What method do YOU use to create your printable personal family calendar?

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed it as a
typo. The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating
the writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo. I did
notice it the first time, but chose not to comment. FWIW: as a verb,
"loose" means "release" (as in "loose the dogs on him!"), whereas "lose"
means to misplace, be unable to find, etcetera. Said to inform/educate,
not to criticise any one person.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut.

John,

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Not quite. I'm actually Dutch, and only learned English in school starting
when I was 12. Though because I was a voragious reader I ended up with a
nice range of words.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating the
writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo

Spot on.

I even seem to remember having halted and thought about it as being a
problematic word when I was writing my reply. Alas, I either still did
chose (same problem here, single or double "o" - and yes, this time I
googled it :-) ) the wrong word, or my muscle memory typed the second "o"
regardless. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

(Probably better send replies by email, as this has nothing to do with
Windows!)

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Not quite. I'm actually Dutch, and only learned English in school starting
when I was 12. Though because I was a voragious reader I ended up with a
nice range of words.

You speak it like a native. (Well, not quite: natives make more
mistakes!)

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

The text in question was "I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH
actually wants - you will than always loose, as he doesn't even know
himself."

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

The "than" should have been "then". Now, how to remember that -
difficult! I think 'if it's where German (and Dutch?) would have "dann",
English will have "then"' might work. (But I'm then left wondering how
to decide when English _would_ have "than".)

[Re-reading the text, the "to" should have been omitted too - "guess
what", not "guess to what". Possibly "guess as to what" would be OK.
English is certainly difficult!]

The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating the
writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo

Spot on.

I even seem to remember having halted and thought about it as being a
problematic word when I was writing my reply. Alas, I either still did
chose (same problem here, single or double "o" - and yes, this time I
googled it :-) ) the wrong word, or my muscle memory typed the second "o"
regardless. :-\

[I fear you chose the wrong one. Though it's quite complex grammar! If
you'd left out the "did", "chose" would have been correct! But use of
"did" _was_ a good choice! ("I did choose" = "I chose".)]

(-:. It's nice to find someone who _does_ think such things matter.
(Email me if you like with any further queries; I enjoy the subject, and
my mother taught EFL in Germany, so I'm familiar with many of the
problems.)

You and other anglophiles will enjoy
http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html, and might
http://www.theinterpretersfriend.org/misc/humr/eng.html (though it's
from an American viewpoint).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Parkinson: "What caused your conversion to women - was it the love of a good
one?" George Melly: "No the love of several bad ones" (Lizbuff in UMRA
'01-4-25)

"R.Wieser" wrote:

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed
it as a typo.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid - even when pointed
to it. What /should/ it have been (and possibly how do I know / whats the
way to remember it) ?

I don't think I've ever seen you use "then", always "than" sometimes
correctly, often not.

"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or "rather than
this". Otherwise use "Then" when something follows; e.g. "if this is
true then do that" or when talking about a particular time: "it
happened then".

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Mayayana wrote:
"R.Wieser" wrote

| I suggest you do *not* guess to what AGH actually wants - you will than
| always loose, as he doesn't even know himself.
|
Beautifully put. He deals only in the cheap thrill
of vehement certainty.

It'd be nice if "R.Wieser" knew how to spell "lose".

It'd be nice if you would give non-English speakers a break.

I'm pretty sure Rudy is a native-speaker.

Yes, he is, just not a native speaker of *English*! :-)

As Rudy explained, he's Dutch. So am I.

BTW, why no spelling-lame about "than"?

Well spotted! I hadn't, though if I had, I would have dismissed it as a
typo. The loose/lose, however, is a common mistake, usually indicating
the writer thinks he has it correct, rather than just a typo. I did
notice it the first time, but chose not to comment. FWIW: as a verb,
"loose" means "release" (as in "loose the dogs on him!"), whereas "lose"
means to misplace, be unable to find, etcetera. Said to inform/educate,
not to criticise any one person.

FWIW, for me the than/then one is quite easy and I hardly ever get it
wrong. The loose/lose one requires more thought/attention, especially if
loose is not a verb.

But all of this is moot. Apparently Mr. McCormack's brilliant comment
whooshed over all (four so far) our heads, we "totally missed the point"
and aren't worthy of an explanation.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
(Probably better send replies by email, as this has nothing to do with
Windows!)

Considering the OP, *anything* can only be an improvement! :-)

[...]

The "than" should have been "then". Now, how to remember that -
difficult! I think 'if it's where German (and Dutch?) would have "dann",
English will have "then"' might work. (But I'm then left wondering how
to decide when English _would_ have "than".)

The 'problem' stems from the fact that Dutch often uses the same word
('dan') for both than and then (but not always, see last example below).

Borrowing Apd's examples:

"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or "rather than
this". Otherwise use "Then" when something follows; e.g. "if this is
true then do that" or when talking about a particular time: "it
happened then".

In Dutch, these would be (loosely :-) translated) "groter dan 1" [1],
"anders dan dit" [2], "als dit waar is dan doe dat". But in the last
example, we *do* have an equivalent ('toen') of then: "het gebeurde
toen".

[...]

[1] '1' to prevent use of Dutch diacriticals.
[2] "anders" is not quite right, but not relevant for the discission.

John,

You speak it like a native. (Well, not quite: natives make more mistakes!)

:-) Thanks.

I'm not aware of having made a mistake there I'm afraid [snip]

The "than" should have been "then".

I somehow already got that feeling, but even when trying it out in my mind I
had no clue which one was the correct one. :-\ I guess I have to do
some more "X vs Y" googleing-and-reading.

Possibly "guess as to what" would be OK.

That is what I wanted to express, but forgot the exact phrase (the "as").

English is certainly difficult!]

Hah! Than you never tried Dutch! It sometimes seems we have mor
exceptions to a rule than stuff that falls within it. :-)

But yes. Not because of the language, but because non face-to-face
communications causes subtile "/what/ did he just say ?" feedback to get
lost - and with it a signal that I should re-evaluate what I just said.

[I fear you chose the wrong one

Shucks. Now you say it I see that I did (and how). Stupid. Lost sight of
the whole line while focussing on the word.

(-:. It's nice to find someone who _does_ think such things matter.

I do. Not enough to make me anywhere near to a grammar nazi, but (maybe
just) because I want to get a message across as clear as I can.

Thanks for the corrections. Now lets hope I will remember them ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Apd,

"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or
"rather than this". Otherwise use "Then" when something
follows; e.g. "if this is true then do that"

"Than" compares, "then" is about a sequential order. Sounds easy when you
put it like that. :-)

Thanks for the explanation. Don't count on me doing it right from now on,
but I certainly /try/ to remember.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote:
Apd,
"Than" is used when comparing; e.g. "greater than one" or
"rather than this". Otherwise use "Then" when something
follows; e.g. "if this is true then do that"

"Than" compares, "then" is about a sequential order. Sounds easy when you
put it like that. :-)

Thanks for the explanation. Don't count on me doing it right from now on,
but I certainly /try/ to remember.

As a programmer, you should not find it too difficult. Think of how
greater-than () or less-than () symbols and the if-then-else
statement are used.

"R.Wieser" wrote

| I somehow already got that feeling, but even when trying it out in my mind
I
| had no clue which one was the correct one. :-\

Then implies time or "in that case".
Than implies comparison.

If the apples are harder than rocks then it must
be earlier than September. If that's the case then
I won't pick them for more than a month.

My dictionary also lists a second use of than but
it's archaic, or maybe used occasionally in writing,
but not in spoken language:

"Scarcely had I seen her than she spoke to me."

I copied the example from the dictionary because it's
a very specific usage that's hard to get right. It's
especially confusing because it implies time, but
the choice of "than" is justified by a comparison of
sorts: The two facts are unexpected. The statement
isn't focused on the woman having spoken but on
the unexpected, possibly hasty and unsuitable, way
that she spoke quickly.

Funny how the people who take cheap shots
at others almost always then hide under a false
blanket of superiority, as Kenny M did. I don't think
I've ever seen anyone use "whoosh" when it wasn't
an evasion. It's also rude. ("Whoosh! You idiot! You
missed my point altogether. But I won't explain
because I missed it, too! So I'll just call you an idiot.")

I hitchhiked around Europe in the 70s and found the
Dutch to be the easiest people to talk to. So many
people spoke English that I didn't have much trouble.
I even met a very nice man who had pictures of himself
in German SS uniform, proudly displayed on his mantle.
He blurted "Kennedy!" and gave me a thumbs-up. (Strange
how quickly things had changed in just 30 years. And I
was too young to understand what that uniform signified.
I just knew the SS as the bad guys in TV shows.) His
son, who'd given me a ride, spoke English like an American.

But virtually all Dutch I met spoke perfect English. They
explained that they studied 5 languages in school and
that all of those languages were child's play compared to
their own.

Apd,

Think of how greater-than () or less-than ()
symbols and the if-then-else statement are used.

You're sure that isn't "if-thAn-else" :-p

But thanks, such a "real-world" link should make it easier (or at all) to
remember.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mayayana,

If the apples are harder than rocks then it must
be earlier than September. If that's the case then
I won't pick them for more than a month.

Nice sentence. Won't be able to remember it correctly though (too easy to
change a "then" into a "than" or vise-verse)

"Scarcely had I seen her than she spoke to me."

I copied the example from the dictionary because it's
a very specific usage that's hard to get right.
[snip]

:-) Yep, definitily not going to get that one right. Ever.

The explanation you gave (copied?) does sound credible, but all I see is a
sequential event.

Funny how the people who take cheap shots
at others almost always then hide under a false
blanket of superiority, as Kenny M did.

It started with him going grammar nazi on me in response to me pointing out
that he claimed stuff he had no basis for.

Though part of the problem might be that I often forget to put my kid gloves
on when mentioning clinical observations.

The sad thing is that I just wanted to make him aware that he already got
sucked into AGHs style of evoking responses.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "whoosh"
when it wasn't an evasion.

I have. Mostly in response to someone missing the point of a joke (or
example).

It's also rude. ("Whoosh! You idiot! You
missed my point altogether. But I won't explain
because I missed it, too! So I'll just call you an idiot.")

In his case ? Yep. A school example of someone who tries to bluff himself
outof having made a mistake - with the covering-up attempt being a larger
mistake than the origional one ... :-\

Mistakes will be made. As someone long ago once said "what defines you is
not /that/ you make mistakes, but how you deal with them".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mayayana wrote:
[...]
Funny how the people who take cheap shots
at others almost always then hide under a false
blanket of superiority, as Kenny M did. I don't think
I've ever seen anyone use "whoosh" when it wasn't
an evasion. It's also rude. ("Whoosh! You idiot! You
missed my point altogether. But I won't explain
because I missed it, too! So I'll just call you an idiot.")

I sometimes use it, but I only use it on real, certified. idiots! :-)
I'm sure you can come up with someone in that class.

I hitchhiked around Europe in the 70s and found the
Dutch to be the easiest people to talk to. So many
people spoke English that I didn't have much trouble.
I even met a very nice man who had pictures of himself
in German SS uniform, proudly displayed on his mantle.
He blurted "Kennedy!" and gave me a thumbs-up. (Strange
how quickly things had changed in just 30 years. And I
was too young to understand what that uniform signified.
I just knew the SS as the bad guys in TV shows.) His
son, who'd given me a ride, spoke English like an American.

But virtually all Dutch I met spoke perfect English. They
explained that they studied 5 languages in school and
that all of those languages were child's play compared to
their own.

5 languages was probably stretching it. Normally French, German,
English and of course Dutch. And Greek and Latin on a Gymnasium, etc..

And indeed, Dutch isn't a lanuguage, it's a throat disease.

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,

You speak it like a native. (Well, not quite: natives make more mistakes!)

:-) Thanks.

Sometimes that's a givaway for non-native speakers: they make fewer
mistakes. (One of the best-scripted examples I've come across recently
is in the American TV series "NCIS"; the character Ziva David, who is
Israeli, speaks [American] English with just the right level of
differences: it's obviously been thought about hard. [Plus she doesn't
use contractions, and gets idiomatic references wrong, but that latter
is just for comic effect.])
[]
Hah! Than you never tried Dutch! It sometimes seems we have mor
exceptions to a rule than stuff that falls within it. :-)

I have a passing familiarity - oddly, mostly with its written form: when
my parents were moved from Dortmund to Mülheim/Ruhr, we became within
range of Dutch TV, which showed a lot of English (well, mostly American)
material, with the original soundtrack but with Dutch subtitles (this
would have been in the '70s).

And I know about the odd noun-gender thing.

But at least, like most western European languages, it is fairly
phonetic, once one has learnt the rules: I can take a piece of French,
German, or I think Dutch, and read it out reasonably correctly, even if
I don't understand it (I think Spanish or Italian too). Anyone who's
followed the first link I posted in this thread will know English is
_not_ phonetic!

But yes. Not because of the language, but because non face-to-face
communications causes subtile "/what/ did he just say ?" feedback to get
lost - and with it a signal that I should re-evaluate what I just said.

Even face-to-face: I often think our TV and radio interviewers use far
too complex language (I think the word "given" should be banned!) and
especially, don't simplify their language when interviewing a foreigner,
which I think is unforgivable. (I'm talking UK here - I've not seen
American anchorpersons interviewing foreigners, so can't say for there.)

[I fear you chose the wrong one

Shucks. Now you say it I see that I did (and how). Stupid. Lost sight of
the whole line while focussing on the word.

It was a subtlety, which someone who didn't know that "did" - for
emphasis - was right, wouldn't have had to deal with.

(-:. It's nice to find someone who _does_ think such things matter.

I do. Not enough to make me anywhere near to a grammar nazi, but (maybe
just) because I want to get a message across as clear as I can.

That's what I aim for. And try to help others to.

Thanks for the corrections. Now lets hope I will remember them ...

(-:

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Remembrance of things past is not necessarily the remembrance of things as
they were. - Marcel Proust

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
[]
And indeed, Dutch isn't a lanuguage, it's a throat disease.

LOL! Stlll chuckling. Saved (with attribution) to my quotes file.
A friend at university lived in NL (though I think he was British), and
insisted on pronouncing anything Dutch with full phlegm - placenames,
and the Grolsh (beer) he liked.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.