ANSI C syntax ?

[bz800k]

Hi

Does this code satisfy ANSI C syntax ?

void function(void)
{
int a = 2;

a = ({int c; c = a + 2;}); /* <<-- here !! */
printf("a=%d\n", a);
}
Thanks !
tsuyoshi

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Mar 2007 07:13:53 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>On 10 Mar 2007 20:54:21 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

especially in a USAnian
^^^^^^^

The above is not a word. The term you're searching for is
"American".

American technically refers to anyone living in the Americas, not just
those living in the USA.

Provide some evidence of such use. I'll bet you have one hell of a hard
time. It's an insult to Americans to rob us of our correct name.

Personally, I think its presumptuous of folk from the USA to refer to
themselves as Americans, as though somehow all the other people living
in North and South America aren't also Americans.

However, since Yanks normally think Scotland is in England, and
Edinburgh rhymes with yurg, and Sinclair is pronounced Saint Clare, I
guess I can live with the other crimes against linguistics....
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:14:21 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Joe Wright
<jo********@comcast.netwrote:

>And you know that perfectly well. You lost the battle at Yorktown.

Rubbish, the away team took too long to take the field and the umpires
declared the game forfeit. Boo hiss.

>Get over it.

What, the Hudson? Wasn't that part of the problem?

>Some of us (Americans) are proud of our heritage. This year marks the
400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent
English settlement in the New World.

Founded by a Scottish king...

gd&r
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Mar 2007 07:12:02 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Many Americans consider it HIGHLY insulting to use such neologisms in
place of the proper name.

Then many of your countrymen have far too high a sense of
self-importance. There's a fine line between patriotism and jingoism.

In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst of
all, London. But I'm hardly going to start throwing my toys out of the
pram over it.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

<snip>

>>
I just don't understand why you find "USAnian" to be insulting.

(I don't get that either. I've seen the British described by Usanians as
"Ukian", which is surely less euphonious and thus more likely to be
considered insulting, and yet I do not feel insulted by it.)

>Silly, sure, but the country of which we're both proud to be citizens
is called, among other things, the "USA". (It's also referred to as
the US, The States, and a number of other things.)

It's because of the attitude, expressed here, "you've stolen the name
American and kept other legitmate users from it, so you get it."

Hey, "stolen" is a bit strong. It's just a misused word, that's all.
Lots of words get misused for all kinds of reasons.

It's a load of crap. These guys aren't bleeding for the people in Peru
or Canada that are deprived of being called "American". They want to
stick it to us.

That may be true of some users of the term "Usanian", but I can't speak
for them either way. What I can say, however, is that it is not true of
me. I merely prefer to use words in a precise way where possible.
That's a good thing, right?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[J. J. Farrell]

On Mar 11, 4:35 pm, "Default User" <[e-mail]:

Keith Thompson wrote:

I just don't understand why you find "USAnian" to be insulting.
Silly, sure, but the country of which we're both proud to be citizens
is called, among other things, the "USA". (It's also referred to as
the US, The States, and a number of other things.)

It's because of the attitude, expressed here, "you've stolen the name
American and kept other legitmate users from it, so you get it."

It's a load of crap. These guys aren't bleeding for the people in Peru
or Canada that are deprived of being called "American". They want to
stick it to us. I'm tired of it.

You're giving the impression of having a big chip of some sort on your
shoulder, and you're making unwarranted assumptions about people's
reasons for their actions. Some people just wish to precise; others
wish to avoid giving offence to those residents of the Americas who
are offended by the way some USA citizens claim the word "American"
applies solely to them.

If they just so PC that they can't bear to use the term in its
traditional and most widespread fashion, then perhaps they'd be better
off rewording the sentences to avoid either term.

Avoiding the terms might be best, though from your logic I'd expect
you to take offence at someone avoiding the word "American" when
referring to citizens of the USA. Avoiding taking offence where none
is intended would be another way to solve the problem.

The word "American" is ambiguous. The term "USAian" is an extremely
ugly neologism, but has the advantage of not being ambiguous. There
are similar problems referring to citizens of the UK. The term
"British" does not technically include the people of Northern Ireland;
some of them will be highly offended if you suggest it does, others
will be highly offended if you point out that it doesn't. There is no
single-word term to represent citizens of the UK other than the
nelogism "UKians". I dislike this term because it's ugly, but I
certainly don't find it offensive. It's an attempt to be precise in
short form - it's not a term I'd use myself, but I've no problem with
it other than aesthetics.

[Yevgen Muntyan]

Old Wolf wrote:

On Mar 11, 9:01 pm, Yevgen Muntyan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Did you ask these people if they are Americans and if they find it
insulting when someone calls them Americans?

Anyway, I am not an American nor a Great-Britaininan, so I guess I
miss very important details about this argument.

Does it bother Kazakhs, Latvians, Uzbeks, Chechens, etc.
to be called Russian?

But who plays role of non-Russians called Russians here? If folks
from India were offended because they are called English, your
analogy would be good, but here it seems to be a different issue.

Yevgen

[Ernie Wright]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

>It's because of the attitude, expressed here, "you've stolen the name
American and kept other legitmate users from it, so you get it."

Hey, "stolen" is a bit strong. It's just a misused word, that's all.
Lots of words get misused for all kinds of reasons.

>It's a load of crap. These guys aren't bleeding for the people in
Peru or Canada that are deprived of being called "American". They
want to stick it to us.

That may be true of some users of the term "Usanian", but I can't
speak for them either way. What I can say, however, is that it is not
true of me. I merely prefer to use words in a precise way where
possible. That's a good thing, right?

Well, then maybe you can explain the difference between "stolen" and
"hijacked."

In other contexts, in newsgroups where the participants are both
sufficiently self-aware and humor-enabled, I'm not at all offended by
neologisms like Usanian or LeftPondian. Used correctly, they are a
cheerful acknowledgement of the international nature of newsgroup
discussion.

It only starts to bother me when their use is justified by arrogant,
transparently disingenuous and logically flawed rationalizations.

Maybe you're not even aware of what it sounds like when you claim that
300 million people are calling themselves the wrong thing, and that you
know better than they do what they should rightly be called.

But I doubt it.

You even admit that "some users of the term" use it polemically. Surely
it would be *logical* to discourage polemics here, if only to avoid
threads like this one.

Yet you prefer to stand behind the patently risible assertion that
"American" is ambiguous, even if this damages your credibility. The
truth is that it means something you wish it didn't. Groups where it's
appropriate to discuss the parochialism of Usanians and the reform of
the English language are -----thataway.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Personally, I think its presumptuous of folk from the USA to refer to
themselves as Americans, as though somehow all the other people living
in North and South America aren't also Americans.

There is one and only one nation on Earth with America in its name.
Guess which citizens RIGHTFULLY use the NATIONAL identity American.

You've now been told that at least some of your American colleagues and
fellow group members find your use of that neologism offensive. It's
now up to you what you do from this point.


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Ernie Wright said:

<snip>

Well, then maybe you can explain the difference between "stolen" and
"hijacked."

I think the right expression here is "it's a fair cop, guv!".

Maybe you're not even aware of what it sounds like when you claim that
300 million people are calling themselves the wrong thing, and that
you know better than they do what they should rightly be called.

Knowing better than 300 million people is not a new experience for
comp.lang.c regulars, believe me. Would that it were otherwise!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Bos]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

especially in a USAnian

^^^^^^^

The above is not a word. The term you're searching for is "American".

No; an American is someone from Canada, Mexico, Peru, Costa Rica, or
even, horrors of horrors, Cuba. Or, yes, from the USA.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Many Americans consider it HIGHLY insulting to use such neologisms in
place of the proper name.

Such USAnians should consider that I once coined the neologism USAlien.
Which would you prefer?

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Ernie Wright <er****@comcast.netwrote:

Yet you prefer to stand behind the patently risible assertion that
"American" is ambiguous, even if this damages your credibility.

If it's not ambiguous, how would you call someone from the collective
set of {Colombian, District-of-Columbian, El Salvadoran, Cuban}?

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst of
all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May: how
_does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic, which I
don't speak? (Serious question!)

Richard

[Richard Bos]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:

Unfortunately "Yank" is derogatory. "Usanian" is not a pronounceable word.

How is Yoo-Ess-Ayenians less pronouncable than El-Salvadorians or
Lithuanians?

"Republicans" would be accurate

Not really.

Richard

[Bob Martin]

in 723747 20070311 161421 Joe Wright <jo********@comcast.netwrote:

>And you know that perfectly well. You lost the battle at Yorktown. Get
over it.

Do you know which side your ancestors were on? Odds are it was not
the one you'd like it to be ;-)

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Bos wrote, On 12/03/07 07:58:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst of
all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May: how
_does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic, which I
don't speak? (Serious question!)

If you refer to it as "a great place" you should be fairly safe ;-)

Alternatively this looks reasonable
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.cle.../uk/places.htm

Of course, you should not trust me on this since I'm only a soft southerner.
--
Flash Gordon

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Bos said:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst
of all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May: how
_does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic, which I
don't speak? (Serious question!)

ed'-in-bruh

The last syllable sounds like the "bro" part of "brother".

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Bos]

"Old Wolf" <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

On Mar 11, 9:01 pm, Yevgen Muntyan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Did you ask these people if they are Americans and if they find it
insulting when someone calls them Americans?

Anyway, I am not an American nor a Great-Britaininan, so I guess I
miss very important details about this argument.

Does it bother Kazakhs, Latvians, Uzbeks, Chechens, etc.
to be called Russian?

Yes. So nobody who has a brain does call them that. Also, I am not a
Hollander; Mark is not an Englishman; and if you don't stop playing the
fool I'm going to take you at your word and call you an Aussie :-P

Richard

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Bos wrote, On 12/03/07 09:59:

"Old Wolf" <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrote:

>On Mar 11, 9:01 pm, Yevgen Muntyan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>>Did you ask these people if they are Americans and if they find it
insulting when someone calls them Americans?

Anyway, I am not an American nor a Great-Britaininan, so I guess I
miss very important details about this argument.

Does it bother Kazakhs, Latvians, Uzbeks, Chechens, etc.
to be called Russian?

Yes. So nobody who has a brain does call them that. Also, I am not a
Hollander; Mark is not an Englishman;

This Mark is. Precision is important here ;-)

and if you don't stop playing the
fool I'm going to take you at your word and call you an Aussie :-P

:-)
--
Mark (Flash) Gordon

[Mark McIntyre]

On 12 Mar 2007 06:37:11 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>There is one and only one nation on Earth with America in its name.
Guess which citizens RIGHTFULLY use the NATIONAL identity American.

Okay, so now we're into jingoism and xenophobia.

>You've now been told that at least some of your American colleagues and
fellow group members find your use of that neologism offensive. It's
now up to you what you do from this point.

Indeed.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:58:18 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst of
all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May: how
_does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic, which I
don't speak?

Edinbra with a short a.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Richard Bos]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

[ Follow-ups to poster, in the interest - hypocritical as it is of me in
this thread - of topicality. ]

rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English, or
refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or worst of
all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May: how
_does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic, which I
don't speak?

Edinbra with a short a.

Oh... but surely that's the normal way? I've never heard even a
Sassenach call it anything else.
(Proper 'r' or Limey throatless 'uh', btw? And while we're at it: any
recommendations for lesser-known sights? Guide books about Edinburgh are
as rare as hotel rooms in that city :-/ )

Richard

[Default User]

Richard Bos wrote:

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Many Americans consider it HIGHLY insulting to use such neologisms
in place of the proper name.

Such USAnians should consider that I once coined the neologism
USAlien. Which would you prefer?

Neither. American is the correct term. Like the American in ANSI and
all that.


Brian

[Default User]

Richard Bos wrote:

Ernie Wright <er****@comcast.netwrote:

Yet you prefer to stand behind the patently risible assertion that
"American" is ambiguous, even if this damages your credibility.

If it's not ambiguous, how would you call someone from the collective
set of {Colombian, District-of-Columbian, El Salvadoran, Cuban}?

Pan-American.


Brian

[Ernie Wright]

Richard Bos wrote:

Ernie Wright <er****@comcast.netwrote:

>Yet you prefer to stand behind the patently risible assertion that
"American" is ambiguous, even if this damages your credibility.

If it's not ambiguous, how would you call someone from the collective
set of {Colombian, District-of-Columbian, El Salvadoran, Cuban}?

Like "object" (the term of art in computer programming), the meaning of
"American" is disambiguated by context. In the journal Hispania, in an
article entitled "An Aspect of Symbolic Nationalism in Spanish America,"
the author may write of the "former Spanish colonies in America" and be
understood to include a set with {Colombia, El Salvadore, Cuba} as a
subset. Elsewhere, on first use and in the absense of context to the
contrary, "American" refers to residents of the United States, just as
here, on first use and in the absence of qualification, "object" is
understood to refer to the concept as used in the C standards.

No one is confused about the provenance of the American National
Standards Institute.

It's not logical. It may strike those outside the U.S. as parochial or
self-aggrandizing. But we don't get to redefine the term, and clc isn't
the place to make the attempt anyway. It is what it is, and if we're
going to criticize people for innocently using the vernacular of instant
messaging and other non-standard forms of English here, it makes no
sense to support neologisms that are clearly *intended* to have
inflammatory political connotations.

(And for those folks, they might want to remember that the term was used
in English, on both sides of the Atlantic, to refer specifically to
English colonists in the New World 300 years ago; it isn't something the
current residents of the U.S. stole from the rest of the hemisphere.)

BTW, residents of the District of Columbia are Washingtonians.

- Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

[Richard Tobin]

In article <7j********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>Edinbra with a short a.

"Embra" is the conventional representation of a local pronunciation.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Richard Bos]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Many Americans consider it HIGHLY insulting to use such neologisms
in place of the proper name.

Such USAnians should consider that I once coined the neologism
USAlien. Which would you prefer?

Neither. American is the correct term. Like the American in ANSI and
all that.

Well, you Merkins are getting pretty big in the head about it, and
that's the last thing I'll say on the issue.

Richard

[Keith Thompson]

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>Personally, I think its presumptuous of folk from the USA to refer to
themselves as Americans, as though somehow all the other people living
in North and South America aren't also Americans.

There is one and only one nation on Earth with America in its name.
Guess which citizens RIGHTFULLY use the NATIONAL identity American.

You've now been told that at least some of your American colleagues and
fellow group members find your use of that neologism offensive. It's
now up to you what you do from this point.

Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has taken
unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian" being used in passing in a
technical discussion, in a context that carried no hint of any
political agenda beyond what might be inferred from the use of the
word itself. As far as I could see, the use of "USAnian" did *not*
imply that the writer felt that the word "American" is incorrect. It
struck me as slightly silly and utterly inoffensive. Incidentally,
the term has been used a number of times in this newsgroup before,
without starting flame wars.

I don't recall ever using the word myself except in quoted text. I'll
probably try to avoid doing so here in the future, for the sole
purpose of avoiding offending you, but I'm not going to devote a lot
of effort to it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Al Balmer]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:33:36 -0700, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:

>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>>Personally, I think its presumptuous of folk from the USA to refer to
themselves as Americans, as though somehow all the other people living
in North and South America aren't also Americans.

There is one and only one nation on Earth with America in its name.
Guess which citizens RIGHTFULLY use the NATIONAL identity American.

You've now been told that at least some of your American colleagues and
fellow group members find your use of that neologism offensive. It's
now up to you what you do from this point.

Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has taken
unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian" being used in passing in a
technical discussion, in a context that carried no hint of any
political agenda beyond what might be inferred from the use of the
word itself. As far as I could see, the use of "USAnian" did *not*
imply that the writer felt that the word "American" is incorrect. It
struck me as slightly silly and utterly inoffensive. Incidentally,
the term has been used a number of times in this newsgroup before,
without starting flame wars.

It always struck me as a silly attempt to be mildly offensive. The
silliness outweighs the offensiveness.

>
I don't recall ever using the word myself except in quoted text. I'll
probably try to avoid doing so here in the future, for the sole
purpose of avoiding offending you, but I'm not going to devote a lot
of effort to it.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Malcolm McLean]

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:

>Unfortunately "Yank" is derogatory. "Usanian" is not a pronounceable
word.

How is Yoo-Ess-Ayenians less pronouncable than El-Salvadorians or
Lithuanians?

No hard consonant.

>

>"Republicans" would be accurate

Not really.

Americans are Brits who have gotten rid of the monarchy and now live in a
republic. So in English, "Republicans" is fine.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Keith Thompson]

"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:

"Richard Bos" <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote in message

>"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:

[...]

>>"Republicans" would be accurate

Not really.

Americans are Brits who have gotten rid of the monarchy and now live
in a republic. So in English, "Republicans" is fine.

Incorrect and off-topic.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>>In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English,
or refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or
worst of all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May:
how _does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic,
which I don't speak?

Edinbra with a short a.

What is that 28 (or so) syllable Welsh town that translates to
"hill hill hill"?

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Al Balmer wrote:

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

.... snip ...

>>
Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has
taken unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian" being used in
passing in a technical discussion, in a context that carried no
hint of any political agenda beyond what might be inferred from
the use of the word itself. As far as I could see, the use of
"USAnian" did *not* imply that the writer felt that the word
"American" is incorrect. It struck me as slightly silly and
utterly inoffensive. Incidentally, the term has been used a number
of times in this newsgroup before, without starting flame wars.

It always struck me as a silly attempt to be mildly offensive. The
silliness outweighs the offensiveness.

I consider it a gentle means of avoiding offending non-USAnians.
This is taking a positive view of it. As I see it now there is one
person objecting, and quite a few with somewhat gentler objections
to the use of American for the purpose.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Default User]

Richard Bos wrote:

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Neither. American is the correct term. Like the American in ANSI and
all that.

Well, you Merkins are getting pretty big in the head about it, and
that's the last thing I'll say on the issue.

No, we're not. It started by me correcting a foolish and insulting
neologism. As I said, if someone simply can't bear to use the correct
term, then the sentence can easily be reworded.


Brian

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 12 Mar 2007 06:37:11 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

There is one and only one nation on Earth with America in its name.
Guess which citizens RIGHTFULLY use the NATIONAL identity American.

Okay, so now we're into jingoism and xenophobia.

Nonsense. As I said, only one nation that has "America" as part of its
name. There's only one nation for which it makes sense to use
"American" as a national identifier for its citizens.

This isn't that difficult.


Brian

[Malcolm McLean]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message

>

>Many Americans consider it HIGHLY insulting to use such neologisms in
place of the proper name.

Which Americans do you mean? Argentinians? Bolivians? Brazilians?
Colombians? Canadians? Guatemalans? Mexicans? Panamanians?
Paraguayans?
Peruvians? Uruguayans? Usanians? Venezuelans? (Non-exhaustive list.)

In eighteenth century English texts "American" usually means a Red Indian.

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has taken
unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian"

No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.

How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?

I'll point out that my objection was to silly neologisms in a group
that prides itself in whacking newbies for such things as "u". For the
umpteenth time, if Mark or other people are so worried about people
being offended by "American", don't substitute an offensive term,
rewrite the damn sentence. It's not that hard.

I don't believe for one second that the reason they use such terms is
out of some sensitivity towards those elsewhere in the Americas. It's
patently ridiculous. They like to poke us with a point-ed stick. All in
fun, I guess, but I've grown tired.

If Mark et al. are really sensitive to the feelings of others, then
they know at least one person offended by USAnian. I doubt they can
come up with many that really care about the use of American.

Whether they want to go round and round with this in the future is up
to them. They can use it, not use it, killfile me, whatever.
Regardless, they know the score.


Brian

[Malcolm McLean]

"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:45***************@yahoo.com...

Mark McIntyre wrote:

>rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

In similar vein it ticks me off when Yanks refer to me as English,
or refer to my capital city as either Edin-burgh, Edin-borrow or
worst of all, London.

So; to avoid calling it something wrong when I'm there this May:
how _does_ one correctly refer to it, without resorting to Celtic,
which I don't speak?

Edinbra with a short a.

What is that 28 (or so) syllable Welsh town that translates to
"hill hill hill"?

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch

I think it actually means "The church of St. Mary in the hollow of white
hazel trees near the rapid whirlpool by St. Tysilio's of the red cave".
However I can't speak Welsh.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has
taken unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian"

No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.

How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'll point out that my objection was to silly neologisms in a group
that prides itself in whacking newbies for such things as "u".

It makes sense to encourage people to communicate clearly, so it
therefore makes sense to discourage them from pointless abbreviations.
I suppose that making sense is something to be proud of, yes, but
"whacking newbies" is not something I take great pride in. But yes, it
is in the interests of clarity of communication that some people prefer
to use the term "American" to apply to people of either American
continent.

<snip>

I don't believe for one second that the reason they use such terms is
out of some sensitivity towards those elsewhere in the Americas.

The word "American", as /you/ would have us use it, is misleading. The
word "Usanian" is not. Clarity matters.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

<snip>

It started by me correcting a foolish and insulting
neologism.

Correction: "Usanian" is neither foolish nor insulting. It is, however,
a neologism. One out of three is a little low for you, is it not?

As I said, if someone simply can't bear to use the correct
term,

What you consider to be "the correct term" is not what everyone
considers to be the correct term. You have long years of usage on your
side, but that's about all, I think.

then the sentence can easily be reworded.

Perhaps, or perhaps not.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Nelu]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has
taken unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian"

No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.

How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, after all, you are all for the war in Irak. From previous
posts I thought you were against it. :-)

>

>I'll point out that my objection was to silly neologisms in a group
that prides itself in whacking newbies for such things as "u".

It makes sense to encourage people to communicate clearly, so it
therefore makes sense to discourage them from pointless abbreviations.
I suppose that making sense is something to be proud of, yes, but
"whacking newbies" is not something I take great pride in. But yes, it
is in the interests of clarity of communication that some people prefer
to use the term "American" to apply to people of either American
continent.

For the clarity of communication you fought Jacob over unsigned
integers cannot overflow because you can't name something
different than the standard says it is. And I agreed with you.
Now, when the standard has been American for a citizen of the US
and everyone who knows the standard knows that there are two
American continents so everyone is either North or South
American, in order not to create confusion please use the
standard established tens of years ago as opposed to a word
that's not widely used and was invented to poke fun at Americans
after 2001. (It seems the word appeared on the Internet in 2002,
close enough to 2001, Afghanistan and Iraq). However, this is
c.l.c and nobody establishes standards or adds to existing
standards. I guess we should let comp.std.c discuss whether the
word should make the standard and until then we can use the
existing standard without offending anybody.

>
<snip>

>I don't believe for one second that the reason they use such terms is
out of some sensitivity towards those elsewhere in the Americas.

The word "American", as /you/ would have us use it, is misleading. The
word "Usanian" is not. Clarity matters.

Exactly.

Anyway, I think this has been going on for too long. I withdraw. :-)

--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Keith Thompson]

Nelu <sp*******@gmail.comwrites:
[...]

Anyway, I think this has been going on for too long. I withdraw. :-)

I suggest that it might have made more sense to withdraw *before*
posting a lengthy followup.

I admit I'm in no position to criticize; I've participated in this
flame war myself.

I will not post again on this topic. I encourage everyone else to do
the same starting ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... NOW.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

What you consider to be "the correct term" is not what everyone
considers to be the correct term. You have long years of usage on
your side, but that's about all, I think.

That's just about the case for every English word.

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Nelu said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Default User said:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:

Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has
taken unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian"
No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.

How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, after all, you are all for the war in Irak. From previous
posts I thought you were against it. :-)

You appear to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion from insufficient
data.

<snip>

For the clarity of communication you fought Jacob over unsigned
integers cannot overflow because you can't name something
different than the standard says it is.

I did not fight Jacob. I merely corrected him.

And I agreed with you.
Now, when the standard has been American for a citizen of the US

There is no standard for the English language, so you are reasoning from
a false premise.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>What you consider to be "the correct term" is not what everyone
considers to be the correct term. You have long years of usage on
your side, but that's about all, I think.

That's just about the case for every English word.

Yes - but it's in everybody's interests, is it not, for language to
develop in the direction of increasing clarity?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Nelu]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Nelu said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Default User said:
Keith Thompson wrote:

Based on what I've seen in this thread, exactly one American has
taken unreasonable offense at the term "USAnian"
No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.

How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, after all, you are all for the war in Irak. From previous
posts I thought you were against it. :-)

You appear to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion from insufficient
data.

Just a correction. The :-) was for a joke.

>
<snip>

>For the clarity of communication you fought Jacob over unsigned
integers cannot overflow because you can't name something
different than the standard says it is.

I did not fight Jacob. I merely corrected him.

Given the fact that that thread went on for quite some time it
extended beyond a mere correction.

>

>And I agreed with you.
Now, when the standard has been American for a citizen of the US

There is no standard for the English language, so you are reasoning from
a false premise.

Os hte cditionakry is ujst orf unf?
Actually there are people who think there is a standard (Standard
English) although not everybody's in agreement over it. There's
also British Standard English and there is a standardization
process for dialects.

At least we somewhat changed the subject :-)).
I'm still sorry for being off-topic... I have to learn to control
myself :-).

--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Nelu]

Nelu wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip a lot of off-topic stuff>

I apologize for going off-topic for so long.
I am really, really going to stop now. Richard, if you want to
continue this I'm always available on e-mail.

--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <55*************@mid.individual.net>,
Nelu <sp*******@gmail.comwrote:

>Nelu wrote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip a lot of off-topic stuff>

That's all he posts.

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

I will not post again on this topic. I encourage everyone else to do
the same starting ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... NOW.

Agreed.
Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Nelu said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Nelu said:

>>For the clarity of communication you fought Jacob over unsigned
integers cannot overflow because you can't name something
different than the standard says it is.

I did not fight Jacob. I merely corrected him.

Given the fact that that thread went on for quite some time it
extended beyond a mere correction.

<shrugJacob needs a lot of correcting.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.