469,270 Members | 1,056 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,270 developers. It's quick & easy.

The Modernization of Emacs

[this post is a excerpt from
The Modernization of Emacs, Xah Lee, 2006-04 at
http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization.html
]

The Modernization of Emacs

----------------------------------------
THE PROBLEM

Emacs is a great editor. It is perhaps the most powerful and most
versatile text editor. And, besides text editing, it also serves as a
email application, newsgroup application, ftp application, irc
application, web browser, shell interface, file management
application, programable calculator, calendar and personal info
management application, lisp language system, among other things.
These seemingly wild functionalities are employed in production daily
by a significant number of programers around the world. Some calls
emacs as a Operating System as a joke. (Technically it does not
qualify because a OS implies management of hardware.).

If emacs is such a great and powerful text editor why almost nobody
knows about it? Vast majority of people who need to write will be more
than happy to use editors other than emacs. Ask a Microsoft Windows
user. She'll be more than happy to use Microsoft Word↗. If he doesn't
have MS Word, he'll use NotePad↗ or WordPad↗. If he is a programer,
most will be more than happy to use any of other graphical editors on
the Windows platform or any of the Integrated development
environment↗. Same is true on other operating systems, and new editors
spring up here and there even though they don't have as much power or
flexibility as emacs. For example, there are NEdit, JEdit, Eclipse,
Xcode↗ , or the various associated with languages or third party
language software, such as Visual Basic or Borland C++.

Many reasons can be made out of this. For example, emacs is not
bundled on popular operating systems such as Windows or Mac, which are
used by some 99% of computer users worldwide. Windows and Mac both
have simple text editors bundled that will satisfy majority of
computer users, which are non-professional computer users. (NotePad
and WordPad on Windows, TextEdit↗ on Mac) For the few professional
computer users, a majority will need a easy to use, yet powerful
editor that also does styled text, formatting, and sundry light
publishing needs such as table layout, simple line graphics drawing,
embedded images, math formulas. They will choose and adopt Microsoft
Word for their needs. The tiny percentage that might be interested in
emacs, are programers. Even among professional programers, a majority
shy away from emacs.

A major difficulty among programers who do not use or like emacs, is
that emacs's user interface is rather esoteric, involving arcane
terminologies and keystrokes. This is in sharp contrast to the
thousands of software applications used today, where their User
Interface are similar and familiar to today's computer users.

----------------------------------------
THE COMMON USER INTERFACE

The following is a excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Common User
Access↗:

CUA was a detailed specification and set strict rules about how
applications should look and function. Its aim was in part to bring
about harmony between MS-DOS applications, which until then had
implemented totally different user interfaces.

Examples:

* In WordPerfect, the command to open a file was [F7], [3].

* In Lotus 1-2-3, a file was opened with [/] (to open the menus),
[W] (for Workspace), [R] (for Retrieve).

* In Microsoft Word, a file was opened with [Esc] (to open the
menus), [T] (for Transfer), [L] (for Load).

* In WordStar, it was [Ctrl]+[K]+[O].

* In Emacs, a file was opened with [Ctrl]+[x] followed by [Ctrl]+
[f] (for find-file).

Some programs used [Esc] to cancel an action, some used it to complete
one; WordPerfect used it to repeat a character. Some programs used
[End] to go to the end of a line, some used it to complete filling in
a form. [F1] was often help but in WordPerfect that was [F3]. [Ins]
sometimes toggled between overtype and inserting characters, but some
programs used it for “paste”.

Thus, every program had to be learned individually and its complete
user interface memorized. It was a sign of expertise to have learned
the UIs of dozens of applications, since a novice user facing a new
program would find their existing knowledge of a similar application
absolutely no use whatsoever.

----------------------------------------
SIMPLE CHANGES

In the following, i describe some critical changes that are also very
easy to fix in emacs. If emacs officially adopt these changes, i think
it will make a lot people, at least programers, like emacs and choose
emacs as their text editor.

* Change the keyboard shortcut of Copy & Paste to ctrl-c and ctrl-
v as to be the same with all modern applications.

* Change the undo behavior so that there is a Undo and Redo, as
the same with all modern applications.

* Get rid of the *scratch* buffer.

* Change the terminology of “kill” to “cut”, and “yank” to
“paste”.

* Change the terminology of Meta key to Alt.

* Make longlines-mode the default editor behavior for any file.

Things emacs should do now, even though it eventually will do.

* When opening a HTML document, automatically provide highlighting
of HTML, CSS, and Javascript codes. Similarly for other multi-language
files such as PHP, JSP, et al. This behavior must be automatic without
requiring user to customize emacs.

Possible Documentation Change Proposals

* Reduce the use of the word “buffer” in the emacs documentation.
Call it “opened file” or “unsaved document”.

* Switch the terminology of Window and Frame so it is more
standard. That is, Emacs's “Window” should be called Panes or Frames.
While Emacs's “Frame” should be termed Window.

* Change the terminology of keybinding to “keyboard shortcut” in
emacs documentation. Use the term keybinding or binding only in a
technical context, such as in elisp documentation.

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Jun 17 '07
331 12731
Lew
rjack wrote:
Webster? WEBSTER. . . ?

Whatever happened to the Oxford English Dictionary ?
Seems to me the English have always spoken the definitive
English. . . that's why they call it ENGLISH.
What is in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

--
Lew
Oct 3 '07 #301
In message <l0********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language ...
No they didn't. Before Doctor Johnson, there were no dictionaries.
Oct 3 '07 #302
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <l0********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
>Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language ...

No they didn't. Before Doctor Johnson, there were no dictionaries.
And before the Big bang there was nothing (perhaps). What's your point?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline

Oct 3 '07 #303
dan
George Neuner wrote:
Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.
"Symbolism: The practice of representing things by means of symbols or
of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or
relationships."

One might even suggest that all written language is based on the use of
words as symbols.

"Substance: (2)
a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart."

"Mantra: A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or
incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a
syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

Perhaps the young people you're referring to are not the same young
people that I know, because I've never even heard of a religion whose
object of reverence is meta-level analysis of language.

Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?
-dan "or 'rhetorical'"
Oct 3 '07 #304
>Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?
Betcha' Ludwig Wittgenstein coulda' told ya'!

Oct 4 '07 #305
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:20:38 +0000 (UTC), bc*@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:
>In article <l0********************************@4ax.com>,
George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.netwrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 +0000 (UTC), bc*@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:
>>>
Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,

Free
(...)
"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
of parents, guardian, or master."

The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
"free".

(...)

The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
years.
(...)

Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
word they can find used in print.

Apparantly, you missed the part where I referred to the 1913 edition
of Webster. I have kept it in the quoted text above for your
convenience. I can assure you that 1913 is both more than 30 years ago
/and/ it is before 1980, in case that was in doubt.

Cheers
Bent D
I didn't miss it. Your post was just an opportunity to rant.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Oct 4 '07 #306
In message <ma**************************************@python.o rg>, Steve
Holden wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>In message <l0********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
>>Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language ...

No they didn't. Before Doctor Johnson, there were no dictionaries.

And before the Big bang there was nothing (perhaps). What's your point?
That dictionaries were not some kind of Big Bang.
Oct 4 '07 #307
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:07:32 +0100, da*@telent.net wrote:
>George Neuner wrote:
>Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.

"Symbolism: The practice of representing things by means of symbols or
of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or
relationships."

One might even suggest that all written language is based on the use of
words as symbols.

"Substance: (2)
a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart."

"Mantra: A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or
incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a
syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

Perhaps the young people you're referring to are not the same young
people that I know, because I've never even heard of a religion whose
object of reverence is meta-level analysis of language.
The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. Theologians and
philosophers have been writing about it for quite a few centuries.
Or, how about politics? Another example from the Judeo-Christian
Bible (that is, from the Old Testament), politicking was the sin that
resulted in Lucifer's fall from God's grace.
[Yeah, I know the official story is that Lucifer's sin was envy.
Trust me ... I was there. God didn't have a clue until Lucifer went
and organized the rally to protest God's policy on human souls (back
then God trusted his angels and was not in the habit of reading their
minds). He didn't find out that Lucifer was behind the protests until
after Michael's police units had put down the riots. When it was all
over, God didn't care that Lucifer had been envious or prideful or
lustful ... He was simply pissed that Lucifer had protested His
policies.

Shortly after He outlawed beer in Heaven because many of the rioters
had been drunk. Then He started a program of wire-tapping without
warrants to spy on innocent angels. I was ready to leave when He
closed the pubs, the illegal wire-taps just clinched it.]

>Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?
Yes I do.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Oct 4 '07 #308
In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
Oct 4 '07 #309
In message <fe**********@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>, Bent C Dalager wrote:
Unfortunately, these days English almost always means American English...
North American or South American? Seems like USAmericans speak a little
different English from other Americans...
Oct 4 '07 #310
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <fe**********@orkan.itea.ntnu.no>, Bent C Dalager wrote:
>Unfortunately, these days English almost always means American English...

North American or South American? Seems like USAmericans speak a little
different English from other Americans...
Leave him be in his sea of ignorance. He's American ...

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline so I couldn't cat it

Oct 4 '07 #311
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
>The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."

Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
*marketing campaign*?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline so I couldn't cat it

Oct 4 '07 #312
In message <ma**************************************@python.o rg>, Steve
Holden wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:
>>The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."

Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".

So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
*marketing campaign*?
Different Bible book, different author, different original language.
Oct 4 '07 #313
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <ma**************************************@python.o rg>, Steve
Holden wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:

The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
*marketing campaign*?

Different Bible book, different author, different original language.
So Genesis was written in Hebrew? I have no clue as to where the
manuscripts were found.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline so I couldn't cat it

Oct 4 '07 #314
Lew
Tim X wrote:
"The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of
course, language." Oscar Wilde
"We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common
language. G.B. Shaw
There is a well-known saying: Two nations separated by a common language. However, this phrase doesn't seem to have been positively recorded in this form by anyone.

In The Canterville Ghost Oscar Wilde wrote:

/We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language/

In a 1951 book of quotations, and without attributing a source, George Bernard Shaw was credited with saying:

/England and America are two countries separated by the same language/

Even Dylan Thomas had his say in a radio talk in the early 50s:

/[European writers and scholars in America are] up against the barrier of a common language/

But where the original phrase came from, nobody knows, and it is probably simply incorrectly quoted.
<http://yedda.com/questions/origin_famous_sentence_quotations_8625651351715/>

--
Lew
Oct 4 '07 #315
Steve Holden wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>In message <ma**************************************@python.o rg>, Steve
Holden wrote:
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:

The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
*marketing campaign*?

Different Bible book, different author, different original language.

So Genesis was written in Hebrew? I have no clue as to where the
manuscripts were found.
Am I missing a joke here? What are you talking about?

Different book? From what book would the first sentence in the Bible be,
if not from the first book (yeah yeah, from the publisher, haw-haw :-|)?

And Genesis and all other of Moe's books where written in Hebrew. No
doubt about that. Its (part of) the /Hebrew/ Bible, after all.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>

I can't program with discussions like this going on ;)
/W
Oct 4 '07 #316
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 04:49:50PM +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote regarding Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding:
>
Steve Holden wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <ma**************************************@python.o rg>, Steve
Holden wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>, George Neuner
wrote:

The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word..."
Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
So, now you're telling me that the Garden of Eden was actually a
*marketing campaign*?

Different Bible book, different author, different original language.
So Genesis was written in Hebrew? I have no clue as to where the
manuscripts were found.
Am I missing a joke here? What are you talking about?
I'm trying to figure that out myself...
Different book? From what book would the first sentence in the Bible be,
if not from the first book (yeah yeah, from the publisher, haw-haw :-|)?
Yeah, different book. "In the beginning was the Word" is John's cosmology. Written in Greek long after Genesis, and a couple decades after Jesus was executed.

Also, I wouldn't so much say that "word" is a mistranslation. Logos does indeed mean "word" in common usage, it just also carries along the baggage of reason, "logic" (for a loose definintion of which), rationality, and so forth. So it's not so much inaccurate as inadequate.
And Genesis and all other of Moe's books where written in Hebrew. No
doubt about that. Its (part of) the /Hebrew/ Bible, after all.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah>

I can't program with discussions like this going on ;)
/W
For real. Not much python in this thread. And yet, here I am, sucked into posting to a thread that I've spent the past three or four days wishing would die....

Sigh.

Cliff
Oct 4 '07 #317
J. Clifford Dyer a crit :
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 04:49:50PM +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger wrote
regarding Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and
keybinding:
>Steve Holden wrote:
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message
<ma**************************************@pytho n.org>, Steve
Holden wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>In message <8s********************************@4ax.com>,
>George Neuner wrote:
<OT - now you're warned>
>>>>>>The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the
>>Word..."
>>
>Which is an English mistranslation from the Greek "logos".
>
(snip)
>
Yeah, different book. "In the beginning was the Word" is John's
cosmology. Written in Greek long after Genesis, and a couple decades
after Jesus was executed.

Also, I wouldn't so much say that "word" is a mistranslation. Logos
does indeed mean "word" in common usage, it just also carries along
the baggage of reason, "logic" (for a loose definintion of which),
rationality, and so forth. So it's not so much inaccurate as
inadequate.
FWIW, the canonical french translation uses 'verb' instead of 'word',
and AFAICT it's more appropriate (at least in French - my English is
mostly technical so I may miss some subtilities here) since it carries a
notion of action too.

Now another (and certainly far worse) mistranslation (for both John and
Genesis) is this awful 'in the beginning was', when the less imperfect
translation from Hebrew (which John's text, while written in Greek, is
clearly referencing here) would be 'in the principle is'. See, nothing
historic here, it's *not* the 'beginnning' of something past, it's about
the present. Also, since Christ is clearly identified with the Verb by
John, saying 'in the principle is the verb' is also a way of identifying
God with the principle...

Hem... Sorry, I disgressed... Back to Python, now !-)
</OT>
Oct 4 '07 #318
lhb
Wildemar Wildenburger <la*********@klapptsowieso.netwrote in
news:47**********************@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:
While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
what they have to say).
Words are defined by popular usage. In popular usage, the meaning of free
as an adjective depends on the context. If the adjective is applied to
people, it means the opposite of slavery or imprisonment. If it's applied
to something other than people, it means free as in beer.

For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom. Free dog means
free as in beer. Likewise, in popular usage, free software means free as
in beer. People who use it with a different meaning are vainly trying to
change its meaning. But the meanings of words can't be arbitrarily
changed, just by dictating different meanings. The meaning has to be
adopted by popular usage, which free-as-in-GPL software has not been.

Therefore, I propose, using dog freedom as our logic, we call it stray
software.
Oct 7 '07 #319
In message <Xn********************@140.99.99.130>, lh*@nowhere.com wrote:
For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom.
Yes it would. City council regulations would commonly contain phrases such
as "dogs are not allowed to wander free except in designated areas".

Also, what is your interpretation of "free" in the well-known phrase: "I am
not a number! I am a free man!"?

Oct 7 '07 #320
Roedy Green wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:27:04 -0500, Damien Kick <dk***@earthlink.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>"free as in beer".

but does not "free beer" nearly always come with a catch or implied
obligation?
I had been trying to find a good Nietzsche quote about the role of debt
in the relationship of a child to his or her parents but I could not
seem to find a good one. I did, however, find what I think to be an
interesting secondary source
<http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-09-20-neilson-en.html>:

<blockquote>
For Nietzsche, debt was linked to the problem of promising and
forgetting. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the
etymological play that underlies his association of debts (Schulden)
with guilt (Schuld). As is well known, the Second Essay of On the
Genealogy of Morals argues that the feeling of guilt, of personal
obligation, has its origin in the contractual relationship between
creditor and debtor. "It was here", Nietzsche writes, "that one person
first measured himself against another". And he continues:

Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely
this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the
creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating
animal as such".[1]

How today are we to understand these claims and Nietzsche's extension of
them into arguments about the role of debt in the relations between
parents and children or between man and the deity?
</blockquote>

Beer helps to eliminate debt by promoting forgetfulness.
Oct 8 '07 #321
On Oct 7, 9:07 pm, Damien Kick <dk...@earthlink.netwrote:
Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely
this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the
creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating
animal as such".[1]
Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)? Our
clever hands with their opposable thumbs being considered a defining
characteristic. And our tool use thus derived. Handspans also having
been a common (if imprecise) early unit of measurement (along with
forearm-spans, as in cubits, strides, and foot-length, from which the
measurement in feet still derives its name).

Oct 8 '07 #322
Lew
bb****@gmail.com wrote:
Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)? Our
clever hands with their opposable thumbs being considered a defining
characteristic. And our tool use thus derived. Handspans also having
been a common (if imprecise) early unit of measurement (along with
forearm-spans, as in cubits, strides, and foot-length, from which the
measurement in feet still derives its name).
For most humans, the length of their foot from heel to toe is nearly equal to
the length of their forearm elbow to wrist.

--
Lew
Oct 8 '07 #323
bb****@gmail.com wrote:
Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)?
no. "manual" is derived from latin "manus" meaning "hand". the word "man"
is related to (though not directly derived from) "mind", and the latin word
"mens", which means "mind".
--
Joost Kremers jo**********@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)
Oct 8 '07 #324
George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.netwrites:
>
Or, how about politics? Another example from the Judeo-Christian
Bible (that is, from the Old Testament), politicking was the sin that
resulted in Lucifer's fall from God's grace.
that's not a God, but an inferior demiurge,
as correctly figured by Marcion
[Yeah, I know the official story is that Lucifer's sin was envy.
the official story is thoroughly flawed.
of course Lucifer means carrier of light,
and thus has nothing to do with sin.
but the contrary.
Lucifer brings enlightenment to those people
who are enchained in the darkness of oppression and stupor
the demiurge imposed upon them.
Thus it's Plato who equalled the situation of
unenlightened mankind with that of prisoners in a dark cave.
Sin is the rejection of the light brought by
the carrier of light.
Same goes for those who have once seen the light of
the Symbolic Expressions, but continue rejoycing in
infix Syntax.

Klaus Schilling
Oct 9 '07 #325
On Oct 8, 7:32 am, Joost Kremers <joostkrem...@yahoo.comwrote:
bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)?

no.
Do not bluntly contradict me in public.
"manual" is derived from latin "manus" meaning "hand". the word "man"
is related to (though not directly derived from) "mind", and the latin word
"mens", which means "mind".
So you assert, but "man" bears a much closer resemblance to "manus"
than it does to "mens".

Or are you proposing that the plural word "men" came first? That would
be ... odd.

Oct 10 '07 #326
ne********@gmail.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this some sport of yours to constantly create new gmail accounts and
spam Usenet?
So you assert, but "man" bears a much closer resemblance to "manus"
than it does to "mens".
This is irrelevant. Consult an etymological dictionary.
F'up-to: comp.lang.lisp, where I'm reading this.
Oct 10 '07 #327
On 10 Oct, 02:05, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
Do not bluntly contradict me in public.
2 + 2 = 5

Oct 10 '07 #328


ne********@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:32 am, Joost Kremers <joostkrem...@yahoo.comwrote:
>>bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)?

no.


Do not bluntly contradict me in public.
I am reminded of my tai chi teacher in NYC, who used to come over to
correct me and say, "I used to do it that way."

Or, "What you are doing is good. What I do is...".

His school is very successful.

kenny

--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"Mother always told me, if you tell a lie,
always rehearse it. If it don't sound good
to you, it won't sound good to no one else."
- Satchel Paige
Oct 10 '07 #329
ne********@gmail.com wrote:
Do not bluntly contradict me in public.
You are in grave need of professional psychiatric help.

Seek it now, if you do not wish your life to be ended three or four
years down the line by a police sniper.

--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Doub...ood/index.html
Oct 11 '07 #330
On Oct 10, 4:11 am, Matthias Buelow <m...@incubus.dewrote:
>
Is this some sport of yours to constantly create new gmail accounts and
spam Usenet?
I am not a spammer. You, however, *are* a liar.

[snip remaining insults]
[correct newsgroups: header after attempted hijacking to make my
response disappear]

Oct 12 '07 #331
On Oct 11, 5:40 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.netwrote:
nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
Do not bluntly contradict me in public.

[insult deleted]

[death threat deleted]
Insults and other such falsehoods will be deleted rather than repeated
and death threats will be reported to your internet service provider;
this is a public service provided by me for free.

Have a nice day. :)

Oct 12 '07 #332

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.