Thanks, I think so too. And I should - I am Danish after all. ;)
OK, answer me this - all that butter, all that bacon you produce - why can't I get a decent bacon sandwich over there for all the money in the world? :lol:
OK, answer me this - all that butter, all that bacon you produce - why can't I get a decent bacon sandwich over there for all the money in the world? :lol:
<looks proudly at the smouldering remains of his technical question about colours on a popular 80's computer and basks in the new knowledge he is learning>
Google says there are more speakers of Klingonese than Icelandic.
I think it's safe to assume that it's not their first language, though there's bound to be at least one case...
And that leads to another great example of language and ways of thinking. The expression "Only in America!", as spoken by an American, means something entirely different to the same phrase as spoken by anyone else in the world... :D
<looks proudly at the smouldering remains of his technical question about colours on a popular 80's computer and basks in the new knowledge he is learning>
I like going off-topic, me. I think all those who could possibly have a flounce about it have long since given up...
<looks proudly at the smouldering remains of his technical question about colours on a popular 80's computer and basks in the new knowledge he is learning>
So have you figured out how to use ULAplus yet? SE Basic has some ULAplus commands to make it easier to use if you get stuck.
I disbelieve that... They didn't even spell "colour" correctly ;)
Technically the word is correctly spelled "color" as that is how it is spelled in Latin, where it originates from. The "u" the British English language is so fond of comes from French influence.
So ... blame the French for your inability to spell correctly! :razz:
Technically the word is correctly spelled "color" as that is how it is spelled in Latin, where it originates from. The "u" the British English language is so fond of comes from French influence.
So ... blame the French for your inability to spell correctly! :razz:
OK, there may be something to that women's colour chart after all.
The genes that control the development of the red/green colour receptive cones in the human eye are next to each other on the X-chromosome. The reason men are more prone to colour-blindness (at least, in the red/green sense) is because they only have one X-chromosome, whereas women have two. So if one of the genes is damaged and the right pigment can't be manufactured there, women have a spare to take over.
But it's more complicated than that. The red and green genes are similar to each other, and can vary slightly between individuals, so different people may see colour slightly differently. So a woman's two copies of the gene may encode different pigments. That means they could have four different colour receptors compared to the usual 3. Which then means they can distinguish between colours that others cannot. Such people have been found, but mostly they would never really know because we don't have the words to describe what they're seeing.
Certain monkeys, like squirrel monkeys, are an interesting case where the males are all red/green colour-blind (they see in blue and yellow), but the females see in red/green/blue like us. And with gene therapy, some of the male's cones can be switched from yellow to red, allowing them to see like us and pass colour tests they couldn't before.
Which means, with the right gene therapy, not only might we cure colour-blindness in humans, but also give anyone who wants it a greater range of colour vision by giving you four or five different types of cones instead of the usual three.
I've wondered about the language perception thing. If you're listening to a piece of music with lyrics in a language you don't understand, how does it affect your perception of the music (except for the obvious things such as the overall subject of the song, which someone can tell you in advance to listening to it) compared to someone who does understand the lyrics?
I see you're quoting the Oxford English Dictionary. So you'd say "randomize" is spelled correctly, but "randomise" is incorrect, yes?
They are both correct.
The Oxford English dictionary prefers ize for words of Greek origin; because of the original Greek root of the suffix ize and not least, the obvious heavy z pronunciation (in most British English dialects).
Other authorities prefer the French derived ise.
I prefer ize.
It looks so much more attractive in print, due to the rarity of z in printed English.
And pedantically, I prefer it, because so many are conditoned to use -ise because of a misinformed opinion that the z is American English.
English is nothing, if not adaptable. Poor spelling and stylistic spelling are two different things (and lazy, web spelling, is another).
Where would our greatest works of literature be if the spelling nazis managed to edit them first?
That was my point. Most spelling is down to the personal preference of one dictionary compiler or another. You can thank Dr Johnson for the plural of ox being oxen rather than oxes. You can thank Noah Webster for taking most of the U's out of American English. Standardized spelling dates from the advent of movable type. There is no good reason to prefer one spelling over another as English is so flexible that it can usually be understood even when an entirely different though similar sounding word is substituted. It is good style to be consistent in your spelling, but it's not a requirement for effective communication.
Comments
After their planet of origin? ( You mean "homeworld", duuuh! -Ed )
WHO?!?!?! :-o
I can only think of the three regulars, humans, Vulcans and ClingOns. But I'm not really an exemplary fanatic of Star Trek.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
You haven't been to S?nderborg.
Google says there are more speakers of Klingonese than Icelandic.
One language has been around for over a thousand years ... the other one less than five decades.
Fo gigure! :D
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
And that leads to another great example of language and ways of thinking. The expression "Only in America!", as spoken by an American, means something entirely different to the same phrase as spoken by anyone else in the world... :D
I like going off-topic, me. I think all those who could possibly have a flounce about it have long since given up...
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
So have you figured out how to use ULAplus yet? SE Basic has some ULAplus commands to make it easier to use if you get stuck.
Reminds me of a "game" a friend & I were creating back in the early 80's called "PIG1" ................
It's probably best we didn't complete it, me thinks.
daresay that'll be a similar vibe with this one
Games List 2016 - Games List 2015 - Games List 2014
[Citation needed]
(Clearly QI, season 11, episode 1)
I disbelieve that... They didn't even spell "colour" correctly ;)
http://www.thorogoodpublishing.co.uk/general/details/a-dictionary-of-colour
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
Technically the word is correctly spelled "color" as that is how it is spelled in Latin, where it originates from. The "u" the British English language is so fond of comes from French influence.
So ... blame the French for your inability to spell correctly! :razz:
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/colour?q=color
The genes that control the development of the red/green colour receptive cones in the human eye are next to each other on the X-chromosome. The reason men are more prone to colour-blindness (at least, in the red/green sense) is because they only have one X-chromosome, whereas women have two. So if one of the genes is damaged and the right pigment can't be manufactured there, women have a spare to take over.
But it's more complicated than that. The red and green genes are similar to each other, and can vary slightly between individuals, so different people may see colour slightly differently. So a woman's two copies of the gene may encode different pigments. That means they could have four different colour receptors compared to the usual 3. Which then means they can distinguish between colours that others cannot. Such people have been found, but mostly they would never really know because we don't have the words to describe what they're seeing.
Certain monkeys, like squirrel monkeys, are an interesting case where the males are all red/green colour-blind (they see in blue and yellow), but the females see in red/green/blue like us. And with gene therapy, some of the male's cones can be switched from yellow to red, allowing them to see like us and pass colour tests they couldn't before.
Which means, with the right gene therapy, not only might we cure colour-blindness in humans, but also give anyone who wants it a greater range of colour vision by giving you four or five different types of cones instead of the usual three.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
I see you're quoting the Oxford English Dictionary. So you'd say "randomize" is spelled correctly, but "randomise" is incorrect, yes?
They are both correct.
The Oxford English dictionary prefers ize for words of Greek origin; because of the original Greek root of the suffix ize and not least, the obvious heavy z pronunciation (in most British English dialects).
Other authorities prefer the French derived ise.
I prefer ize.
It looks so much more attractive in print, due to the rarity of z in printed English.
And pedantically, I prefer it, because so many are conditoned to use -ise because of a misinformed opinion that the z is American English.
English is nothing, if not adaptable. Poor spelling and stylistic spelling are two different things (and lazy, web spelling, is another).
Where would our greatest works of literature be if the spelling nazis managed to edit them first?
That was my point. Most spelling is down to the personal preference of one dictionary compiler or another. You can thank Dr Johnson for the plural of ox being oxen rather than oxes. You can thank Noah Webster for taking most of the U's out of American English. Standardized spelling dates from the advent of movable type. There is no good reason to prefer one spelling over another as English is so flexible that it can usually be understood even when an entirely different though similar sounding word is substituted. It is good style to be consistent in your spelling, but it's not a requirement for effective communication.