Loading...

sagesupport@googlegroups.com
[Prev] Thread [Next]  [Prev] Date [Next]
[sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Pierre Sun Aug 30 04:00:30 2009
hi all, two comments: (1) Simon, let me offer the following pedantic comment which i advise you to ignore (!). Technically, i believe that writing "a 2cocycle" is incorrect anyway, as it should be "a twococycle". Likewise, "the proof splits into 2 cases" should be "the proof splits into two cases", and so on. You're supposed to separate the math from the rest. (I'm pretty certain of this. If anyone has doubts, try to think of a paper which defines the natural numbers and the symbols 1, 2, 3... It's of course okay for this paper to have "chapter one", "chapter two" etc). Of course this is just silly (as grammar (typography?) rules can sometimes be), as a 178cocycle is a nightmare to write down, and i'm not even sure what to make of ncocycles where n isn't defined yet. For the record though, i think what i've said is correct. At least i've recently finished an article for which the coauthor made change all the 2cocycles into twococycles, so i guess he was pretty serious about that. (2) about french, as a native speaker i can tell you that it is very straightforward to go from spelling to sound. You (almost...) never come accross a word which you don't know how to pronounce, even if you've never seen it before. And that includes proper nouns : people and places automatically have a french pronounciation! (from which a french speaker will have a hard time to deviate, maybe the reason why we're so bad at pronouncing foreign languages). The reverse is quite false, and we often ask "how do you spell that ?" when taught a new word, as if spelling had more importance than sound. That being said, the "algorithm" to go from spelling to sound is in fact rather tricky. I know that from trying to teach it to someone... say, in order to pronounce "les habits", you have to know that: (i) the final s marks the plural, so it's ignored, (ii) rule (i) makes the t the final letter, and it's a consonant, so it's ignored (not even a strict rule, this) (iii) we ignore all the h's anyway (iv) since the h isn't really there, the s at the end of "les" must be connected to the a (this prevents rule (i) from applying for this word !!!!) Results : laysabee ! ~~~~~~~~~ To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport URLs: http://www.sagemath.org ~~~~~~~~~
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers, (continued)
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Minh Nguyen 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Minh Nguyen 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Simon King 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Erik Lane 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers john_perry_usm 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Robert Dodier 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers kcrisman 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Robert Bradshaw 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Dan Drake 2009/08/30
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Erik Lane 2009/08/30
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Pierre 2009/08/30 <=
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Minh Nguyen 2009/08/30
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Simon King 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers John Cremona 2009/08/30
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers MaxTheMouse 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Jaap Spies 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Minh Nguyen 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Jaap Spies 2009/08/29
 [sagesupport] Re: English grammar of numbers Minh Nguyen 2009/08/29