What's an RPG? - the search for clue continues!

[Kraszu]

h, yeah, but that doesn't mean that there aren't an infinite number of rational numbers between any two irrational numbers.

Sure that doesn't but i don't think that there is inifinite number of rational numbers beetwin any 2 irrational numbers, maybe i am wrong.

 

[VenomByte]

It is impossible to define two rational numbers without other rational numbers between them. The same goes for irrational numbers.

Ergo, between any two rational numbers, or any two irrational numbers, there are an infinite number of both rational and irrational numbers.

Therefore the world is flat.

 

[kingcomrade]

It's impossible for anything in this discussion to be relevant. And what kind of person uses "ergo"? English already has a word for "therefor."

 

[Kotario]

It's impossible for anything in this discussion to be relevant. And what kind of person uses "ergo"? English already has a word for "therefor."

Synonyms are not allowed in English? Guess we can't use "consequently" either then.

 

[kingcomrade]

Who said anything about things being allowed or disallowed. And in any case, consequence isn't an English word? Because I'm pretty sure that it is. It doesn't matter what it's origins are. Ergo, on the other hand, isn't an inducted term (correction: it IS an inducted term. It's not a derived term), it's not English. You can use it, I'm not exactly a proscriptivist, but really, it doesn't make you sound any smarter than just using therefor.

 

[Doppelganger]

You can use it, I'm not exactly a proscriptivist, but really, it doesn't make you sound any smarter than just using therefor.

Nor any smarter than just using "therefore."

"Ergo" appears in my OED as a Latin term in common English usage, like nem con, pro tem, ibid, per diem, etc.

Anyways, back on topic: mathematics.

 

[OverrideB1]

My turn to wear the wonk-hat:

"Therefore" is Middle English (circa 1066 to mid 1400's). It is derived from Saxon roots. However, there was a great drive to make English more Latinate in the 18th century which introduced words like "ergo" into common discourse. Of course, these have fallen out of favour nowadays (from about 1900 onwards), but they are perfectly valid "English" words.

Consequence, incidently, is also Middle English ~ although derived from Norman French rather than Saxon.

Hey, if we can argue maths, we can argue English

 

[OverrideB1]

Nor any smarter than just using "therefore."

"Ergo" appears in my OED as a Latin term in common English usage, like nem con, pro tem, ibid, per diem, etc.

Anyways, back on topic: mathematics.

You do realise that there is a difference between therefor and therefore in common usage?

 

[kingcomrade]

I know that I spend my time reading wikipedia and wikipedia linked articles on English...but I'm not a nerd!!! I did think it was funny in my French class back in high school, nobody made the connection between the consequences...

 

[Doppelganger]

You do realise that there is a difference between therefor and therefore in common usage?

Erm ... *hurries away to educate himself* ... Aha:

• adv : (in formal usage, especially legal usage) for that or for it; "ordering goods and enclosing payment therefor"; "a refund therefor"

Have to say that I've never come across this usage before. I stand corrected. Damn lawyers!

 

[voodoo1man]

h, yeah, but that doesn't mean that there aren't an infinite number of rational numbers between any two irrational numbers.

Sure that doesn't but i don't think that there is inifinite number of rational numbers beetwin any 2 irrational numbers, maybe i am wrong.

Well, do you think that it's true that we can find 2 rational numbers between any 2 irrational numbers? We can always find an rational number arbitrarily smaller or larger than a given irrational number (otherwise we wouldn't be able to even estimate what irrational numbers are!). So we can always find 2 rational numbers between any 2 irrational numbers, right? Now it becomes easy - there are always an infinite number of rational numbers between any 2 rational numbers (to see this, just take any interval on the real line bounded by rational numbers, [0, 1] for example, and cut it in half repeatedly - you end up with an infinite number of rationals).

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Here is where rational and irrational numbers differ.
You could attempt to list every rational number in an orderly fashion. Start out with 1/1, then 2/1, then 1/2, then 3/1, then 2/2 (even if it is a repeat), then 1/3, then 4/1, then 3/2, then 2/3 then 1/4, and so on so forth until you've gotten all of them. You could come up with a function that will let you know how long it will take you to get to any number. That was just positives, so you'd have to follow up every entry with it's opposite, but that doesn't matter too much. You can't make a list like that for the irrational numbers. You could try organizing all the irrational numbers all after one another in whatever manage you like, and it would still be nothing to make a new number that differs from all the numbers you listed in at least one of the digits.

 

[kingcomrade]

How many times does 1 go into 0?
As many times as it wants LOLZ
www.tubgirl.com

 

[Atrokkus]

South the topic went, aaay-hoo....

 

[VenomByte]

It's impossible for anything in this discussion to be relevant. And what kind of person uses "ergo"? English already has a word for "therefor."

Ah, but surely we should not use a longer word where a shorter one will do?

 

[kingcomrade]

Shorter isn't the point.
Therefore is an English word, ergo is not.
And tons of people don't know what ergo (or other things, like sans) mean. Maybe that makes them stupid, but they don't.
"Surely" we should keep things within the language, do as Orwell said, keep foreign stuff for common abbreviations like i.e. e.g. etc.
Maybe I should write my posts all in French? That would surely be appropriate? Or maybe just when the French words are shorter?

 

[Doppelganger]

The only reliable definition I know of what is or is not an 'English' word is whether it has an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. 'Ergo' is in, ergo it's recognised by those nice Oxford don chaps as belonging to the English language. QED.



That doesn't stop those using it from sounding completely pretentious, of course.

 

[kingcomrade]

Dictionaries don't define language, they describe it. That's why they have to keep putting out new editions. Otherwise we're stuck at, "omg gay means happy lolz!"
Anyways, you know what I mean.

 

[OverrideB1]

While I will not say it is commonly used, there is a fair proportion of the UK's population that wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the use of "ergo" in everyday speech. Sure, they'd probably think "pretentious git" or "over-educated public schoolboy", but they'd know what the word means.

While a dictionary does "describe" language, they also "define it". That's really the original intent of the OED: not as a spelling aid, but as a means of defining what words mean. Revisions come along because new words come into existence, or the meaning of words subtly change. Look in the OED for 1950-ish and you'll find that the noun "console" has different meanings to the 2005 edition.

(Okay, I'm going to put on the wonk-hat again, so be warned)

Slave has had various meanings during its long and illustrious career. Originally it was used to denote those who were settled around the German border by the Holy Roman empire circa 800AD to act as a buffer between the Huns and Rome. (Slav has the same root and is used to describe people in that area today).

Because these people were so often captured in the wars that raged backwards and forwards across that region, Slave came to mean someone who was held captive and (usually) held for ransom.

Meanwhile, a similar Old English word, meant "to work hard" ~ and, when these captured slaves came over here (probably with the French in 1066) it got superceded by the Old French esclave. In the UK we still use the original Old English form "slave" in that sense: I slaved over a computer all day. "Serf" is also derived from the same root word.

It wasn't until the 13th century that "slave" came to mean "a person who is the property of another" ~ a meaning it has kept up until this day. But, with the rise of computers, "slave" has taken on a new meaning ~ a subordinate device, controlled by another "master" device.

So, dictionaries not only describe words, they help define them too. Sure, it's definition after the fact, since it is the living language that changes...

 

[kingcomrade]

Well, I obviously can't speak for Brits. Slaving over a task isn't obsolete over here either, though.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/

I've had that site on my Foxfire taskbar for so long
It's good to know there are language nuts like me out there.

 

[bryce777]

There is a LOT more to language than the definition of a word. Only pretentious no nothing morons get pedantic about worse usage like that.

For example, calling someone pedestrian has nothing to do with them not having a car...sometimes dictionaries have such usage, but usually they do not because you can use words in virtually infinite combination to come up with such meanings.

 

[OverrideB1]

There is a LOT more to language than the definition of a word. Only pretentious no nothing morons get pedantic about worse usage like that.

For example, calling someone pedestrian has nothing to do with them not having a car...sometimes dictionaries have such usage, but usually they do not because you can use words in virtually infinite combination to come up with such meanings.

But that is the function of a dictionary: to define words. It is the usage of words in novel ways by the speakers of that language that drives the functionality and revision of a dictionary.

Words have a meaning, and that meaning is derived from a common concensus. If, 700 years ago, someone had started to use the word "slave" to mean land-owner and everyone else started to use it to mean the same thing ~ then that is what slave would mean today: a member of the landed gentry. There's nothing absolute about words, they're just assemblies of sounds. It is the common concensus that gives them meaning ~ and that meaning is transcribed into a dictionary. The problem is, language can change far faster than a dictionary can be updated.

 

[Doppelganger]

Meanwhile, a similar Old English word, meant "to work hard" ~ and, when these captured slaves came over here (probably with the French in 1066) it got superceded by the Old French esclave. In the UK we still use the original Old English form "slave" in that sense: I slaved over a computer all day. "Serf" is also derived from the same root word.

While we're on the subject of drudgery, Slavs and slaves, did you know that the word 'robot' is derived from the *Czech* word for 'drudge'? It first appeared in English usage in the play RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Capek in the 1920s. The play's plot is quite fascinating, and involves probably the first robot slave rebellion and serious debate about the nature of artificial intelligence (do robots have souls, etc.) in literary history.

English really is quite a messy and disorganised language, partly because 'authority' over the language is dispersed among many competing institutions - like the dictionary publishers. There is no agreed English grammar, for example, only contrasting 'grammars' posited by different language specialists. By contrast, the French have the Academie Francaise, which is a state instution specifically invested with the task of protecting the integrity of the language, defining a single vocabulary and grammar, etc. - now there are some serious language fascists for you.

In Britain, the government have always left this job to the dons, for some reason. I suspect it's a class thing, myself: 'professional' chaps are/were expected to just get on with it and sort it all out among themselves. You have to remember that this is a country in which senior doctors ('consultants') are still expected to wear suit & tie while treating patients, and the most 'official' accent and vocabulary is known as 'The Queen's English'. Even though she and her family are Germans.

Well, I obviously can't speak for Brits. Slaving over a task isn't obsolete over here either, though.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/.

Bookmarked - thanks.

Edit: Corrected. Note to self: don't try to write from memory.

 

[kingcomrade]

I thought it came from Czech robota.

And English is no different from any other language in that it has many dialects.

The French as kinda funny that way, giving the state control over their language. I remember reading a silly joke a few days ago,
French: the most complicated attempt to not learn English ever.

 

[Doppelganger]

Yes, from the Czech, thanks - corrected. And here's a relevant comment from a source describing the origins of the word:

However, as is usually the case with words, the truth of the matter is a little more convoluted. In the days when Czechoslovakia was a feudal society,"robota"referred to the two or three days of the week that peasants were obliged to leave their own fields to work without remuneration on the lands of noblemen. For a long time after the feudal system had passed away, robota continued to be used to describe work that one wasn't exactly doing voluntarily or for fun, while today's younger Czechs and Slovaks tend to use robota to refer to work that's boring or uninteresting.

An extract of the first act of RUR can be found here: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/RUR-Capek-1920.htm.
And as no thread is complete without a pic or two, here's another screenie from that Russian preview of Bethesda's latest masterwork: