User talk:Ruakh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Pages I find useful
- Wikipedia:How to edit a page
- m:Help:Formula (explains how to use <math> markup)
- m:Help:Table (explains how to use Mediawiki's pipe syntax for tables)
- Wikipedia:Template messages
[edit] Archives of old discussions
There are archives of old discussions at User talk:Ruakh/Archive 1 and User talk:Ruakh/Archive 2. They're not complete; when I was a new Wikipedian I sometimes deleted old discussions (which you're not supposed to do, but I didn't know that at the time), and sometimes discussions have gotten moved back and forth between this page and another user's talk-page and ended up there (or, confusingly, partly here and partly there). If there's something specific you're looking for, you might need to check this page's history.
If you'd like to revive an old discussion, please do so on this page, not at the archive; either move or copy the existing discussion from the archive, or start a fresh discussion here on the same topic.
Ruakh 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Godel number
You just edited that article. Unfortunately, the definition is completely screwy; it makes no sense to say that a function from S to N is computable, if elements of S have not already been assigned Godel numbers. And a computable function cannot output random elements, unless they have been assigned Godel numbers. So neither the function f nor its inverse could possibly be computable if S is anything other than the natural numbers.
If you are interested in fixing the article, please feel free (nobody else has stepped up, and I am putting it off). There is already some discussion on the talk page in the section Definition. I'm writing because minor changes you make might get lost if and when the article is rewritten, and that would be a waste of your time. CMummert · talk 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, wow, good point. Thanks for the heads-up. :-) —Ruakh 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flag icons
Thanks for bringing it up on Ligulem's talk page. I was looking for comments regarding this and noticed that you brought it up before I did :) Let us wait for a reply. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complements
Please pardon my vigorous discussion on your article about defective verbs, but I enjoy linguistics very much and am no doubt somewhat obstinate. I believe we may be talking about two different things with the same word. I thought, at first, that you were talking about a subject, object, or verb complement, but, if "beware" be the same as "be ware", "ware" would itself be a complement to the subject. By the definition I have known, a complement is something which modifies the meaning of the sentence and may not be removed without losing meaning. If that be so, a complement of a complement would cease to be a complement to the sentence. But, perhaps I err in that. If you can enlighten me, I am eager to learn.
p.s. I hope I am not too forward in posting in your personal section, but if so please feel welcome to tell me on my talk page --Jr mints 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need to apologize; your comments are quite welcome, both here and at Talk:Defective verb. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I minded. :-/ —Ruakh 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scare Quotes
Please see my note at the Disputed English grammar talk page.
--Selket 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't worry, I'm watching that page. :-) —Ruakh 09:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Restrictiveness
Perhaps you could change restrictiveness so a preposition it does not end with (so it does not end with a preposition). Also, what happens if John has more than one wife? Then beautiful might be restrictive if his other wives are ugly, or even average in appearance. As the article stands now, there is a systemic bias in favour of monogamist societies. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Preposition stranding is a feature of all dialects of Standard English, at all but the most formal registers. We've no reason to choose an awkward non-preposition-stranding construction over a natural preposition-stranding one. (I don't mind non-preposition-stranding constructions when they sound natural-but-formal; with your edit, however, the result was quite clearly an unnatural attempt at avoiding preposition stranding. Your attempt was valiant, but it just didn't work out.)
- Even if John is a monogamist, it's possible for him to have had multiple wives, in which case the modifier might be restrictive ("John and Harry have each been married twice, once to a beautiful woman and once to an intelligent one. John's beautiful wife was absolutely insufferable, but the other three wives were all wonderful."); nonetheless, I think all readers will understand the example, and the article already includes the caveat "presumably" to acknowledge that there are other possibilities. (By the way, in my experience people don't usually use "beautiful" as a restrictive modifier in discussing people, because that's rude: it implies that other potential referents are not beautiful. Therefore, I think "John's beautiful wife" generally implies that John has one wife and that she's beautiful, even in a social context where the listener couldn't assume that John has at most one wife.) Your change struck me as a bit silly; Wife should be careful to acknowledge the varied nature of marriage, but at Restrictiveness the point is not worth a full parenthetical note in mid-sentence.
- —Ruakh 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] French verbs: perfect or compound imperative
The problem with the "French verbs" page as it stands is that the English phrase "have done it", which supposedly translates "aie-le fait", is not an imperative at all, and it fails to cast even a glimmer of light on the meaning or function of the French construction. The scruple you voice about an ambiguity ("have it done" = "fais-le faire") is surely far outweighed by this fatal problem. In any case the ambiguity is easily resolved once the construction is placed within its proper context, which is to order someone to do something by a given point in the future, e.g. "Aie-le fait avant demain!" which you would naturally translate as "Have it done by tomorrow!".
I've checked Hawkins & Towell, French Grammar and Usage (2nd Edition, London 2001) which backs me up on this, calling the construction the "compound imperative":
Compound imperatives are formed from the imperative of avoir or être, as appropriate, and a past participle. They are used to express orders that will be fulfilled in the future: Ayez tapé cette lettre avant la fin de la journée. (p.271)
There are further examples at http://www.ruishi.info/forum/simple/index.php?t38635.html:
l'impératif passé Son emploi est peu fréquent. Il indique qu'un fait devra être accompli avant un moment déterminé du futur. - Sois parti d'ici au plus tard à 5h15! - Ayez fini avant midi!
If you place "fais-le faire" likewise in context, the difference is clear. The first 10 google results for this phrase included several instances of "Fais-le faire par les autres!" and one each of "fais-le faire par un autre" and "fais-le faire par des gens plus qualifiés". In English, this would be rendered most naturally as "Get somebody else to do it!", and "Get someone better qualified to do it!"
Gracchus babeuf 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree about the meaning of the French construction, but disagree that have it done is an appropriate translation; it's almost coincidental that it has a similar meaning to have done it. ("Have it done by tomorrow" means "cause it to be complete by tomorrow", while "have done it by tomorrow" means "do it before tomorrow". It's like how "I have my homework done" and "I have done my homework" have similar meanings, but are completely different constructions.) —Ruakh 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see we are in agreement about the French side of this issue, but there seems to be no movement on the English side. Your "have done it" is, as I said, not an imperative construction in English, and it is not even acceptable as a sentence, whereas the French "Aie-le fait!" is an imperative sentence. Your phrase is only part of an indicative sentence. Your problem, I believe, arises from abstraction: the French construction, and its English translation, require further contextualisation, preferably an adverbial phrase that sets a time limit on the action to be performed. My suggestion "Have it done by tomorrow!" is an English imperative sentence, it provides the sense of the French sentence and it helps to clarify the use of the perfect imperative construction. I would be interested in hearing of any alternative translations, but offering a verb phrase from an indicative sentence to translate an imperative sentence is not an option. The nearest I can find is "Get it done!", but to me that suggests "Fais-le faire!" (i.e. by another agency) more strongly than "Have it done (by tomorrow)!"
So there you have it: on the one hand (the present text) an English non-sentence that belongs to a larger indicative sentence and does nothing to explain the French construction, and on the other hand (my suggestion) an English imperative sentence that elucidates the function in the same way as the French construction. In any case, there's no need to stop at one sentence: I've already provided other material above that would be useful as further explanation. Granted, the French construction is not often heard, but it seems that if it is to be mentioned at all, it's worth getting it right. Gracchus babeuf 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Heteronormativity
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
- I don't consider attempting to increase the accuracy of a sentence to be "messing" with it and don't appreciate the implication. CovenantD 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, then, please read full sentences before attempting to increase their accuracy! You did increase its accuracy in some regards, but you took a sentence that was perfectly sensible (but with some inaccuracies) and replaced it with one that did not make sense (since the "as" phrase no longer connected to any part of the sentence) and that — insofar as it could be interpreted sensibly — said the exact opposite of what was meant (since it made it sound like Norvell described Smith's comments as "politically correct nuttiness", when in fact he described criticism of Smith's comments as "politically correct nuttiness"). —Ruakh 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Berry's Paradox
Yes, I take your point. The reason why it is a paradox is that there should be a number that fits the description when the sentence is analysed mathematically. However, I fear that the description that already exists is not sufficient for the lay person to understand this paradox. I for one have no idea what a 'Naive set theory' is.
Perhaps we could reach a compromise. I will re-enter my explanation with a slight modification. I will state that what distinguishes a paradox from mere hypothetical descriptions amounting to nothing, like the one you mentioned, is that something must match the given statement...unlike 'the smallest positive integer less than zero', which is in itself contradictary.
Saurabhb 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm really not O.K. with an "explanation" that doesn't actually explain the problem; but, I've rewritten the section to explain the paradox without using the word "set". Is this acceptable? —Ruakh 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hpochondria
yes that WAS me [xyaasehshalomx] :) sorry!xxx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XYaAsehShalomX (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- No worries, just wanted to make sure. :-) —Ruakh 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redlink
Thanks for fixing my terrible typo.[1] CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Singular they
Keep up the improvement of Singular they. I like your changes so far. JStripes 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
