On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 1:38:36 PM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > In article <bfedf339-d306-4d44...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:01:18 AM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Peter Moylan is guilty of <st79ru$vbm$1...@dont-email.me> as of 1/30/2022
> >>> 4:18:04 PM

> >>>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
> >> Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
> >> Department had the last word, schreiben.
>
> So they got it wrong. Is that something to be proud of?

"They" didn't get it wrong, you moron.

Are you really THAT unable to recognize a joke?

Everyone I've mentioned this to (when the quote comes up)
over the last not-quite-50 years has found it quite funny.

(I can date it with some precision because the fellow who
did the calligraphy was in my entering class in 1972,
completed a dissertation in theoretical linguistics in
record time, and immediately left the field to become
a stockbroker vel sim. on Wall Street. In those days a
Ph.D. in linguistics was at least as good as an M.B.A.)

Den 31-01-2022 kl. 15:50 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:01:18 AM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Peter Moylan is guilty of <st79ru$vbm$1...@dont-email.me> as of 1/30/2022
>> 4:18:04 PM
>>> On 31/01/22 07:23, Snidely wrote:
>>>> On Sunday or thereabouts, Bebercito declared ...
>>>
>>>>> Exactly my point: it doesn't follow from what Hongy wrote that
>>>>> WannSymm and Python are a same category, and that therefore
>>>>> they can be compared (which is only the corollary of what
>>>>> precedes but not the argument itself).
>>>>
>>>> But that is insider knowledge, so (as I said in another post), I don't
>>>> think this is a non sequitur. It is an error resulting from not being
>>>> within the field.
>>>
>>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
>
> Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
> Department had the last word, schreiben.

Good one!

>> No doubt, but since the question was about sentence construction, it
>> wasn't obvious that domain knowledge was required.
>
> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
> Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe;
> All mimsy were the borogoves,
> And the mome raths outgrabe.

ITYM gimble. Gimbal is an actual word.

/Anders, Denmark

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:27:44 +0000 (GMT), charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>In article <bfedf339-d306-4d44-8ccb-621e7bad4de2n@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:01:18 AM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Peter Moylan is guilty of <st79ru$vbm$1...@dont-email.me> as of 1/30/2022
>> > 4:18:04 PM
>> > > On 31/01/22 07:23, Snidely wrote:
>> > >> On Sunday or thereabouts, Bebercito declared ...
>> > >
>> > >>> Exactly my point: it doesn't follow from what Hongy wrote that
>> > >>> WannSymm and Python are a same category, and that therefore
>> > >>> they can be compared (which is only the corollary of what
>> > >>> precedes but not the argument itself).
>> > >>
>> > >> But that is insider knowledge, so (as I said in another post), I don't
>> > >> think this is a non sequitur. It is an error resulting from not being
>> > >> within the field.
>> > >
>> > > Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
>
>> Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
>> Department had the last word, schreiben.
>
>> > No doubt, but since the question was about sentence construction, it
>> > wasn't obvious that domain knowledge was required.
>
>> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
>> Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe;
>> All mimsy were the borogoves,
>> And the mome raths outgrabe.
>
>Beware the jaberwock, my son ......

That's "Jabberwock."

On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:51:36 PM UTC-5, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 31-01-2022 kl. 15:50 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:01:18 AM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan is guilty of <st79ru$vbm$1...@dont-email.me> as of 1/30/2022
> >> 4:18:04 PM
> >>> On 31/01/22 07:23, Snidely wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday or thereabouts, Bebercito declared ...
> >>>
> >>>>> Exactly my point: it doesn't follow from what Hongy wrote that
> >>>>> WannSymm and Python are a same category, and that therefore
> >>>>> they can be compared (which is only the corollary of what
> >>>>> precedes but not the argument itself).
> >>>>
> >>>> But that is insider knowledge, so (as I said in another post), I don't
> >>>> think this is a non sequitur. It is an error resulting from not being
> >>>> within the field.
> >>>
> >>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
> >
> > Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
> > Department had the last word, schreiben.
>
> Good one!

Thank you. I wonder whether AC-B is listening.

> >> No doubt, but since the question was about sentence construction, it
> >> wasn't obvious that domain knowledge was required.
> > 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
> > Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe;
> > All mimsy were the borogoves,
> > And the mome raths outgrabe.
>
> ITYM gimble. Gimbal is an actual word.

I hesitated between gimbal and gimbel, but the latter is a proper name.

So is gyre, and the squiggler didn't squiggle brillig, mimsy, or borogoves!

Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 4:01:18 AM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Peter Moylan is guilty of <st79ru$vbm$1...@dont-email.me> as of 1/30/2022
> > 4:18:04 PM
> > > On 31/01/22 07:23, Snidely wrote:
> > >> On Sunday or thereabouts, Bebercito declared ...
> > >
> > >>> Exactly my point: it doesn't follow from what Hongy wrote that
> > >>> WannSymm and Python are a same category, and that therefore
> > >>> they can be compared (which is only the corollary of what
> > >>> precedes but not the argument itself).
> > >>
> > >> But that is insider knowledge, so (as I said in another post), I don't
> > >> think this is a non sequitur. It is an error resulting from not being
> > >> within the field.
> > >
> > > Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
>
> Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
> Department had the last word, schreiben.

Great. All that's wrong with linguistics in a nutshell,

Jan

On 1/31/2022 9:50 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> Snidely wrote:
>>>> Bebercito declared ...

>>>>> Exactly my point: it doesn't follow from what Hongy wrote
>>>>> that WannSymm and Python are a same category, and that
>>>>> therefore they can be compared (which is only the corollary
>>>>> of what precedes but not the argument itself).

>>>> But that is insider knowledge, so (as I said in another post),
>>>> I don't think this is a non sequitur. It is an error resulting
>>>> from not being within the field.
>
>>> Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

> Or, as the placard over the door to the U of Chicago Linguistics
> Department had the last word, schreiben.

>> No doubt, but since the question was about sentence construction,
>> it wasn't obvious that domain knowledge was required.

> 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimbal

Macist!

> in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths
> outgrabe.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:23:58 PM UTC+8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 11:55:57 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 30/01/22 14:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 9:01:33 PM UTC-5, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> See the following comment by me here [1]:
> > >>
> > >> ```
> > >> IMO, WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as Python. Considering that this type of tool is not computationally intensive, like the DFT codes themselves do, it's best to implement it in object-oriented and interpretative languages such as python.
> > >> ```
> > >>
> > >> Consider the following versions of the sentence written above:
> > >>
> > >> WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as Python.
> > >>
> > >> WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as in Python.
> > >>
> > >> I think the second one is correct. Any hints/corrections/comments will be highly appreciated.
> > >
> > > No. Being in C makes it harder to develop than Python, whatever that means.
> > No. Being in C makes it harder to maintain than if it were in Python.
> "develop AND maintain," it says. I figured HY is clever enough to fill
> in the second conjunct.

Thank you for pointing this out. The current version is as follows [1]:

IMO, being in C makes WannSymm harder to develop and maintain than if it were in Python. Considering that this type of tool is not computationally intensive, as the DFT codes themselves are, it's best to implement it in object-oriented and interpretative languages such as Python.

[1] https://github.com/goodluck1982/SpaceGroupIrep/issues/6#issuecomment-1024902329

HZ

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:53:15 -0800 (PST)
"hongy...@gmail.com" <hongyi.zhao@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:23:58 PM UTC+8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 11:55:57 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 30/01/22 14:49, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 9:01:33 PM UTC-5, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> See the following comment by me here [1]:
> > > >>
> > > >> ```
> > > >> IMO, WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as Python. Considering that this type of tool is not computationally intensive, like the DFT codes themselves do, it's best to implement it in object-oriented and interpretative languages such as python.
> > > >> ```
> > > >>
> > > >> Consider the following versions of the sentence written above:
> > > >>
> > > >> WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as Python.
> > > >>
> > > >> WannSymm is written in C which makes it not as easy to develop and maintain as in Python.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the second one is correct. Any hints/corrections/comments will be highly appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > No. Being in C makes it harder to develop than Python, whatever that means.
> > > No. Being in C makes it harder to maintain than if it were in Python.
> > "develop AND maintain," it says. I figured HY is clever enough to fill
> > in the second conjunct.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. The current version is as follows [1]:
>
> IMO, being in C makes WannSymm harder to develop and maintain than if it were in Python. Considering that this type of tool is not computationally intensive, as the DFT codes themselves are, it's best to implement it in object-oriented and interpretative languages such as Python.
>
> [1] https://github.com/goodluck1982/SpaceGroupIrep/issues/6#issuecomment-1024902329
>
> HZ

For ease of maintenance WannSymm should be re-written in Python, IMO, as it is not itself computationally intensive.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.