Text 26423, 97 rader
Skriven 2006-03-18 00:05:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 26416 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Elist
=============
 MVDV>>> By your definition. According to Kernie and Ritchie an ellipses
 MVDV>>> consists of two dots.....
 >
 >> Who are Kernie and Ritchie?

 MVDV>> The guys who documented ANSI C.

 > I don't consider them any authority WRT the structure of the ellipsis ...

I don't consider you an authority WRT to who is an authority WRT the structure
of the ellipsis. In fact, I do not consider you an authority on anything.

 >>> You used *four*.

 MVDV>>> Yes, I typed for dots.

 MVDV>> Is there a law against typing four dots?

 > Not to my knowledge -- though there *might* be ...

Well, there is no such law *here*, I am pretty sure....

 MVDV>>> 1) What made you assume I meant to type an ellipsis according
 MVDV>>> to your definition instead of just four dots?

 >> I merely assumed

 MVDV>> You ASSumed I meant to type an ellipsis....

 > Yes, I made that logical assumption ...

Let's say, you made a predictable assumption. You have become very predictable
of late. Did it never occur to you, you are so predictable that someone may
intentionally type four dots to push your buttons?

 >> you had reached that level of literacy in English ... sorry ...

 MVDV>> What has literacy in English got to do with typing four dots? Or
 MVDV>> typing five dots. Or five plus signs. Here: +++++, there's five plus
 MVDV>> signs. Have I now know shown a lack of literacy in English? Or any
 MVDV>> other language ofr that matter?

 > Literacy in English is involved if you meant to type an ellipsis.

But, I didn't. I meant to type four dots. I may have typed four dots to make
you believe I meant to type an ellipsis though....

 > Since you *didn't*, and I have no reason to think you lied
 > when making that claim, you did not err.

Right, I did not err. You did however erred by assuming I meant to type an
ellipsis....

 MVDV>>> 2) Or perhaps I typed one dot (terminating the sentence)
 MVDV>>> followed by three dots (your ellipsis).

 >> If that were the case the ellipsis would *still* have been separated
 >> from the sentence-ending period by at least one *space*.

 MVDV>> Says who?

 > Says *I* ...

So it is just your opinion. An opinion that is not shared by everyone it seems.

 MVDV>> So? I see no rule that an ellipsis must be encased with at
 MVDV>> least one space at either side. In fact - according to
 MVDV>> Kernie and Ritchie - spaces are not normally used to delimit
 MVDV>> an ellipsis. They are optional though.

 > *I* say it.

So I noticed. I do not consider you an expert in the matter.

 > And *I* certainly know what is proper and what is
 > improper in this area ... the opinions of this Kernie and
 > Ritchie mean nothing to me ...

It means something to me though.

 MVDV>>> 3) Or maybe I use another definition of an ellipsis then yours.

 >> Like Bill Clinton with his alternative definition of "is"?

 MVDV>> No, there is no "maybe" about BC's alternative definition of
 MVDV>> "is". So no, not like BC.

 > "Like" doesn't mean "identical to" ... at least not in *English*.

How would you know? You were born in the USA, English is not your native
language.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)