On 4/12/2020 23:09, Dave Nadler wrote:> More on logging here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshU58nI0Ts >I like a lot that one of theirs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4d-HSP0wEc
On log or in log?
Started by ●April 11, 2020
Reply by ●April 12, 20202020-04-12
Reply by ●April 12, 20202020-04-12
On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote:> On 4/12/2020 21:34, Rick C wrote: > > On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 11:25:40 AM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: > >> On 4/12/2020 13:18, Richard Owlett wrote: > >>> On 04/11/2020 05:04 PM, Theo wrote: > >>>> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: > >>>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know > >>>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. > >>>>> > >>>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". > >>>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". > >>>>> > >>>>> Phil understood me and his answer was what I was after though. > >>>> > >>>> The etymology is a contraction of log-book, being a book with which you > >>>> record (among other things) the speed of your vessel that you measured by > >>>> throwing wooden logs over the side of the ship and seeing how fast > >>>> they go > >>>> out behind you. > >>>> > >>>> So you would be writing 'in' the log-book and hence writing in the log. > >>>> > >>>> However if it was a log-file rather than a log-book, it wouldn't be > >>>> wrong to > >>>> say you were writing to the log-file and hence writing to the log. > >>>> (and similar for other kinds of objects that don't open and close, like a > >>>> log-chart, log-board or log-sheet) > >>>> > >>>> Hence either of those feel fine to me, but writing 'on' the log doesn't. > >>>> > >>>> Theo > >>>> > >>> > >>> This thread is a chuckle as it proves once again that English is a > >>> strange language. In it "one parks a car in a driveway" while "driving a > >>> car on a parkway". > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Oh it is not just English. All languages I have used (well, just 4) have > >> plenty of lookup table rules. E.g. in German the gender is "by table", > >> more or less like spelling is in English etc. > > > > As long as you mentioned spelling in English, here's a question to represent my long standing frustration with the damn language. (Thanks Britain!) > > > > How do you spell table? How do you spell label? WTF???!!! > > > > How can anyone expect me to memorize a bazillion arbitrary rules like this??? So which similar words are in the table column and how many are in the label column? No wonder hand written letters have gone by the wayside, no spell checker! > > > > I remember the rule for the order of 'i' and 'e' when adjacant... 'I' before 'e' except after 'c' or when it sounds like 'a' as in neighbor and weigh... or some other cases where no rhyming rule has been discovered and a table lookup is required. English has so many of these spelling rule tables that they each need a lable to tell them apart,,, wait each tabel needs a label. No, that's not right... ARRGGGHHH! > > > > I'm done. I'm using sign language from now on. Or is it sine language? -\/\/\/\/\/- > > > > Hmmm, perhaps sign languages have their spelling peculiarities as well, > you never know. > > Having a phonetic alphabet is not such a huge advantage you know. > Bulgarian is strictly phonetic and a huge part of the accent Bulgarians > have - even people who know English well - comes because people deem > sounds which are not in (or on?....) the alphabet non-existent. > This is less valid for Germans though and they do also have a fairly > phonetic use of the Latin alphabet with their extensions to it. > > DimiterSign language, at least in the US, is not phonetic??? How could it be, it's for the deaf. It is like Chinese, a sign for every word. Proper names get spelled out with the English alphabet and spelling. I was taught it has one idiom, "train go sorry" meaning you missed the boat. Again like Asian languages compared to western languages in the use of tones as a main feature of words, facial expressions are a significant part of sign language, it's not just from the hands. I did meet a sign interpreter once who had carpal tunnel syndrome. Irony, no? -- Rick C. -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●April 12, 20202020-04-12
On 13/4/20 2:00 am, David Brown wrote:> On 11/04/2020 23:34, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 4/12/2020 0:10, Dave Nadler wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >>>> Writing a log object (as in log file, say logging accessed addresses >>>> using a browser) and the question "do I put something _on_ the log >>>> or do I put it _in_ the log"is bugging me, >>> >>> Neither! "append to the log" >>> >> >> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >> >> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >> Say, like something is "on the menu". > > Something is in the log, or in the log file.On the other hand it's in the nature of logging that you only ever *append* to it. So what you add is put *on top*. When you've done that, the record is *in* the log - only the last record is ever *on* the log. CH
Reply by ●April 12, 20202020-04-12
On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 7:53:44 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:> On 13/4/20 2:00 am, David Brown wrote: > > On 11/04/2020 23:34, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: > >> On 4/12/2020 0:10, Dave Nadler wrote: > >>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: > >>>> Writing a log object (as in log file, say logging accessed addresses > >>>> using a browser) and the question "do I put something _on_ the log > >>>> or do I put it _in_ the log"is bugging me, > >>> > >>> Neither! "append to the log" > >>> > >> > >> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know > >> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. > >> > >> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". > >> Say, like something is "on the menu". > > > > Something is in the log, or in the log file. > > > On the other hand it's in the nature of logging that you only ever > *append* to it. So what you add is put *on top*. When you've done that, > the record is *in* the log - only the last record is ever *on* the log. > > CHYou should be a boxer. You certainly have the reach! -- Rick C. +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 12/04/2020 17:25, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 4/12/2020 13:18, Richard Owlett wrote: >> On 04/11/2020 05:04 PM, Theo wrote: >>> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >>>> >>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >>>> >>>> Phil understood me and his answer was what I was after though. >>> >>> The etymology is a contraction of log-book, being a book with which you >>> record (among other things) the speed of your vessel that you >>> measured by >>> throwing wooden logs over the side of the ship and seeing how fast >>> they go >>> out behind you. >>> >>> So you would be writing 'in' the log-book and hence writing in the log. >>> >>> However if it was a log-file rather than a log-book, it wouldn't be >>> wrong to >>> say you were writing to the log-file and hence writing to the log. >>> (and similar for other kinds of objects that don't open and close, >>> like a >>> log-chart, log-board or log-sheet) >>> >>> Hence either of those feel fine to me, but writing 'on' the log doesn't. >>> >>> Theo >>> >> >> This thread is a chuckle as it proves once again that English is a >> strange language. In it "one parks a car in a driveway" while "driving >> a car on a parkway". >> >> > > Oh it is not just English. All languages I have used (well, just 4) have > plenty of lookup table rules. E.g. in German the gender is "by table", > more or less like spelling is in English etc. > > To a programmer it is funny that something is "on the menu" and, as it > turned out, "in the log". Suspicious enough to make me ask though :-). > But I did not suspect any part of Theo's explanation of how the word > "log" got the meaning it has in programming today... I did know a log > was some piece of wood but there is no chance I would have made > the leap from piece of wood to throwing some into the water to measure > boat velocity (or sort of). >Here's another piece of odd useless but interesting knowledge. When you throw your logs off the back of the ship to measure your speed, these logs are attached to a knotted piece of rope. Your speed is determined by the number of knots visible above the surface as the log is dragged along (a faster speed will drag the log more, so more knots can be seen). This is the derivation of the unit of speed used for boats - the "knot". The "knot" was standardised to mean "one nautical mile per hour" - where the etymology of "nautical" is completely different, despite having commonality in pronunciation and area of use.
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 12/04/2020 20:59, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 4/12/2020 21:34, Rick C wrote: >> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 11:25:40 AM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >>> On 4/12/2020 13:18, Richard Owlett wrote: >>>> On 04/11/2020 05:04 PM, Theo wrote: >>>>> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >>>>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>>>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the >>>>>> point. >>>>>> >>>>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>>>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil understood me and his answer was what I was after though. >>>>> >>>>> The etymology is a contraction of log-book, being a book with which >>>>> you >>>>> record (among other things) the speed of your vessel that you >>>>> measured by >>>>> throwing wooden logs over the side of the ship and seeing how fast >>>>> they go >>>>> out behind you. >>>>> >>>>> So you would be writing 'in' the log-book and hence writing in the >>>>> log. >>>>> >>>>> However if it was a log-file rather than a log-book, it wouldn't be >>>>> wrong to >>>>> say you were writing to the log-file and hence writing to the log. >>>>> (and similar for other kinds of objects that don't open and close, >>>>> like a >>>>> log-chart, log-board or log-sheet) >>>>> >>>>> Hence either of those feel fine to me, but writing 'on' the log >>>>> doesn't. >>>>> >>>>> Theo >>>>> >>>> >>>> This thread is a chuckle as it proves once again that English is a >>>> strange language. In it "one parks a car in a driveway" while >>>> "driving a >>>> car on a parkway". >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Oh it is not just English. All languages I have used (well, just 4) have >>> plenty of lookup table rules. E.g. in German the gender is "by table", >>> more or less like spelling is in English etc. >> >> As long as you mentioned spelling in English, here's a question to >> represent my long standing frustration with the damn language. >> (Thanks Britain!) >> >> How do you spell table? How do you spell label? WTF???!!! >> >> How can anyone expect me to memorize a bazillion arbitrary rules like >> this??? So which similar words are in the table column and how many >> are in the label column? No wonder hand written letters have gone by >> the wayside, no spell checker!Writing was common long before spelling became standardised, and was originally written mostly phonetically. However, as people travelled far less, there was a lot more variation in dialect and pronunciation around Great Britain. Spelling in English began to solidify more solidly a little before the American colony began to build up more seriously. But the written languages separated somewhat in their details, especially as the British English gained more influence from French (which was considered to be more "cultural" at the time). Thus you write "color", while we have "colour" - the American version is not only more logical, it is arguably more authentic. (Isn't that nice for a change? :-) ) Pronunciation of a language changes faster than written language. It is often the case that words where the spelling now seems illogical or arbitrary, had different pronunciation in the past. (I don't know if that applies to "table" and "label", that they used to have more distinct oral differences.) Another major source of differences is that English is a language that has absorbed words from many other languages - sometimes parts of the spelling come along, sometimes parts of the pronunciation. We've got the spelling of "knot" from the Germanic (or Old Norse), but lost the pronunciation of the "k". Finally, one aspect where English differs from some other languages is that there has never been any kind of official or authoritative body that defines the spelling. It has emerged from usage, rather than being standardised or defined as has happened in some countries.>> >> I remember the rule for the order of 'i' and 'e' when adjacant... 'I' >> before 'e' except after 'c' or when it sounds like 'a' as in neighbor >> and weigh... or some other cases where no rhyming rule has been >> discovered and a table lookup is required. English has so many of >> these spelling rule tables that they each need a lable to tell them >> apart,,, wait each tabel needs a label. No, that's not right... >> ARRGGGHHH! >> >> I'm done. I'm using sign language from now on. Or is it sine >> language? -\/\/\/\/\/- >> > > Hmmm, perhaps sign languages have their spelling peculiarities as well, > you never know.They do. They also have grammar peculiarities - grammar in sign languages rarely matches closely with grammar in the spoken language of their country. American Sign Language is completely different from British Sign Language. ASL is related to French sign language and has a grammar similar to spoken Japanese. Deaf people in Madagascar use a language very similar to Norwegian sign language.> > Having a phonetic alphabet is not such a huge advantage you know.I know. Norwegian is written very closely to the way it is pronounced, but I am as bad at spelling it as I am at spelling in English. (I am a /huge/ fan of spell chequers!)> Bulgarian is strictly phonetic and a huge part of the accent Bulgarians > have - even people who know English well - comes because people deem > sounds which are not in (or on?....) the alphabet non-existent. > This is less valid for Germans though and they do also have a fairly > phonetic use of the Latin alphabet with their extensions to it. >That is a common problem between languages, independent of the way they are written. There are a great many phonemes used in oral languages around the world, of which any one language only uses a certain number. As a baby (peaking at about 6 months, and mostly finished by around 2 years), your ears are trained to distinguish the phonemes you hear spoken around you. After that, it gets progressively more and more difficult to hear phonemes that are new to you, and thus you will always have difficulty making all the right sounds for languages you learned beyond your first few years of life.
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 12/04/2020 20:51, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 4/12/2020 19:00, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/04/2020 23:34, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>> On 4/12/2020 0:10, Dave Nadler wrote: >>>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >>>>> Writing a log object (as in log file, say logging accessed addresses >>>>> using a browser) and the question "do I put something _on_ the log >>>>> or do I put it _in_ the log"is bugging me, >>>> >>>> Neither! "append to the log" >>>> >>> >>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >>> >>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >> >> Something is in the log, or in the log file. >> >> "On the log" brings up images of sitting round a campfire... >> > > Hah, this is the thing with non-native speakers like myself. > There is always a giveaway, no matter what. May be not as funny > as this logging data around the campfire but there always is :-). >On the other hand, non-native speakers can often find puns that would never occur to a native speaker because the native interprets the intended meanings of words rather than the literal meanings. It can be great fun trying to make literal translations of idioms or swear words, phrases and insults between languages.
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 4/13/2020 16:47, David Brown wrote:> On 12/04/2020 20:51, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >> On 4/12/2020 19:00, David Brown wrote: >>> On 11/04/2020 23:34, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: >>>> On 4/12/2020 0:10, Dave Nadler wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 12:33:44 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >>>>>> Writing a log object (as in log file, say logging accessed addresses >>>>>> using a browser) and the question "do I put something _on_ the log >>>>>> or do I put it _in_ the log"is bugging me, >>>>> >>>>> Neither! "append to the log" >>>>> >>>> >>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >>>> >>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >>> >>> Something is in the log, or in the log file. >>> >>> "On the log" brings up images of sitting round a campfire... >>> >> >> Hah, this is the thing with non-native speakers like myself. >> There is always a giveaway, no matter what. May be not as funny >> as this logging data around the campfire but there always is :-). >> > > On the other hand, non-native speakers can often find puns that would > never occur to a native speaker because the native interprets the > intended meanings of words rather than the literal meanings. It can be > great fun trying to make literal translations of idioms or swear words, > phrases and insults between languages. > >I do have fun mixing languages but not making puns, I suppose the most notable way is that I love to use Bulgarian vocative on German and English names, mostly on players when I am watching football on TV. The first time I did it - and discovered what fun it was - was on a technician we had in Cologne, must have been 1991, Achim. A very nice guy and a diligent technician - human and thus not infallible though, he would sometimes forget to solder one of the sides of a PLCC. New product boards which would not just work came to the design engineer, i.e. me - and when I saw the culprit - was during the night, me alone at the firm - I exclaimed "Achime Achime what have you done here". One would expect a 100 year old gradnma who never left her remote village nor had access to any media to use vocative like that; I enjoy doing it to this day. Then I had "Kevine" (Kevin Philips), Alane (Alan Shearer, my all time favourite player) etc. etc. And then there are annoying names which can't get a proper Bulgarian vocative, like Didier (Drogba), never figred that one out... Dimiter
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 4/12/2020 11:25, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> On 4/12/2020 13:18, Richard Owlett wrote: >> On 04/11/2020 05:04 PM, Theo wrote: >>> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >>>> >>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >>>> >>>> Phil understood me and his answer was what I was after though. >>> >>> The etymology is a contraction of log-book, being a book with which you >>> record (among other things) the speed of your vessel that you >>> measured by >>> throwing wooden logs over the side of the ship and seeing how fast >>> they go >>> out behind you. >>> >>> So you would be writing 'in' the log-book and hence writing in the log. >>> >>> However if it was a log-file rather than a log-book, it wouldn't be >>> wrong to >>> say you were writing to the log-file and hence writing to the log. >>> (and similar for other kinds of objects that don't open and close, >>> like a >>> log-chart, log-board or log-sheet) >>> >>> Hence either of those feel fine to me, but writing 'on' the log doesn't. >>> >>> Theo >>> >> >> This thread is a chuckle as it proves once again that English is a >> strange language. In it "one parks a car in a driveway" while "driving >> a car on a parkway". >> >> > > Oh it is not just English. All languages I have used (well, just 4) have > plenty of lookup table rules. E.g. in German the gender is "by table", > more or less like spelling is in English etc. > > To a programmer it is funny that something is "on the menu" and, as it > turned out, "in the log". Suspicious enough to make me ask though :-). > But I did not suspect any part of Theo's explanation of how the word > "log" got the meaning it has in programming today... I did know a log > was some piece of wood but there is no chance I would have made > the leap from piece of wood to throwing some into the water to measure > boat velocity (or sort of). > > Dimiter > > The log was usually tied to a long rope with knots tied in it at knownintervals. You would drop the log overboard and count the knots to determine the vessel's speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_log -- Best wishes, --Phil pomartel At Comcast(ignore_this) dot net
Reply by ●April 13, 20202020-04-13
On 4/12/2020 17:59, Rick C wrote:> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:59:17 PM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >> On 4/12/2020 21:34, Rick C wrote: >>> On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 11:25:40 AM UTC-4, Dimiter wrote: >>>> On 4/12/2020 13:18, Richard Owlett wrote: >>>>> On 04/11/2020 05:04 PM, Theo wrote: >>>>>> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote: >>>>>>> I see now I put my question in a misleading way. Obviously I know >>>>>>> to "write to the log", append to the log etc., this was not the point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should have asked "is something in the log or is it on the log". >>>>>>> Say, like something is "on the menu". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil understood me and his answer was what I was after though. >>>>>> >>>>>> The etymology is a contraction of log-book, being a book with which you >>>>>> record (among other things) the speed of your vessel that you measured by >>>>>> throwing wooden logs over the side of the ship and seeing how fast >>>>>> they go >>>>>> out behind you. >>>>>> >>>>>> So you would be writing 'in' the log-book and hence writing in the log. >>>>>> >>>>>> However if it was a log-file rather than a log-book, it wouldn't be >>>>>> wrong to >>>>>> say you were writing to the log-file and hence writing to the log. >>>>>> (and similar for other kinds of objects that don't open and close, like a >>>>>> log-chart, log-board or log-sheet) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hence either of those feel fine to me, but writing 'on' the log doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Theo >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This thread is a chuckle as it proves once again that English is a >>>>> strange language. In it "one parks a car in a driveway" while "driving a >>>>> car on a parkway". >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh it is not just English. All languages I have used (well, just 4) have >>>> plenty of lookup table rules. E.g. in German the gender is "by table", >>>> more or less like spelling is in English etc. >>> >>> As long as you mentioned spelling in English, here's a question to represent my long standing frustration with the damn language. (Thanks Britain!) >>> >>> How do you spell table? How do you spell label? WTF???!!! >>> >>> How can anyone expect me to memorize a bazillion arbitrary rules like this??? So which similar words are in the table column and how many are in the label column? No wonder hand written letters have gone by the wayside, no spell checker! >>> >>> I remember the rule for the order of 'i' and 'e' when adjacant... 'I' before 'e' except after 'c' or when it sounds like 'a' as in neighbor and weigh... or some other cases where no rhyming rule has been discovered and a table lookup is required. English has so many of these spelling rule tables that they each need a lable to tell them apart,,, wait each tabel needs a label. No, that's not right... ARRGGGHHH! >>> >>> I'm done. I'm using sign language from now on. Or is it sine language? -\/\/\/\/\/- >>> >> >> Hmmm, perhaps sign languages have their spelling peculiarities as well, >> you never know. >> >> Having a phonetic alphabet is not such a huge advantage you know. >> Bulgarian is strictly phonetic and a huge part of the accent Bulgarians >> have - even people who know English well - comes because people deem >> sounds which are not in (or on?....) the alphabet non-existent. >> This is less valid for Germans though and they do also have a fairly >> phonetic use of the Latin alphabet with their extensions to it. >> >> Dimiter > > Sign language, at least in the US, is not phonetic??? How could it be, it's for the deaf. It is like Chinese, a sign for every word. Proper names get spelled out with the English alphabet and spelling. > > I was taught it has one idiom, "train go sorry" meaning you missed the boat. > > Again like Asian languages compared to western languages in the use of tones as a main feature of words, facial expressions are a significant part of sign language, it's not just from the hands. > > I did meet a sign interpreter once who had carpal tunnel syndrome. Irony, no? >There are two forms of sign language in the US (and I believe in many other places) There is "fingrspelling" and ASL (American Sign Language) https://www.lifeprint.com/ -- Best wishes, --Phil pomartel At Comcast(ignore_this) dot net
