On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
> different type of software.

I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
and "text editor"?

Gedit has many features that make it easy to write programs but
that surely is not the only difference.

On 2021-12-22 05:45:35 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:

> Tue, 21 Dec 2021 13:37:47 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 2:58:15 PM UTC-5, Tim Lang wrote:
>>> On 21.12.2021 19:59, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's just apostrophe! You suggested there was something strange there.
>>> Yes, apostrophe, but it differs in (A) simple text editors and (B) in
>>> typographic renderings (such as by Word, whenever in the options the
>>> "typographic" version is chosen [x], both for the screen usage and
>>> for printouts). This is why many people use the accents, ´ and `,
>>> instead of '. (Esp. when people haven't learnt type writing rules, in
>>> any language. To them the ' apostrophe is no apostrophe at all. :-))
>>
>> ASCII is pretty much obsolete.
>
> No. Still very much alive. A subset of Unicode/UTF-8. Quite a few
> languages can be written with just that: English, Interlingua, Basque,
> Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malayu, Elefen (Lingua Franca Nova), Swahili
> (I think), Xhosa and Zulu (I think); and lots more almost: Dutch,
> German (with ö=>oe etc. ß=>ss), Spanish (leaving out diacritics rarely
> causes comprehension difficulties)

In the early days of email people I knew who wrote messages in Spanish
completely ignored the lack of acute accents, and lost no sleep over
it. On the other hand they all refused to write ñ as n and used various
substitutes, such as ny, gn and ni -- all of which are just fine in
ASCII.

> , Portuguese (same), Italian (same),
> etc. etc.
>
>> There are keyboard shortcuts for the open-quote and close-quote
>> characters in MSWord, in case you've turned off "Smart Quotes"
>> but want them anyway. You can change your document from ASCII
>> quotes to smart-quotes in MSWord with two simple Find-Change
>> operations. Put single-quote in both the Find and the Replace-with
>> windows, and then double-quote in both windows an repeat,
>
> Yes, https://rudhar.com/sfreview/curlquot/aucurlen.htm .
>
> But I no longer use Word and Windows, and won’t, and I type the
> curlies directly from the keyboard: ‘’, “”, «», ´, ¨.
> `¿¡²³¤€¼½¾‘’¥×
> áßðfghjœø¶'
> äåé®þüúíóö«»¬
>
>
>> If your text is marked German-language or French-language, it
>> does them automatically, too -- German with the low and high
>> "backward" ones, French with guillemets.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:

>/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/

BTW: How about this English alphabet?

"ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"
<https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>

IMHO, a good (IPA-like) Engl. phon. alfabet:

fire wire shower flour => fᛣԸ wᛣԸ xѠԸ flѠԸ

(approximations with the late y-rune; one medieval kyrillitsa letter
(Greek ω or ψ would also do) for /ɑʊ/; and a letter from the Armenian
script, looking like a calligraphic "uncial" L: for /əː(r), ɜː(r)/.

(reader setting: UTF-8)

Tim

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:45:26 AM UTC+1, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
> > different type of software.
> I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
> made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
> and "text editor"?
>
> Gedit has many features that make it easy to write programs but
> that surely is not the only difference.

In a word processor, you can do text layout, like font size, headers,
hedings, footers, footnotes, pagebreaks, italic, bold and underlining,
tables, columns, pictures, indents, page margins, bullet lists, automatic
tables of content, indices, etc. etc.

A text editor, as the name implies, only lets you edit text: strings of
characters, with an occasional newline to mark paragraphs. Everything
else can only be done with some kind of mark-up language, like Tex, Html,
troff, etc.

Tue, 21 Dec 2021 22:45:24 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
>> different type of software.
>
>I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
>made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
>and "text editor"?
>
>Gedit has many features that make it easy to write programs but
>that surely is not the only difference.

Programs, yes, and HTML code. But documents, in WYSIWYG mode?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:43:13 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:

>In the early days of email people I knew who wrote messages in Spanish
>completely ignored the lack of acute accents, and lost no sleep over
>it. On the other hand they all refused to write ñ as n and used various
>substitutes, such as ny, gn and ni -- all of which are just fine in
>ASCII.

Or nh as in Portugese? Or nn, which it was historically? The til used
to be an omission sign (q~ = que) or a smaller superscript n for
nasalisation.

Interlingua writes español as espaniol. I recently learned that the
Basque name of Spain is Espainia.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:53:46 AM UTC+1, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 21 Dec 2021 16:38:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 1:37:49 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> ASCII is pretty much obsolete.
> >
> >So are typewriters. I started my phonology back when ASCII was the state
> >of the art.
> >
> >> There are keyboard shortcuts for the open-quote and close-quote
> >> characters in MSWord, in case you've turned off "Smart Quotes"
> >> but want them anyway. You can change your document from ASCII
> >> quotes to smart-quotes in MSWord with two simple Find-Change
> >> operations. Put single-quote in both the Find and the Replace-with
> >> windows, and then double-quote in both windows an repeat,
> >
> >I don't use MSWord. While I was still using Ubuntu I used Gedit.
> I didn't know about gedit. Just installed it and it looks spartan. But
> no doubt I could learn it. Myself I use nano (formerly pico), and
> sometimes xed (especially when converting old iso-8859-1 files, which
> xed reads correctly automatically. Nano does not.
>
> All of this under Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu, which is based
> on Debian), and Ubuntu Server, sometimes Rasberry OS (also based on
> Debian). Locale set to UTF-8 of course. Even nano now supports Arabic
> and Hebrew, with the correct direction.
> >When I changed to Windows 10 I brought a copy of Gedit over and
> >it works in Windows. Gedit gives me what I want and I find Word
> >is much too complicated.
> Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
> different type of software. The non-Microsoft equivalents of MS Word
> are OpenOffice and LibreOffice. I use the latter sometimes, but I
> don't like it. Typing HTML directly is much more comfortable.

Via various omzwervingen (how to say that in English? GT please help.
Wanderings, it says), I found that my favourite text editor, nano, CAN do
macros for often used complicated code!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26063301
" marcodiego 10 months ago | root | parent | next [–]

Yes you can use ansi use pre-defined macros to fire key combos. Edit your .nanorc and bid a sequence to a key (like in the given example). To specify combos, press alt+v then hit the key combo you desire."

This Marco Diego is one of nano’s maintainers.

So now I have shortcut keys for things like:
<a href=""
target=></a>
and:
<br><code></code>
with the cursor being place in the right place to continue.
Great stuff! That's gonna save me quite some time.

Thanks for the indirect hint, DKleinecke!

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021, Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com> wrote:

> In a word processor, you can do text layout, like font size, headers,
> hedings, footers, footnotes, pagebreaks, italic, bold and underlining,
> tables, columns, pictures, indents, page margins, bullet lists, automatic
> tables of content, indices, etc. etc.
>
> A text editor, as the name implies, only lets you edit text: strings of
> characters, with an occasional newline to mark paragraphs. Everything
> else can only be done with some kind of mark-up language, like Tex, Html,
> troff, etc.

And neither is suitable for the task of the other one.

--
Helmut Richter

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 11:08:19 AM UTC+1, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> >/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/
> BTW: How about this English alphabet?
>
> "ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"
> <https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>

1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.

2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
ðI.

> IMHO, a good (IPA-like) Engl. phon. alfabet:
>
> fire wire shower flour => fᛣԸ wᛣԸ xѠԸ flѠԸ
>
> (approximations with the late y-rune; one medieval kyrillitsa letter
> (Greek ω or ψ would also do) for /ɑʊ/; and a letter from the Armenian
> script, looking like a calligraphic "uncial" L: for /əː(r), ɜː(r)/.
>
> (reader setting: UTF-8)

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 5:24:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 21.12.2021 22:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >No more than any pharmaceutical maker pays Bayer for using the
> >word "aspirin."
> Or some companies/countries paid some substantial fees for
> at least some "initial" time (ie, long ago) for that aspirin.
> >(a) BrE phonemes _and allophones_ are significantly enough different
> >that it wouldn't work. (b) Jones _began_ half a century after the American
> >tradition was established.
> OK. But the practicality, at least for foreigners who wish to learn
> this modern "lingua franca" Jones & IPA are much better (even easier
> to learn).
> >IPA wasn't big in Britain
> It has been "big" on the continent for several generations.
> >The front matter has at least a quarter-page for almost every one of
> >the symbols. (I know nothing of S&S.)
> Of course, it has big lists and explanatory notes (incl. pertaining
> to grammar). But in many cases the footer three lines shows the
> reader what the American transcription sign means. This will do
> in order to know how to read (i.e. to pronounce - at least the
> most popular variant of the relevant word; and in most cases,
> if there is a major difference AE<->BE, the main variants are
> given).
> >Merriam-Webster published the Kenyon & Knott, generations ago.
>
> Seems to be one of the best (and in quite frequent, updated, editions
> in contrast with the British OED).

I suspect there may never be a paper Twelfth Collegiate. K & K,
the American pronouncing dictionary (1944), was never updated.

> >The copyright page tells you the original publisher and date.
> Unfortunately, in the one copy I have, about 2-3 dozens of
> initial pages (incl. cover and "impressum" data) are lost;
> and the other (integer) copy I can't find. But they are quite
> this edition, 1979, by Edwin B. Williams publ. house; 2nd edition
> (in 1977 the 1st ed. might have been issued, but I am not sure):
>
> <https://www.buchfreund.de/de/d/e/9780553170184/the-new-bantam-english-dictionary?bookId=84569415>

It originated with "Edwin B. Williams Verlag" in Toronto!

> cover
> <https://www.buchfreund.de/de/d/e/9780553170184/the-new-bantam-english-dictionary?bookId=84569415#&gid=1&pid=1>
>
> the same - with ISBN codes:
> <https://www.abebooks.com/9780553170184/New-Bantam-English-Dictionart-055317018X/plp>
>
> (These editions use quite the same Amer. system for transcr. as Webster
> copies do.)

The Canadian standard differs in a few respects from the USan.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 1:45:26 AM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> > Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
> > different type of software.
>
> I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
> made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
> and "text editor"?

Frinstance, can you insert a footnote that stays on the same page
as its reference if you add more text on earlier pages? or convert
footnotes to endnotes (which I trust you would never do)?

Incidentally you posted two messages "replying" to messages
of mine that had no content added by you. I really would like to
know what you had to say!

> Gedit has many features that make it easy to write programs but
> that surely is not the only difference.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 5:08:19 AM UTC-5, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:
>
> >/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/
> BTW: How about this English alphabet?
>
> "ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"

Because "alphabet" starts with a vowel (not a glottal), the allomorph
/Diy/ [ðij] is used before it -- except in Chicago dialect, and it drives choral
conductors crazy trying to get a chorus full of Chicagoans to make
the distinction!

> <https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>
>
> IMHO, a good (IPA-like) Engl. phon. alfabet:
>
> fire wire shower flour => fᛣԸ wᛣԸ xѠԸ flѠԸ
>
> (approximations with the late y-rune; one medieval kyrillitsa letter
> (Greek ω or ψ would also do) for /ɑʊ/; and a letter from the Armenian
> script, looking like a calligraphic "uncial" L: for /əː(r), ɜː(r)/.
>
> (reader setting: UTF-8)

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:14:55 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 11:08:19 AM UTC+1, Tim Lang wrote:
> > On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:
> >
> > >/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/
> > BTW: How about this English alphabet?
> >
> > "ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"
> > <https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>
> 1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
> in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.

No, not "merged." You cannot substitute one for the other in any word.

It was early noticed that the two phones are in COMPLEMENTARY
DISTRIBUTION so it makes sense to treat them as allophones of a
single phoneme -- the "luck" one is REGARDED AS the allophone of
/@/ WHEN STRESSED. Stressed shwa is impossible.

PLEASE LEARN HOW "PHONEME" IS USED.

> 2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
> ðI.

No, [ðij]. And far more than "many."

> > IMHO, a good (IPA-like) Engl. phon. alfabet:
> >
> > fire wire shower flour => fᛣԸ wᛣԸ xѠԸ flѠԸ
> >
> > (approximations with the late y-rune; one medieval kyrillitsa letter
> > (Greek ω or ψ would also do) for /ɑʊ/; and a letter from the Armenian
> > script, looking like a calligraphic "uncial" L: for /əː(r), ɜː(r)/.
> >
> > (reader setting: UTF-8)

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 06:31:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:14:55 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <google@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 11:08:19 AM UTC+1, Tim Lang wrote:
>> > On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:
>> >
>> > >/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/
>> > BTW: How about this English alphabet?
>> >
>> > "ð? alf?bet" / "?A ALF?BET"
>> > <https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>
>> 1) ? (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
>> in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.
>
>No, not "merged." You cannot substitute one for the other in any word.

Because one of them can only occur when stressed, and the other one
only when unstressed. Yes, I know. A bit like /h/ and /N/.

>It was early noticed that the two phones are in COMPLEMENTARY
>DISTRIBUTION so it makes sense to treat them as allophones of a
>single phoneme -- the "luck" one is REGARDED AS the allophone of
>/@/ WHEN STRESSED. Stressed shwa is impossible.
>
>PLEASE LEARN HOW "PHONEME" IS USED.

There's no need to get so excited. This is nothing new to me.

>> 2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
>> ðI.
>
>No, [ðij]. And far more than "many."

Especially some American strangely sometimes don't. And do it with <a>
when it isn't necessary.

On 22.12.2021 13:14, Ruud wrote:

>>"ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"
>><https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>
>
>1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
>in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.

Indeed. (Additional 1-2 fonts would help.)

>2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
>ðI.

like these:

ðΞ for /i:/ and ðІ/ðі /ɪ/

or by using Đ instead of ð

ĐΞ/đΞ /i:/ and ĐI/đi /ɪ/

Tim

On 22.12.2021 15:17, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>The Canadian standard differs in a few respects from the USan.

Yes. But not in our context (the transcription system used in the
Merriam Webster and in the Bantam dictionaries).

Tim

On 22.12.2021 15:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
>>in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.
>
>No, not "merged." You cannot substitute one for the other in any word.

e.g. alternances: but /bʌt & bət/; love /lʌv & ləv/

On the "continent", this alternation always has been underlined to
Engl. langu. learners/students - esp. because of the British /ʌ/,
which in most AmerEng cases rather turn ... /ə/. Amer. Engl. is
very "shwasized". Thus ləv and bət are more frequent than the
"British" ones. Even an Amer. "book" tends to sound like this: /bək/,
in most of the pronunciations heard "from coast to coast". :-)

>>2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
>>ðI.
>
>No, [ðij]. And far more than "many."

Ruud must have used /I/ exactly for this /ij/.

Tim

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 3:31:40 PM UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:14:55 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen via Google Groups <goo...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 11:08:19 AM UTC+1, Tim Lang wrote:
> > > On 20.12.2021 23:19, DKleinecke wrote:
> > >
> > > >/fayr/ /wayr/ /shawr/ /flawr/
> > > BTW: How about this English alphabet?
> > >
> > > "ðʌ alfʌbet" / "ĐA ALFΛBET"
> > > <https://bilderupload.org/bild/e90465791-da-alfabet>
> > 1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
> > in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.
> No, not "merged." You cannot substitute one for the other in any word.
>
> It was early noticed that the two phones are in COMPLEMENTARY
> DISTRIBUTION so it makes sense to treat them as allophones of a
> single phoneme -- the "luck" one is REGARDED AS the allophone of
> /@/ WHEN STRESSED. Stressed shwa is impossible.
>
> PLEASE LEARN HOW "PHONEME" IS USED.
> > 2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
> > ðI.
> No, [ðij].

That depends, in my view and experience. If itself unstressed,
and following by a stressed syllable, it's /ði/ in Americanist and
/ðɪ/ in IPA, example:
<The essence here is ...>
But in a different usage, for stress, occurring also before consonants,
its /ðiy/ / /ði:/, example:
<THE essential point here, is that ...>

To quote a famous song (there he goes again!), written by Bob Dylan
and performed also by many other non-opera singers:
<The answer my friend / is blowing in the wind.>
That clearly does not sound the same as when spelled
<Thee answer my friend ...>

> And far more than "many."

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 5:24:25 PM UTC+1, Tim Lang wrote:
> On 22.12.2021 15:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>1) ʌ (as in thus, hut, luck) is distinct from shwa (as in 'the', 'a')
> >>in SouthBrit. I know that most Americans merged them.
> >
> >No, not "merged." You cannot substitute one for the other in any word.
> e.g. alternances: but /bʌt & bət/; love /lʌv & ləv/
>
> On the "continent", this alternation always has been underlined to
> Engl. langu. learners/students - esp. because of the British /ʌ/,
> which in most AmerEng cases rather turn ... /ə/. Amer. Engl. is
> very "shwasized". Thus ləv and bət are more frequent than the
> "British" ones. Even an Amer. "book" tends to sound like this: /bək/,
> in most of the pronunciations heard "from coast to coast". :-)
> >>2) Many people give <the> before a vowel the special pronunciation
> >>ðI.
> >
> >No, [ðij]. And far more than "many."
> Ruud must have used /I/ exactly for this /ij/.

No. See my previous post.

On 2021-12-22 12:04:32 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:

> Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:43:13 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:
>
>> In the early days of email people I knew who wrote messages in Spanish
>> completely ignored the lack of acute accents, and lost no sleep over
>> it. On the other hand they all refused to write ñ as n and used various
>> substitutes, such as ny, gn and ni -- all of which are just fine in
>> ASCII.
>
> Or nh as in Portugese?

I think I used to see that as well.

> Or nn, which it was historically?

That never, though I thought it ought to be used, for the historical
reason that you imply.

> The til used
> to be an omission sign (q~ = que) or a smaller superscript n for
> nasalisation.
>
> Interlingua writes español as espaniol. I recently learned that the
> Basque name of Spain is Espainia.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:22:15 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 1:45:26 AM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 9:53:46 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > > Gedit seems to a text editor, not a word processor like Word. Very
> > > different type of software.
> >
> > I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
> > made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
> > and "text editor"?
> Frinstance, can you insert a footnote that stays on the same page
> as its reference if you add more text on earlier pages? or convert
> footnotes to endnotes (which I trust you would never do)?

Well - I don't usually observe pages. I am not aiming at printed
material. In fact I think the book-target editor is obsolete - even
if reality has been slow to agree with me. I see text as, ideally,
one long vertical scroll in each chapter.

But footnotes could be easily added to gedit if there was a need
for them. Just different realizations of the same basic
functionality.

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 2:16:08 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
> >> >A voiceless /w/.
> >On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
> >> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
> >> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.
> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 22:09:33 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >*Kwel(o) dwell domeshield mongolu (njambua)ngdualua -> khwel
> >gulu@Chn: dome, circle
> >culture/colony/eco- inhabit colere@Ltn
> >
> >Without Paleo-etymology, linguists can only chase their tales.
> There's no need to invent a nonsense etymology for this, because it is
> as clear as one in IED etymology can be:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/which
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what#Etymology
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwar
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwaz
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7os
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7%C3%ADs
> etc. etc.
>
> Compare:
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/were#Etymology_1
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ware#Etymology_1
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/way#Etymology_1
> etc. etc.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Onnozelaar. Living proof that ignorance = arrogance.
IE is <10ka. It is of far too recent vintage.

Without Paleo-etymology, linguists (and wannabe linguists) can only chase their tales.

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 17:13:31 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
<daud.deden@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 2:16:08 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:30:27 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> >> >Incidentally I have a phoneme a majority of English speakers lack - /wh/.
>> >> >A voiceless /w/.
>> >On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 10:07:02 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> No, it's /hw/. The Danes still write that: <hvid> is white in their
>> >> language, although the no longer pronounce the [h]. /hw/ comes from
>> >> /xw/ in Proto-Germanic, which was /kw/ or /khw/ in PIE.
>> Sun, 19 Dec 2021 22:09:33 -0800 (PST): Daud Deden
>> <daud....@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >*Kwel(o) dwell domeshield mongolu (njambua)ngdualua -> khwel
>> >gulu@Chn: dome, circle
>> >culture/colony/eco- inhabit colere@Ltn
>> >
>> >Without Paleo-etymology, linguists can only chase their tales.
>> There's no need to invent a nonsense etymology for this, because it is
>> as clear as one in IED etymology can be:
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/which
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what#Etymology
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwar
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hwaz
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7os
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/k%CA%B7%C3%ADs
>> etc. etc.
>>
>> Compare:
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/were#Etymology_1
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ware#Etymology_1
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/way#Etymology_1
>> etc. etc.
>> --
>> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
>Onnozelaar. Living proof that ignorance = arrogance.
>IE is <10ka. It is of far too recent vintage.

Dunning-Kruger.

>Without Paleo-etymology, linguists (and wannabe linguists) can only chase their tales.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 1:45:26 AM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
>> > I see no difference and have long wondered why and how people
>> > made such a differentiation. How do you define "word processor"
>> > and "text editor"?

>On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 6:22:15 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Frinstance, can you insert a footnote that stays on the same page
>> as its reference if you add more text on earlier pages? or convert
>> footnotes to endnotes (which I trust you would never do)?

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 12:06:54 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>Well - I don't usually observe pages. I am not aiming at printed
>material. In fact I think the book-target editor is obsolete - even
>if reality has been slow to agree with me. I see text as, ideally,
>one long vertical scroll in each chapter.
>
>But footnotes could be easily added to gedit if there was a need
>for them. Just different realizations of the same basic
>functionality.

No. Again, gedit is a text editor, and things like footnotes or
endnotes have no place in that.

If I need a concept like footnotes or endnotes, I use hyperlinks, to a
separate notes page if there are many. And I link back, too, which in
paper books is sometimes lacking.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 5:25:01 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> If I need a concept like footnotes or endnotes, I use hyperlinks, to a
> separate notes page if there are many. And I link back, too, which in
> paper books is sometimes lacking.

Footnotes are on the same page as the reference.

With endnotes, there's the low-tech device called the "finger" that
holds the place with the reference. Endnotes, however, are the
work of Satan -- whether at the end of a book or the end of a chapter.