|
To have or have got?
Sorry. Just toured the Hemingway house in Key West last week.
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I got a programming question from Stack Overflow. It had already been answered.
|
|
|
|
|
I've got enough of this.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I got a new BMW for my girlfriend...hell of a deal but I'm gonna miss her.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - A updated version available!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
Good one.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I have got a programming question ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a biggie. Good luck with it!
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's a tiny question - easy for an expert to solve, I'm sure: "What's wrong with my code?" 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't written in Rust. Fix that and it will work.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno - it's looking pretty corroded from here already.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. That's easy then. Put some WD-40 on it. That stuff fixes everything!
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Chris,
An expert on your site suggested I spray my code with WD40, so I did and it all slid down the editor into a slimy pile of characters at the bottom of the file. I think some of the characters dissolved a bit as well as the semicolons all seem to be commas now.
On the bright side, it works better than it did before but I don't understand it at all. Could you document it for me so I can hand it in?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I got to learn me some of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually both are incorrect. They should be:
If you have a programming question ...
or
Have you got a programming question ...
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think that Have you got a programming question would be correct. I think that simply Have a programming question? would be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite correct in English. 
|
|
|
|
|
From my service days, I heard guys say: "I think I've got the clapp". 
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to the use of these specific words, or are you stating that a language should be static and never change?
In my childhood, the old schoolmaster attitude was common in my country (Norway): The One, True, Correct, Proper way to use the language is as prescribed by a set of definitions in various documents, such as dictionaries.
Over the last fifty years, our attitude has changed from prescriptive to descriptive. If 95% of the speakers of the language uses a construct in an 'improper' way, what is the use of maintaining a rule insisting that they are 'wrong'? Who 'owns' a language - the rule book, or its users? What if 90% break the rule? 70%? 50% and increasing?
At what percentage / time did terrific, in the sense great, become 'proper'? Is its use in the old, proper sense of terrifying now improper use? Another negation: I could care less! has come to mean the same as I couldn't care less! - when did that become proper?
Maybe we should work to reverse all such changes of the language. The question is how far back should we go. Even the English language has changed continuously over the centuries. I have met people who insist, in their Norwegian writing, to use no word that isn't rooted in the pre-1300 Viking Norse language. Actually, almost all from the 'prescriptive' camp can be said to go for a 'descriptive' line, except that the description is of the language two generations back. Certainly not half a generation back, and not four generations, but what the schoolmaster touted as 'proper' when they were grade school kids.
Thirty years ago, Icelandic was one of the 'purest' languages in the Western world: When a new word was about to break into the language, the language program in Icelandic radio announced a competition for a replacement word based on Icelandic traditions. E.g. for 'computer' they took the old word for number, tall, and the word for a mythical truthsayer, volve, and made up the word tölvu, a number-truthsayer, for a computer. To travel is ferðast, so a portable PC is a fartölvu, a travel-number-truthsayer.
Today, Icelandic has more or less given in completely, new words are accepted much more directly. English never even tried to resist change. So I guess any resistance is futile. ("I Got It Bad And That Ain't Good"[^] - composed 81 years ago.)
My own approach is much in harmony with official Norwegian practice: When an imported word comes in widespread use, we make it a 'proper' Norwegian word, but we may adopt a modified Norwegian spelling that harmonizes with our pronunciation rules, and inflected forms are created by Norwegian rules. So some people insist that official Norwegian is 'improper' use, because we e.g. include the plural 's' in the root word: A cap is en caps, and plural caps is capser. Two generations ago, we adopted drops (as in 'fruit drops') and slips (of cloth, tie) as singular forms; today few people are aware that they were originally, and 'properly', plural.
We also accept new meanings of established words, once the new meaning reaches a certain level of usage. Take internet: In my student days, an internet interconnected heterogenous networks of different network protocols and addressing schemes. Nowadays, internet is the homogenous network of a single network protocol and a single addressing scheme. A trailer is the entire truck train, not just the 'real' trail, or even a large truck in a single piece.
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly agree that English needs extensive improvement with thinking and planning. Something new that happens because someone feels it could be an improvement could make things worse. Use of words for multiple purposes are more likely to add to the confusion. Use of got in this different manner adds to the confusion.
An example of a change that does not add value is the use of the apostrophe symbol instead of the quotation symbol for quotes, as in:
'wrong' instead of "wrong"
'proper' instead of "proper"
That change adds no value; it is more likely to cause confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Two things: firstly language isn't planned, it just happens; you can document how it's used at a point in time but that's just a snapshot (and a geographically-specific one).
Secondly (and I can't recall whether I was taught this or heard it) I believe that single quotes are used when quoting phrases etc. and double quotes are used when quoting something that was actually said/written, so we can discuss whether it's correct in general to say 'I got a question' or we can discuss whether Jane was correct to say "I got a question".
Regards
Nelviticus
|
|
|
|
|
In American English at least, double quotes are always used for quotes except in the case of nested quotes, which use single quotes. Using single quotes outside of a larger quote is just plain bad punctuation.
But no one even cares about grammar and spelling anymore, let alone the occult art of punctuation.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Probably programmers have gotten confused by the use of apostrophes for strings in many languages. And confusion like with the use of words can make communication difficult. A language must be understood by everyone using it.
|
|
|
|
|
"I've got news for you."
"I've got a bad feeling about this."
Given that "I've" is a contraction for "I have", this ultimately is the equivalent of "I have got news for you".
I see the former all the time. Not the latter. Are they both wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it safe to say you've gotten annoyed with that usage? 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
