No substantive comment.
But your addendum does bring to mind Gilbert and Sullivan (HMS Pinafore):
"
I am never known to quail At the fury of a gale, And I'm never, never sick
at sea! Chorus. What, never? Captain. No, never! Chorus. What, never?
Captain. Hardly ever! "
https://www.letssingit.com/
How about "Physics / politics / economics are my favoruite subject"?
Might be fun to see how long we could make that list. It seems to be
a fact of life that it's impossible to make a (useful) language that
has totally consistent grammar.
Something else to consider:I knew an English teacher wh
I’m surprised no on has reference the F distribution where the degrees of
freedom are manifestly plural.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 25, 2018, at 6:05 PM, John wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:16:24 -0400
> JRG wrote:
>
>>> On 06/24/2018 08:03 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
>>> Ted, et. al.:
>>>
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:16:24 -0400
JRG wrote:
> On 06/24/2018 08:03 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
> > Ted, et. al.:
> >
> > Re: "Data is" vs "data are" ... Heh heh!
> >
> > "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
> > (Attributed to Churchill in one form or another, likely w
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:46:07 +1200
Rolf Turner wrote:
> Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
> degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
>
I've leaned to differentiating between one degree of freedom and
multiple degrees of freedom and, when needed, phrase what I w
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:08 PM Michael Sumner wrote:
> No it isn't. Your stature is diminished by hateful behaviour.
>
I will most likely also be labelled "hateful" for saying this, but I found
Rolf's post to be accurate, although phrased in a bit of an elitist way.
Being a bit of a grammar N
No it isn't. Your stature is diminished by hateful behaviour.
Cheers, Mike
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 07:26 Rolf Turner, wrote:
> On 25/06/18 12:03, Bert Gunter wrote:
> > Ted, et. al.:
> >
> > Re: "Data is" vs "data are" ... Heh heh!
> >
> > "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will
On 25/06/18 12:03, Bert Gunter wrote:
Ted, et. al.:
Re: "Data is" vs "data are" ... Heh heh!
"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
(Attributed to Churchill in one form or another, likely wrongly.)
See here for some semi-authoritative dicussion:
http://www.onlineg
On 06/24/2018 08:03 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
> Ted, et. al.:
>
> Re: "Data is" vs "data are" ... Heh heh!
>
> "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
> (Attributed to Churchill in one form or another, likely wrongly.)
>
> See here for some semi-authoritative dicussion
Ted, et. al.:
Re: "Data is" vs "data are" ... Heh heh!
"This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
(Attributed to Churchill in one form or another, likely wrongly.)
See here for some semi-authoritative dicussion:
http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/top-10-grammar-myths-data-
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:46 +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
> Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
> degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
>
> Although value of "degrees of freedom" is a single number, the first
> formulation sounds very odd to my ear.
>
> I would li
(I suspect there will be much disagreement about "is" vs. "are".)
I'd say something like "the parameter degrees of freedom is defined to
be ..."
---JRG
On 06/24/2018 05:46 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
> degrees of freedom are
I would use "the number of degrees of freedom is defined... ".
Peter
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:46 PM Rolf Turner wrote:
>
>
> Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
> degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
>
> Although value of "degrees of freedom" is a single numbe
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 at 14:46, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
>
> Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
> degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
"are", the noun in your statement is "degrees", while the fragment "of
freedom" acts as an adjective, narrowing the scope of the te
On 24/06/2018 5:46 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
Although value of "degrees of freedom" is a single number, the first
formulation sounds very odd to my ear.
I would like to call upon the colle
Does/should one say "the degrees of freedom is defined to be" or "the
degrees of freedom are defined to be"?
Although value of "degrees of freedom" is a single number, the first
formulation sounds very odd to my ear.
I would like to call upon the collective wisdom of the R community to
he
16 matches
Mail list logo
