France at the time, and were
regularly at war with them, but the court loved the French /language/.)
Thus it was in the UK, from the royal court down, that we got extra
letters added to words like "colour" and "neighbour".

In the case of "aluminium" vs. "aluminum", the original spelling was
"aluminum". But American scientists had always used "aluminium", and
British scientists copied it because it fitted well with the names of
many other elements (like sodium and potassium.) The change in the USA
back to "aluminum" came later, when non-scientists started using the
word more. Apart from Canada, where the people are too polite to argue
with the USA, everyone else around the world uses "aluminium". So yes,
here you got that one wrong :-)

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 28/09/2021 02:11, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 9/23/2021 1:55 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2021 22:39, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> John Dallman wrote:
>>>>> In article <sihcrp$nc0$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
>>>>> tkoenig@netcologne.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not silicon that needs to be dissolved, it's silicon oxide.
>>>>
>>>> Is this US English?
>>>
>>> It is also real English.  (American English gets some elements wrong,
>>> such as misspelling and mispronouncing "aluminium".)
>>
>> You probably blame us for "corrupting" the Canadians about this as well.
>>  :-)
>>
>> One of the differences which strikes me as odd is that we Americans make
>> decisions, whereas people who learned British English take them.
>>
>
> Let's not expand a difference between the USA and the UK in the
> /language/ into a general cross-Atlantic war! Otherwise, I'll be forced
> to quote John Cleese...
>
> For most of the spelling differences between English and American, the
> American spellings are older and more traditional - basically, you
> missed out on the trend in the UK for making spellings look more French
> in order to seem sophisticated and cultured. (The English hated the
> French /people/ and the country of France at the time, and were
> regularly at war with them, but the court loved the French /language/.)
> Thus it was in the UK, from the royal court down, that we got extra
> letters added to words like "colour" and "neighbour".
>
> In the case of "aluminium" vs. "aluminum", the original spelling was
> "aluminum". But American scientists had always used "aluminium", and
> British scientists copied it because it fitted well with the names of
> many other elements (like sodium and potassium.) The change in the USA
> back to "aluminum" came later, when non-scientists started using the
> word more. Apart from Canada, where the people are too polite to argue
> with the USA, everyone else around the world uses "aluminium". So yes,
> here you got that one wrong :-)

Thank you! Makes watching Chyrosran22's [1] crusade against US
pronunciation of the element even more entertaining. Wonder is there's
similar retort to his metric vs imperial assault (this time though, SI
is _clearly_ superior)

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chyrosran22+aluminium&iar=videos&iax=videos&ia=videos

On 9/28/2021 1:53 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 9/27/2021 12:07 PM, BGB wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2021 12:04 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/2021 18:50, Ivan Godard wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/2021 2:31 AM, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:47, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In tomorrow's episode of "comparative linguistics", we ask why
>>>>>>>>>> Norwegians can't distinguish between /effective/ solutions and
>>>>>>>>>> /efficient/ solutions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because both are "effektive"?
>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>>> There are some things that are natural in one language, and almost
>>>>>>>> impossible to express properly in the other.  It goes both ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't really that hard, in that most languages have words that
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> mean more than one thing in different contexts, i.e. I had no issues
>>>>>>> at all with your efficient/effective sample even after translating
>>>>>>> both into Norwegian. OTOH, I can readily see how it is much more
>>>>>>> likely to lead to misunderstandings than a language which clearly
>>>>>>> separates them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am much more fond of "Bønder, Bønner og Bønner" ("Farmers",
>>>>>>> "Beans"
>>>>>>> & "Prayers") which are of course three totally different words,
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> just two spellings and more or less (depending on your local
>>>>>>> dialect)
>>>>>>> a single pronounciation. (It is in fact possible to differentiate
>>>>>>> between the first two, but the tonal separation is _very_ subtle,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> much smaller than the normal regional dialect variations.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the past couple of days I have been trying to locate a link to
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> post here on comp.arch (?) that went something like - "... every
>>>>>> Norwegian speaks at least 6 languages, 5 of which are/is(?)
>>>>>> Norwegian..." but ny-internet hasn't been cooperating and I concede
>>>>>> defeat. Perhaps you remember it? Perhaps someone can enlighten me
>>>>>> how to
>>>>>> search for old usenet articles in an age when dejanews is gone and my
>>>>>> attempts to search via google.groups where defeated by Mountain View
>>>>>> robots incessantly trying to:
>>>>>>    a) ascertain my link to humanity
>>>>>>    b) showing some form of registration with google down my throat
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That quote is actually from me. Considering the relative population
>>>>> size, a surprisingly large number of the posters here have a
>>>>> connection
>>>>> with Norway. Ditto for the general field of programming languages.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect Norwegians are a bit like Scots - there aren't all that many
>>>> of them in their home country, but there are lots of people around the
>>>> world that have Norwegian and Scottish ancestors.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably true, there are a lot of them in the US, and they are a few
>>> of the major demographics I think (along with English and German).
>>
>> Not according to
>>
>> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Ancestry
>>
>> While German is the largest, both Scots and Norwegians are only
>> modestly represented - way fewer than say Mexicans, and even other
>> European countries.  But (scroll down on that page), it does vary a
>> lot by state/city/area.
>>
>>
> I saw those stats when I tried to check my numbers, and I believe they
> are at least partially wrong, in that they mostly measure main claimed
> heritage.
>
> We know that per capita more people left Norway than Ireland, i.e. from
> Google:
> "Between 1820 and 1925 as many as 860,000 Norwegians emigrated to the
> U.S", so that with 100-200 years history since then, far more than the
> stated 4.45M will have at least some Norwegian ancestry, even if they
> have a majority from say Germany.
>
> When I first visited my relatives in San Diego in 1981, local papers
> wrote that "70% of all Californians claim at least some Norwegian
> ancestry."
>
> After all, not all blondes in Ca are bottle products.
>

Hmm...

Some that I am aware of tend to have more of a "straw" hair color (eg, a
sort of blonde that is roughly the same color as straw in a hay bale...).

My case, hair was lighter when I was younger (closer to straw colored),
but now it is sort of in this ambiguous area between a dark blond and a
light brown, or "mousy"/"ash". Leans more towards a dark yellowish color
than a lightish brown though. It is lighter on the ends, as it seems to
lighten in areas exposed to sunlight, result is that it has slightly
lighter and darker streaks due to light exposure, rather than being
strictly a single color.

My mom has more or less the same hair color.

One difference is that my mom's hair tends to be straighter, mine tends
to be more wavy.

Eye color: blue-grey.

My dad, brother, and most people on my dad's side, meanwhile, tend to
have a "very dark brown" hair color, which also sends to be more tightly
curled, along with typically having brown eyes.

My case, skin color is more-or-less white, though not quite as light as
is typical in northern Europe (many pure Scots or Irish have lighter
skin, more "pasty" or "pinkish").

Looking, seems to be ~ II or III on the Fitzpatrick scale, or ~ 13-17 on
the von Luschan scale, depending on where I look.

If I go in the sun all that much, it tends to darken a fair bit.
Though, I rarely go outside all that much...

Seems to be just slightly lighter than unbleached cardboard or shopping
bag paper.

Not looked that much into the genetics of all this.

> Terje
>