1 2 3  5 6 7 » 32
I'm sorry if you can't cope with my using the word "jargon" non-pejoratively. "Jargon" is "the specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group" (AHD4).

And so "multiply" isn't jargon.
Thank you for so successfully undermining your own argument.

R.
I'm sorry if you can't cope with my using the ... technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group" (AHD4).

And so "multiply" isn't jargon. Thank you for so successfully undermining your own argument.

I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but perhaps you'd care to explain.
Adrian
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
And so "multiply" isn't jargon. Thank you for so successfully undermining your own argument.

I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but perhaps you'd care to explain.

It's surely stretching it to claim that "multiply" is "the specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group". Non-mathematicians use it regularly, both when talking about the arithmetic operation ("The cost per person is $30. When you multiply that by the number of people in the group, it's quite a lot of money"), and general increase in numbers ("The local rabbit population has multiplied dramatically in recent years").
I personally never use "times" as a verb, although I don't particularly have a problem with people doing so in everyday speech (I notice that the 4 online dicitonaries I checked don't even recognise this use).
I personally never use "times" as a verb, although I don't particularlyhave a problem with people doing so in everyday speech (I notice that the 4 online dicitonaries I checked don't even recognise this use).

Further on this, obviously "to times" as a verb is quite problematic when you come to conjugating it.
Or is it just the word "multiply" that's jargon, while "multiplied" and "multiplying", not having any substitutes, are non-jargon?
{snipped}
To my co-workers from India, by the way, "into" indicates multiplication. If they said "4 into 90", the answer would be 360.

I had a Nigerian calculus teacher who used 'into' that way, mostly in contexts of distribution- c(a+b)= ca+cb was c into a+b.
john
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
CyberCypher premed:
John Dean wrote on 12 Aug 2004:

Harpo

Zippo

Karl

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
John Dean premed:
Multiply, Divide, Add and Subtract are what I use; Times and Share sound ignorant. I can't think of an equivalent for Add;

'Plus' as in 'Do we plus all these numbers or times them together?'

Plus? Plus is jargon. Where did you learn your add-ups?

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au And the LORD said to Adam, "Go forth and times it".
} "Times the number by a thousand."
}
} Is this construction:
}
} (1) Rural/regional?
} (2) Childish/illiterate?
} (3) Jargonistic?
} (4) Pondially differentiated?
}
} It came up in a document here at work yesterday and I want to know if I'm out of } line to demand it be reworded..r
Of whom? A subordinate?

R. J. Valentine
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I was taught to take it more step-by-step in the "long division". 22.5 4>90 8 10 8 20 20 0

Sorry, that's what I meant (except that ">" would be ")" probably just because that character was present on typewriters). I'm not used to doing long division with numbers small enough I can get the final answer in my head, and absentmindedly inserted the first partial result for dividing 22 into 90!
To tell you the truth, the format in Latvian schools was like: 90 ÷ 4 = 22.5 8 10 8 20 20 0

With a division sign as we know it? My understanding is that most European languages use a colon (:) for division. Our division sign (÷) seems to have started as a variant of the minus sign, and until recently it was still used to mean subtraction in some countries.
Mark Brader, Toronto "History will be kind to me, for I intend (Email Removed) to write it." Churchill

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Show more