I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel 
free to post your IQs and EQs! 

On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:19:46 AM UTC+1, MikeP wrote:
> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel 
> free to post your IQs and EQs!

That would make C a better language for commercial purposes, 
wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management 
attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted 
code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily 
as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis, 
the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
-- 

In message <ae3c092a-4fa2-4d9f-8a26-9665e18b98b6@glegroupsg2000goo.googl
egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> writes
>On Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:19:46 AM UTC+1, MikeP wrote:
>> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
>> free to post your IQs and EQs!
>
>That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
>wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management
>attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
>code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
>as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis,
>the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!

I couldn't agree more!

Clever code is usually an oxymoron.

BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
understood than any other language.  (Even Americans manage basic
English :-)


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2011-03-29, MikeP <mp011011@some.org> wrote:
> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel 
> free to post your IQs and EQs! 

Scientific progress is amazing.  It used to be that a poll of Usenet
participants who wanted to post unverified claims would not have been
regarded as a reliable source of data.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

On 3/29/2011 12:19 AM, MikeP wrote:
> I have a feeling that their EQ will show to be significantly lower. Feel
> free to post your IQs and EQs!

Well, the value of IQ(C) and of IQ(C++) are identical.  And, as long as you 
have a sequence point between the two references, the behavior is well-defined.

Of course, IQ(OP) is probably rather low, given the inability to even write 
a well-written post.  (Case in point...  Asking a "question" in the subject 
only, with no reference to said question in the body.)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

On 3/29/2011 6:24 AM, Chris H wrote:
[...]
> Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> understood than any other language.  (Even Americans manage basic
> English :-)

Well, _most_ of us can.  I've seen plenty who struggle with even the basics. 
  :-)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

Someone wrote:

>> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
>> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
>> understood than any other language.  (Even Americans manage basic
>> English :-)

My theory as to the reason for the popularity is that the island of Great 
Britain had a lot of oak forests so the people living there could build big 
ships and conquer the world with their navy. 

In message <8veipdF654U1@mid.individual.net>, osmium
<r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes
>Someone wrote:
>
>>> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
>>> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
>>> understood than any other language.  (Even Americans manage basic
>>> English :-)
>
>My theory as to the reason for the popularity is that the island of Great
>Britain had a lot of oak forests so the people living there could build big
>ships and conquer the world with their navy.

That is not the reason.

In WW2 there was a requirement to teach pilots from many nations who
could not speak English. So some research was done.  Apparently English
is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be understood.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:

>
> egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> writes
> >
> >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> >wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management
> >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> >as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis,
> >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>
> I couldn't agree more!
>
> Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> understood than any other language.

English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
as English Japanese dictionaries

w..

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
> understood.

Citations? No anecdotes, please.

In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
<william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> understood.
>
>Citations? No anecdotes, please.

Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
taught faster than anything else.

Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a �crit :
> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> understood.
>
> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>

Forming the past of a verb?

Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.

No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you" 
like Spanish or French.

Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
in French or other Latin languages.

The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
like Spanish.

Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn 
than other languages.

In message <imurfb$csl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia
<jacob@spamsink.net> writes
>Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a �crit :
>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>> understood.
>>
>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>
>Forming the past of a verb?
>
>Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>
>No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
>like Spanish or French.
>
>Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
>in French or other Latin languages.
>
>The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
>if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
>like Spanish.
>
>Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to
>learn than other languages.

Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
poor grammar and wrong word usage.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com>  writes
>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>> understood.
>>
>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>
> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
> taught faster than anything else.
>
> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a 
URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific location 
within the book, where something was discussed. Can you provide such an 
old-fashioned citation?

I would expect English researchers to have a bias toward English, and 
would be suspicious of the possibility that the research was conducted 
without adequate protection against such bias (particularly given the 
wartime context of the research). Only a careful examination of the 
research report could provide sufficient evidence to counter that 
suspicion. I personally do not have sufficient interest to bother 
finding and reading such a report, but the William Ahern might.
-- 
James Kuyper

In message <imv0s5$21l$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes
>On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
>> In message<17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
>> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com>  writes
>>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>>> understood.
>>>
>>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
>> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
>> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
>> taught faster than anything else.
>>
>> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
>> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?
>
>Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
>URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific
>location within the book, where something was discussed. Can you
>provide such an old-fashioned citation?


Probably but I don't have the time or inclination



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 3/30/2011 6:40 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<imv0s5$21l$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net>  writes
>> On 03/30/2011 04:38 AM, Chris H wrote:
>>> In message<17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
>>> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com>   writes
[...]
>>> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
>>> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?
>>
>> Yes, and I also remember when providing a citation didn't mean giving a
>> URL, it meant identifying the book, and preferably the specific
>> location within the book, where something was discussed. Can you
>> provide such an old-fashioned citation?
>
> Probably but I don't have the time or inclination

Which is probably a good motto for Wikipedia.  :-)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

On 3/30/2011 5:11 AM, Chris H wrote:
> In message<imurfb$csl$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia
> <jacob@spamsink.net>  writes
>> Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a �crit :
>>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>   wrote:
>>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>>> understood.
>>>
>>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
[... snip some examples of "easy" English ...]
>> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to
>> learn than other languages.
>
> Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
> poor grammar and wrong word usage.

Which sounds to me like native English speakers are smarter than native 
speakers of other languages, if it's true that they are not capable of such 
understanding.

-- 
Kenneth Brody

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message 
news:imurfb$csl$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a �crit :
>> Chris H<chris@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>>> understood.
>>
>> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>
> Forming the past of a verb?
>
> Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>
> No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you" 
> like Spanish or French.

Unless you're conversing with royalty.

> Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
> in French or other Latin languages.
>
> The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
> if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
> like Spanish.
>
> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn 
> than other languages.

Except that spelling is bit of a black art.

Then there are words that are spelt the same but pronounced differently, 
depending on meaning; and words that sound the same but spelt differently. 
Plus words that are spelt the same, sound the same, but can have a dozen 
different meanings!

And how do you pronounce a "-ough" ending? Apparently there are supposed to 
be 9 different ways. "Laughter" has only one pronunciation, but put an "S" 
at the start, and it's completely different. Etc. etc.

I think one of the simplest, and most orthogonal languages is supposed to be 
Ido. The trouble is there are only a couple of thousand speakers in the 
world.

-- 
Bartc 

Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
> >Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
> >> understood.
> >
> >Citations? No anecdotes, please.

> Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
> nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
> countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
> taught faster than anything else.

> Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
> about it the information was in a book. Remember those?

I ask because over the years I've heard claims such as you repeated, and
have personally investigated notions about English and claims of English
proficiency. About ten or twelve years ago I sent a letter to the Embassy of
India--the cultural attache, I think--inquiring about English proficiency. I
occassionaly poke around in books and articles looking for more solid
analyses, rather than anecdotes from English speakers or enthusiastic ESL
speakers; they're few and far between.

For example, while the Indian gov't will claim 20-25% English proficiency
(generally conversational fluency if not stated explicitly), some
independent reports put conversational fluency at 1-5%. Most books repeat
various numbers without citations to sources. As far as I can gather, there
are various reasons for the gaps, all interesting in themselves (untested
assumptions about the efficacy of compulsory language education; economic
competitiveness pressures).

This topic is interesting because it's a niche area to study and examine
cultural biases, and in general the dynamics of globalization.

"Kenneth Brody" wrote:

>> Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
>> poor grammar and wrong word usage.
>
> Which sounds to me like native English speakers are smarter than native 
> speakers of other languages, if it's true that they are not capable of 
> such understanding.

A language can have attributes such as redundancy which promote such 
understanding despite mangling.  I only, know, kind of, English, so I don't 
know if that applies here or not. Or even if the premise is true.

Nevertheless, do you think it would be easier to fix a mangled APL program 
or a mangled Cobol program?  To me, those are kind of at the extremes of 
understanding.  There may be other languages more difficult to learn than 
APL, but my guess is that this is due to poor documentation for the 
contender language. 

On 03/31/11 08:10 AM, BartC wrote:
>
> I think one of the simplest, and most orthogonal languages is supposed
> to be Ido. The trouble is there are only a couple of thousand speakers
> in the world.

The easiest and most orthogonal language I ever learned was Swahili.  I 
found it an ideal language for a programmer to learn!

-- 
Ian Collins

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:53:17 -0700, William Ahern
<william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:

>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
>> <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
>> >Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> >> understood.
>> >
>> >Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>

When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits

A USMC gunney sarge will make you recite the alphabet and numerals
forwards, backwards and middlewards alternating until you can do it in
less than 30 seconds on demand.  

Geoff wrote:
<snip>
> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
> to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
> but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
> you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits


Where is the German part in this?

Bye, Jojo

On 3/30/2011 3:58 PM, osmium wrote:
[...]
> Nevertheless, do you think it would be easier to fix a mangled APL program
> or a mangled Cobol program?  To me, those are kind of at the extremes of
> understanding.  There may be other languages more difficult to learn than
> APL, but my guess is that this is due to poor documentation for the
> contender language.

Well, _coding_ in APL is not hard (BTDT -- 30 years ago), but _reading_ 
someone else's APL code is another story.  There's a reason it's called a 
"write-only language".

As for "more difficult to learn than APL", there are plenty.  Of course, the 
ones I know about were all created specifically with such difficulties in 
mind, such as Brainf**k, Whitespace, and INTERCAL.

Here is Brainf**k's "Hello World" program:

     ++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.
     <<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.


-- 
Kenneth Brody

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
<nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:

>Geoff wrote:
><snip>
>> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you had
>> to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
>> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,...
>> but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with English as cited,
>> you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits
>
>
>Where is the German part in this?
>
>Bye, Jojo

Oktoeight.

Geoff wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0200, "Joachim Schmitz"
> <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
> 
>> Geoff wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> When I was taking my First Class Radio Telephone license exams you
>>> had to have memorized the ITU phonetic alphabet and demonstrate
>>> proficiency. The letters were all English, "Alpha, Bravo,
>>> Charlie,... but the numerals were all Spanish-French-German with
>>> English as cited, you guessed it, in Wikipedia today:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_spelling_alphabet#Digits
>> 
>> 
>> Where is the German part in this?
>> 
>> Bye, Jojo
> 
> Oktoeight.

Neither "Okto" nor "Eight" is German.
"Acht" is.

Bye, Jojo

In article <2PydnWa998kzjQ_QnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@bestweb.net>,
 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 3/29/2011 6:24 AM, Chris H wrote:
> [...]
> > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
> >
> > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > understood than any other language.  (Even Americans manage basic
> > English :-)
> 
> Well, _most_ of us can.  I've seen plenty who struggle with even the basics. 
>   :-)

Speak for yourself. I recognize, publish, and reject his bigotry.

-- 
Michael Press

In article <daec68-jm6.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>,
 William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:

> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> > In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
> > <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
> > >Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> > >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
> > >> understood.
> > >
> > >Citations? No anecdotes, please.
> 
> > Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
> > nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
> > countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
> > taught faster than anything else.
> 
> > Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
> > about it the information was in a book. Remember those?
> 
> I ask because over the years I've heard claims such as you repeated, and
> have personally investigated notions about English and claims of English
> proficiency. About ten or twelve years ago I sent a letter to the Embassy of
> India--the cultural attache, I think--inquiring about English proficiency. I
> occassionaly poke around in books and articles looking for more solid
> analyses, rather than anecdotes from English speakers or enthusiastic ESL
> speakers; they're few and far between.
> 
> For example, while the Indian gov't will claim 20-25% English proficiency
> (generally conversational fluency if not stated explicitly), some
> independent reports put conversational fluency at 1-5%. Most books repeat
> various numbers without citations to sources. As far as I can gather, there
> are various reasons for the gaps, all interesting in themselves (untested
> assumptions about the efficacy of compulsory language education; economic
> competitiveness pressures).
> 
> This topic is interesting because it's a niche area to study and examine
> cultural biases, and in general the dynamics of globalization.

I expect English was easiest to teach to WWII pilots
in England because everybody spoke English in the pubs.  

A pint of your best bitter, s'il vous plaît.

-- 
Michael Press

On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 12:33:14 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>In article <daec68-jm6.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>,
> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> > In message <17q968-le4.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>, William Ahern
>> > <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes
>> > >Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> > >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> > >> understood.
>> > >
>> > >Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>> 
>> > Apparently it was in WW2 the British needed to teach pilots from many
>> > nationalities (ie from all over the empire as was and other occupied
>> > countries in Europe) to fly and it was found that Basic English could be
>> > taught faster than anything else.
>> 
>> > Not idea where you would find the citation on the Internet.  When I read
>> > about it the information was in a book. Remember those?
>> 
>> I ask because over the years I've heard claims such as you repeated, and
>> have personally investigated notions about English and claims of English
>> proficiency. About ten or twelve years ago I sent a letter to the Embassy of
>> India--the cultural attache, I think--inquiring about English proficiency. I
>> occassionaly poke around in books and articles looking for more solid
>> analyses, rather than anecdotes from English speakers or enthusiastic ESL
>> speakers; they're few and far between.
>> 
>> For example, while the Indian gov't will claim 20-25% English proficiency
>> (generally conversational fluency if not stated explicitly), some
>> independent reports put conversational fluency at 1-5%. Most books repeat
>> various numbers without citations to sources. As far as I can gather, there
>> are various reasons for the gaps, all interesting in themselves (untested
>> assumptions about the efficacy of compulsory language education; economic
>> competitiveness pressures).
>> 
>> This topic is interesting because it's a niche area to study and examine
>> cultural biases, and in general the dynamics of globalization.
>
>I expect English was easiest to teach to WWII pilots
>in England because everybody spoke English in the pubs.  
>
>A pint of your best bitter, s'il vous pla�t.

.... and anyone speaking German in the pubs was shot before they could
down their draught. 

On Mar 29, 9:14=A0pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
>
> > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> > >wouldn't it? =A0When I worked as a programmer, the management
> > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> > >as its author, especially after he had gone. =A0On that basis,
> > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>
> > I couldn't agree more!
>
> > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > understood than any other language.
>
> English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
> people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
> as English Japanese dictionaries

Idiom in any language is hard to master and it's usually best to stay
away from it as much as possible, unless you're quite sure of tge
meaning and the implications of the idiom used.

In article 
<1591567a-4115-4ada-a59d-568e1203e7be@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On Mar 29, 9:14 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > Chris H wrote:
> >
> > > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
> >
> > > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> > > >wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management
> > > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> > > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> > > >as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis,
> > > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
> >
> > > I couldn't agree more!
> >
> > > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
> >
> > > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> > > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > > understood than any other language.
> >
> > English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
> > people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
> > as English Japanese dictionaries
> 
> Idiom in any language is hard to master and it's usually best to stay
> away from it as much as possible, unless you're quite sure of tge
> meaning and the implications of the idiom used.

Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I 
decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
in French studies from Université Paris-Sorbonne
(before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
"what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
penny dropped.

Later told a friend about the incident. He stared at me
blankly; and did not get the joke. Probably has not to
this day, as I never explained it to him.

-- 
Michael Press

In article <rubrum-29128C.16130605042011@news.albasani.net>,
 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <1591567a-4115-4ada-a59d-568e1203e7be@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 29, 9:14 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> > > Chris H wrote:
> > >
> > > > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
> > >
> > > > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> > > > >wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management
> > > > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> > > > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> > > > >as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis,
> > > > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
> > >
> > > > I couldn't agree more!
> > >
> > > > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
> > >
> > > > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> > > > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > > > understood than any other language.
> > >
> > > English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
> > > people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
> > > as English Japanese dictionaries
> > 
> > Idiom in any language is hard to master and it's usually best to stay
> > away from it as much as possible, unless you're quite sure of tge
> > meaning and the implications of the idiom used.
> 
> Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
> and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I 
> decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
> had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
> in French studies from Université Paris-Sorbonne
> (before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
> "what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
> said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
> stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
> penny dropped.
> 
> Later told a friend about the incident. He stared at me
> blankly; and did not get the joke. Probably has not to
> this day, as I never explained it to him.

I don't speak French, but I assume it's similar to "What's the 
difference between ignorance and apathy?", "I don't know, and I don't 
care."

In message <mstorkamp-848463.08055506042011@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <rubrum-29128C.16130605042011@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <1591567a-4115-4ada-a59d-568e1203e7be@a12g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>  "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 9:14 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>> > > Chris H wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
>> > >
>> > > > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
>> > > > >wouldn't it?  When I worked as a programmer, the management
>> > > > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
>> > > > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
>> > > > >as its author, especially after he had gone.  On that basis,
>> > > > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>> > >
>> > > > I couldn't agree more!
>> > >
>> > > > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>> > >
>> > > > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
>> > > > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
>> > > > understood than any other language.
>> > >
>> > > English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
>> > > people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
>> > > as English Japanese dictionaries
>> >
>> > Idiom in any language is hard to master and it's usually best to stay
>> > away from it as much as possible, unless you're quite sure of tge
>> > meaning and the implications of the idiom used.
>>
>> Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
>> and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I
>> decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
>> had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
>> in French studies from Université Paris-Sorbonne
>> (before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
>> "what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
>> said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
>> stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
>> penny dropped.
>>
>> Later told a friend about the incident. He stared at me
>> blankly; and did not get the joke. Probably has not to
>> this day, as I never explained it to him.
>
>I don't speak French, but I assume it's similar to "What's the
>difference between ignorance and apathy?", "I don't know, and I don't
>care."

No it is something indescribable or undeniable

eg "He has a certain je ne sais quoi"  means he has that indefinable
quality that set him apart.  Eg James Bond has je ne sais quoi'


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H wrote:
) In message <mstorkamp-848463.08055506042011@news.eternal-september.org>,
) Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> writes
)>In article <rubrum-29128C.16130605042011@news.albasani.net>,
)> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
)>> Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
)>> and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I
)>> decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
)>> had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
)>> in French studies from Universit?? Paris-Sorbonne
)>> (before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
)>> "what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
)>> said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
)>> stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
)>> penny dropped.
)>>
)>> Later told a friend about the incident. He stared at me
)>> blankly; and did not get the joke. Probably has not to
)>> this day, as I never explained it to him.
)>
)>I don't speak French, but I assume it's similar to "What's the
)>difference between ignorance and apathy?", "I don't know, and I don't
)>care."
)
) No it is something indescribable or undeniable
)
) eg "He has a certain je ne sais quoi"  means he has that indefinable
) quality that set him apart.  Eg James Bond has je ne sais quoi'

I think you missed the point, he wasn't talking about the phrase itself.

Chris was referring to the analogy between the two jokes: Both of them
have an actual answer, but the answer sounds as if the answerer is not
actually answering the question.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
> and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I 
> decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
> had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
> in French studies from Université Paris-Sorbonne
> (before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
> "what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
> said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
> stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
> penny dropped.

A conversation as follows took place last night:
She: "What games do we have on the boat"
Me:" Sorry..."
She: "What games to we have on the boat"
Me:" Sorry..."
She... as we both realised what had happened and kept repeating the
endless conversation.  You get what entertainment you can round here.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

On Mar 30, 10:00=A0am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a =E9crit :
>
> > Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org> =A0wrote:
> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
> >> understood.
>
> > Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>
> Forming the past of a verb?
>
> Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>
> No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
> like Spanish or French.
>
> Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
> in French or other Latin languages.
>
> The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
> if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
> like Spanish.
>
> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
> than other languages.

obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
spelling)

On Mar 30, 10:11=A0am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <imurfb$cs...@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia
> <ja...@spamsink.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a =E9crit :
> >> Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org> =A0wrote:
> >>> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and b=
e
> >>> understood.
>
> >> Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>
> >Forming the past of a verb?
>
> >Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>
> >No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
> >like Spanish or French.
>
> >Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
> >in French or other Latin languages.
>
> >The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
> >if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
> >like Spanish.
>
> >Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to
> >learn than other languages.
>
> Also most of the time A native English speaker can easily understand
> poor grammar and wrong word usage.

other nationalities can't? North Africans can (sort of) understand my
French

On Mar 29, 8:14=A0pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
>
> > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> > >wouldn't it? =A0When I worked as a programmer, the management
> > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> > >as its author, especially after he had gone. =A0On that basis,
> > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>
> > I couldn't agree more!
>
> > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as a
> > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > understood than any other language.
>
> English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
> people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
> as English Japanese dictionaries

an Italian complained to me about english idioms, I wished him "un de
Lupo"

I suspect *all* languages have idioms. Une nomme d'une pipe.

On Apr 3, 11:13=A0pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:14=A0pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chris H wrote:
>
> > > egroups.com>, bert <bert.hutchi...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> > > >That would make C a better language for commercial purposes,
> > > >wouldn't it? =A0When I worked as a programmer, the management
> > > >attitude was that they didn't want clever code; they wanted
> > > >code that other staff could maintain and develop as easily
> > > >as its author, especially after he had gone. =A0On that basis,
> > > >the lowest-IQ language would be the best of all!
>
> > > I couldn't agree more!
>
> > > Clever code is usually an oxymoron.
>
> > > BTW That is why English is the most common language on the planet as =
a
> > > second language. It is easier to teach basic English that can be
> > > understood than any other language.
>
> > English idioms are very difficult for non native english speaking
> > people to master. English idiom dictionaries in Japan are as common
> > as English Japanese dictionaries
>
> Idiom in any language is hard to master and it's usually best to stay
> away from it as much as possible, unless you're quite sure of tge
> meaning and the implications of the idiom used.

I've seen the look of horror in none-first-language-speakers of
english when cockney rhyming slang is explained to them...

I've also heard an Italian explain it to a French Canadian, which was
kind of odd!

On 4/6/2011 2:41 PM, Dr Nick wrote:
> Michael Press<rubrum@pacbell.net>  writes:
>
>> Well before google search a bunch of us were at dinner
>> and something I had wondered about came to mind, so I
>> decided to ask a USA born, native English speaker who
>> had a certificate attesting to a completion of a course
>> in French studies from Universit� Paris-Sorbonne
>> (before they reorganized it all) . "Scarlet," I asked,
>> "what does `je ne sais quoi' mean?" Immediately she
>> said "I don't know what." My jaw dropped, Scarlet
>> stared at me with an amused expression, and then the
>> penny dropped.
>
> A conversation as follows took place last night:
> She: "What games do we have on the boat"
> Me:" Sorry..."
> She: "What games to we have on the boat"
> Me:" Sorry..."
> She... as we both realised what had happened and kept repeating the
> endless conversation.  You get what entertainment you can round here.

Paging Abbott and Costello.

uggc://jjj.lbhghor.pbz/jngpu?i=fFuZN85ci8Z

-- 
Kenneth Brody

In message <61e59152-371a-4967-bd96-e5925a2b3319@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups
..com>, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes
>On Mar 30, 10:00�am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a �crit :
>>
>> > Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org> �wrote:
>> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> >> understood.
>>
>> > Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>> Forming the past of a verb?
>>
>> Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>>
>> No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
>> like Spanish or French.
>>
>> Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
>> in French or other Latin languages.
>>
>> The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
>> if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
>> like Spanish.
>>
>> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
>> than other languages.
>
>obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
>irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
>language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
>mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
>spelling)

True but basic English is simple. The original requirement was to teach
pilots to fly. So it was simple sentences and commands not poetry and
prose.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2011-04-06, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:00 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> Le 29/03/11 21:57, William Ahern a écrit :
>>
>> > Chris H<ch...@phaedsys.org>  wrote:
>> >> Apparently English is the easiest language to get a basic grasp and be
>> >> understood.
>>
>> > Citations? No anecdotes, please.
>>
>> Forming the past of a verb?
>>
>> Just add "ed" and learn the few irregulars. No complicated rules.
>>
>> No distinction between the familiar "you" and the honored person "you"
>> like Spanish or French.
>>
>> Concise language. A text in English is 30-40% smaller than the same text
>> in French or other Latin languages.
>>
>> The universal "The": you just say "The table" and do not have to worry
>> if the table is a female/male/no sex/ "thing" like in other languages
>> like Spanish.
>>
>> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
>> than other languages.
>
> obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
> irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
> language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
> mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
> spelling)

English is irregular, but the grammar itself is really easy. If you just
want to communicate with english-speaking people they will understand
"I teached". So you can make simple sentences without much learning effort,
but to speak and write good english you have to learn a lot of irregular
verbs and idioms (and the spelling of course).

Nick Keighley wrote:
) obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
) irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
) language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
) mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
) spelling)

True, but you remove irregular from English, still quite easy understand.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

In <bVBQDVBOPXnNFAUm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:

> True but basic English is simple. The original requirement was to teach
> pilots to fly. So it was simple sentences and commands not poetry and
> prose.

"Go" is a very common English verb.

The past tense of "to go" is "went".  wtf?!

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

In message <slrniprjve.1smr.willem@toad.stack.nl>, Willem
<willem@toad.stack.nl> writes
>Nick Keighley wrote:
>) obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
>) irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
>) language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
>) mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
>) spelling)
>
>True, but you remove irregular from English, still quite easy understand.

#That was the point... you can be understood in basic English (even if
grammatically incorrect) faster than any other language.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2011-04-07, John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> wrote:
> In <bVBQDVBOPXnNFAUm@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>> True but basic English is simple. The original requirement was to teach
>> pilots to fly. So it was simple sentences and commands not poetry and
>> prose.

> "Go" is a very common English verb.

> The past tense of "to go" is "went".  wtf?!

Virtually no one will misunderstand if you say "goed", though.  It's hard
to get right, but easy to get good enough.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:61e59152-371a-4967-bd96-e5925a2b3319@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 10:00 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

>> Reading English is easy, and understanding the basics is easier to learn
>> than other languages.
>
> obviously you know better than me, but isn't english highly
> irregular?  I've known several people for whom english was a second
> language and they all moaned about its illogic. Actually they were
> mostly Italian (and I understand Italian is very logical in its
> spelling)

Spelling is the simplest part of Italian (and other phonetic languages, 
Spanish, etc).

But it makes up for that in grammar: I think some 16 conjugations of verbs 
compared with 2 or 3 in English, for example.

-- 
Bartc