Home » Coding » Python » Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
| |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14925 is a reply to message #14721 ] |
Thu, 04 October 2007 05:19   |
 Tim X
Messages: 1
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
> Dalager) wrote:
>
>>In article <85ve9ov971.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <fdtsfu$iq6$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>> Frank Goenninger <frgo@goenninger.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
>>>>>why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
>>>>>all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
>>>>>"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
>>>>>a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
>>>>>are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
>>>>>free.
>>>>
>>>> "Liberated" is a valid meaning of the word "free".
>>>
>>>No. It is a valid meaning of the word "freed".
>>
>>Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
>>then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
>>
>>Free
>>(...)
>>"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
>>of parents, guardian, or master."
>>
>>The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
>>"free".
>
> I don't think knowing the meaning of a word is being pedantic.
> "Freed" is derived from "free" but has a different, though associated,
> meaning. Words have meaning despite the many attempts by Generation X
> to assert otherwise. Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
> of the young.
>
> The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
> years. People (marketers in particular) routinely coin ridiculous new
> words and hope they will catch on. I remember seeing a documentary
> (circa 1990?) about changes in the English language. One part of the
> program was about the BBC news and one of its editors, whom the staff
> called the "protector of language", who checked the pronunciation of
> words by the news anchors. The thing that struck me about this story
> was the number of BBC newspeople who publicly admitted that they could
> hardly wait for this man to retire so they could write and speak the
> way they wanted rather than having to be "correct".
>
> Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
> meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
> colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
> has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
> dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
> word they can find used in print.
>
Language is not a static 'set in stone' thing. It changes and while some
may find the changes unwelcome, it will change anyway. Although I have no
evidence to support it, I suspect that 'free' wold have been more commonly
associated with meanings other than 'free of cost' pre-capitalism. Checking
a few dictionaries seems to indicate that its meaning along the lines of
free from restriction, control, freedom, liberated etc is more in keeping
with its origins than an interpretation of free of cost and that even in
that context, it meant free from the restriction of having to be paid for.
The bottom line is that free has different meanings and if a group decides
to use that term and at the same time specify which context it means it to
apply, then I think that is reasonable. Ask your wife what she thinks is
meant by a free variable and she may say that it is a variable that has no
cost (as in free beer), This doesn't mean that its use is wrong or
incorrect.
I once asked RMS why he chose free, given the ambiguity it would cause,
over alternatives, such as freedom, liberated or even unrestricted. His
response was that at the time, free as in freedom was the concious
association they had and other associations and resulting ambiguity did not
occur to them until it was too late. This seems reasonable enough. If your
focus was to ensure that software was free from what you perceived to be
restrictions that would ultimately reduce your individual freedom, then
free fits. The fact this has led to confusion amongst consumers in a
capitalist based economy probably says as much about modern values and the
changing balance between consumerism compared to freedom than anything
else.
Tim
"The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of
course, language." Oscar Wilde
Giving English to an American is like giving sex to a child. He knows it's
important but he doesn't know what to do with it. Adam Cooper (19th
century)
"We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common
language. G.B. Shaw
The Englishman commented to the American about the "curious"
way in which he pronounced so many words, such as schedule
(pronounced shedule). The American thought about it for a few
moments, then replied, "Perhaps it's because we went to
different shools!"
Englishman: Its maths not math because it is short for mathematics
American: Then you would say "Maths are fun"?
---
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14969 is a reply to message #14925 ] |
Thu, 04 October 2007 09:30 |
Lew
Messages: 17
Registered: August 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Tim X wrote:
> "The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of
> course, language." Oscar Wilde
> "We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common
> language. G.B. Shaw
> There is a well-known saying: Two nations separated by a common language. However, this phrase doesn't seem to have been positively recorded in this form by anyone.
>
> In The Canterville Ghost Oscar Wilde wrote:
>
> /We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language/
>
> In a 1951 book of quotations, and without attributing a source, George Bernard Shaw was credited with saying:
>
> /England and America are two countries separated by the same language/
>
> Even Dylan Thomas had his say in a radio talk in the early 50s:
>
> /[European writers and scholars in America are] up against the barrier of a common language/
>
> But where the original phrase came from, nobody knows, and it is probably simply incorrectly quoted.
< http://yedda.com/questions/origin_famous_sentence_quotations _8625651351715/>
--
Lew
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14974 is a reply to message #14954 ] |
Thu, 04 October 2007 10:49 |
Wildemar Wildenburger
Messages: 73
Registered: August 2007 |
Member |
|
|
Steve Holden wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <mailman.1501.1191493515.2658.python-list@python.org>, Steve
>> Holden wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <8sn8g39v75hg114lf3m9m911ib2ajddaui@4ax.com>, George Neuner
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
>>>> Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
>>> So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
>>> *marketing campaign*?
>>
>> Different Bible book, different author, different original language.
>
> So Genesis was written in Hebrew? I have no clue as to where the
> manuscripts were found.
>
Am I missing a joke here? What are you talking about?
Different book? From what book would the first sentence in the Bible be,
if not from the first book (yeah yeah, from the publisher, haw-haw :-|)?
And Genesis and all other of Moe's books where written in Hebrew. No
doubt about that. Its (part of) the /Hebrew/ Bible, after all.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>
I can't program with discussions like this going on ;)
/W
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14997 is a reply to message #14612 ] |
Thu, 04 October 2007 12:05 |
jcd
Messages: 43
Registered: August 2007 |
Member |
|
|
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 04:49:50PM +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote regarding Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding:
>
> Steve Holden wrote:
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >> In message <mailman.1501.1191493515.2658.python-list@python.org>, Steve
> >> Holden wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In message <8sn8g39v75hg114lf3m9m911ib2ajddaui@4ax.com>, George Neuner
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
> >>>> Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
> >>> So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
> >>> *marketing campaign*?
> >>
> >> Different Bible book, different author, different original language.
> >
> > So Genesis was written in Hebrew? I have no clue as to where the
> > manuscripts were found.
> >
> Am I missing a joke here? What are you talking about?
>
I'm trying to figure that out myself...
> Different book? From what book would the first sentence in the Bible be,
> if not from the first book (yeah yeah, from the publisher, haw-haw :-|)?
>
Yeah, different book. "In the beginning was the Word" is John's cosmology. Written in Greek long after Genesis, and a couple decades after Jesus was executed.
Also, I wouldn't so much say that "word" is a mistranslation. Logos does indeed mean "word" in common usage, it just also carries along the baggage of reason, "logic" (for a loose definintion of which), rationality, and so forth. So it's not so much inaccurate as inadequate.
> And Genesis and all other of Moe's books where written in Hebrew. No
> doubt about that. Its (part of) the /Hebrew/ Bible, after all.
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>
>
> I can't program with discussions like this going on ;)
> /W
For real. Not much python in this thread. And yet, here I am, sucked into posting to a thread that I've spent the past three or four days wishing would die....
Sigh.
Cliff
|
|
|
| [OT, definitively] Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology bufferand keybinding [message #15092 is a reply to message #14997 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 09:02 |
Bruno Desthuilliers
Messages: 277
Registered: July 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clifford Dyer a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 04:49:50PM +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote
> regarding Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and
> keybinding:
>
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <mailman.1501.1191493515.2658.python-list@python.org>, Steve
>>>> Holden wrote:
>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>> In message <8sn8g39v75hg114lf3m9m911ib2ajddaui@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> George Neuner wrote:
<OT - now you're warned>
>>>>>>> The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the
>>>>>>> Word..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
>>>>>
(snip)
>
> Yeah, different book. "In the beginning was the Word" is John's
> cosmology. Written in Greek long after Genesis, and a couple decades
> after Jesus was executed.
>
> Also, I wouldn't so much say that "word" is a mistranslation. Logos
> does indeed mean "word" in common usage, it just also carries along
> the baggage of reason, "logic" (for a loose definintion of which),
> rationality, and so forth. So it's not so much inaccurate as
> inadequate.
FWIW, the canonical french translation uses 'verb' instead of 'word',
and AFAICT it's more appropriate (at least in French - my English is
mostly technical so I may miss some subtilities here) since it carries a
notion of action too.
Now another (and certainly far worse) mistranslation (for both John and
Genesis) is this awful 'in the beginning was', when the less imperfect
translation from Hebrew (which John's text, while written in Greek, is
clearly referencing here) would be 'in the principle is'. See, nothing
historic here, it's *not* the 'beginnning' of something past, it's about
the present. Also, since Christ is clearly identified with the Verb by
John, saying 'in the principle is the verb' is also a way of identifying
God with the principle...
Hem... Sorry, I disgressed... Back to Python, now !-)
</OT>
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #15672 is a reply to message #14210 ] |
Sun, 07 October 2007 09:07 |
lhb
Messages: 1
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_weil@klapptsowieso.net> wrote in
news:47016899$0$4524$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:
> While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
> many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
> americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
> what they have to say).
Words are defined by popular usage. In popular usage, the meaning of free
as an adjective depends on the context. If the adjective is applied to
people, it means the opposite of slavery or imprisonment. If it's applied
to something other than people, it means free as in beer.
For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom. Free dog means
free as in beer. Likewise, in popular usage, free software means free as
in beer. People who use it with a different meaning are vainly trying to
change its meaning. But the meanings of words can't be arbitrarily
changed, just by dictating different meanings. The meaning has to be
adopted by popular usage, which free-as-in-GPL software has not been.
Therefore, I propose, using dog freedom as our logic, we call it stray
software.
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #15727 is a reply to message #14210 ] |
Sun, 07 October 2007 11:57 |
Steve Holden
Messages: 353
Registered: July 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
lhb@nowhere.com wrote:
> Wildemar Wildenburger <lasses_weil@klapptsowieso.net> wrote in
> news:47016899$0$4524$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:
>
>> While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
>> many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
>> americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
>> what they have to say).
>
> Words are defined by popular usage. In popular usage, the meaning of free
> as an adjective depends on the context. If the adjective is applied to
> people, it means the opposite of slavery or imprisonment. If it's applied
> to something other than people, it means free as in beer.
>
> For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
> called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom. Free dog means
> free as in beer. Likewise, in popular usage, free software means free as
> in beer. People who use it with a different meaning are vainly trying to
> change its meaning. But the meanings of words can't be arbitrarily
> changed, just by dictating different meanings. The meaning has to be
> adopted by popular usage, which free-as-in-GPL software has not been.
>
> Therefore, I propose, using dog freedom as our logic, we call it stray
> software.
But that sounds like software that may once have had a good home, but
then one day a pack of stray software came into town and called to its
wild side, so it left the PC of its birth ... you get the idea.
Interestingly, this issue does ultimately hinge on ideas of "property"
and "ownership". Amazon (or their lawyers and marketing department
together) would like you to believe that "the idea of being able to
order a product with a single click" is protectable intellectual
property, but ultimately it will be agreed, I predict, that such claims
will fail on the grounds of obviousness of invention. though in a
country where they regularly show fifth graders to be smarter than
adults on network TV one can never be sure.
A tide is turning in the world of IP, but only just, and so the ebb is
hardly yet underway.
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline so I couldn't cat it
|
|
| |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #17452 is a reply to message #14277 ] |
Sun, 07 October 2007 21:07 |
Damien Kick
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:27:04 -0500, Damien Kick <dkixk@earthlink.net>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> "free as in beer".
>
> but does not "free beer" nearly always come with a catch or implied
> obligation?
I had been trying to find a good Nietzsche quote about the role of debt
in the relationship of a child to his or her parents but I could not
seem to find a good one. I did, however, find what I think to be an
interesting secondary source
<http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-09-20-neilson-en.html>:
<blockquote>
For Nietzsche, debt was linked to the problem of promising and
forgetting. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the
etymological play that underlies his association of debts (Schulden)
with guilt (Schuld). As is well known, the Second Essay of On the
Genealogy of Morals argues that the feeling of guilt, of personal
obligation, has its origin in the contractual relationship between
creditor and debtor. "It was here", Nietzsche writes, "that one person
first measured himself against another". And he continues:
Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely
this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the
creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating
animal as such".[1]
How today are we to understand these claims and Nietzsche's extension of
them into arguments about the role of debt in the relations between
parents and children or between man and the deity?
</blockquote>
Beer helps to eliminate debt by promoting forgetfulness.
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #17462 is a reply to message #17452 ] |
Mon, 08 October 2007 01:04 |
bbound
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On Oct 7, 9:07 pm, Damien Kick <dk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely
> this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the
> creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating
> animal as such".[1]
Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)? Our
clever hands with their opposable thumbs being considered a defining
characteristic. And our tool use thus derived. Handspans also having
been a common (if imprecise) early unit of measurement (along with
forearm-spans, as in cubits, strides, and foot-length, from which the
measurement in feet still derives its name).
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #17463 is a reply to message #17462 ] |
Mon, 08 October 2007 01:11 |
Lew
Messages: 17
Registered: August 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
bbound@gmail.com wrote:
> Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
> words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)? Our
> clever hands with their opposable thumbs being considered a defining
> characteristic. And our tool use thus derived. Handspans also having
> been a common (if imprecise) early unit of measurement (along with
> forearm-spans, as in cubits, strides, and foot-length, from which the
> measurement in feet still derives its name).
For most humans, the length of their foot from heel to toe is nearly equal to
the length of their forearm elbow to wrist.
--
Lew
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 16 03:10:46 EDT 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.99587 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
