1 3 4 5  7 8 » 32
Laura F Spira typed thus:
Chris Kern typed thus: To my my ear, like the ... yet?" or "Do you know your seven times table yet?"

Yes, I was about to post the same comment but I stopped to ponder the possible reason. I haven't come ... a specific multiplication table, though. But it seems a very long time since I've had any conversations on this topic.

I think you must be right - it's to do with learning by heart, which tends to indicate children. Other items which are possessed are Scales and "Pieces" (I.e. the pieces you need for your music exam). I think I would say these to an adult. Or (Son has his theory test next week): "Have you learned your Highway Code?" Yes, I conclude that we do.
But do we say: "Have you learned your Equations of Motion"?

David
==
It's surely stretching it to claim that "multiply" is "the specialized or technical language of a trade, profession, or similar group".

I didn't make that claim. My claim referred only to arithmetical uses of "multiply", which you can usually spot by the presence of the word "by".

I assumed that is what you meant. The word jargon is inappropriate in that case. If you use the word "jargon" consistently in the way you have done, you may end up claiming that almost everything is jargon.

Are you saying that any technical language used by a social subgroup in the same way it is used by the population as a whole is jargon?
Or is it not a matter of who uses the word, but how it is used?
hey, if my use of the word "jargon" is rubbing people up the wrong way so much, we don't need ... to make a distinction between technical and non-technical uses of a word, whether the technical use is commonplace or not.

But you don't make a similar distinction when considering your alternative use of "times", which is no less technical.

R.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
As I do. I have never before thought of "multiply" ... be very interested to hear from more Rightpondians on this.

You are not alone. What English-speaking child did not learn and use the terms "multiply" and "subtract"? I have never ... I have taught in Brooklyn ever used such a childish expression, but none of them was named "Adrian Bailey" either.

I remember learning "take away" in first grade as a sort of informal equivalent to "minus", and I know I've heard kids use "times" as a verb meaning "multiply", and all that was in Brooklyn (Fourth Largest City in America). However, we learned "subtract", "multiply", etc. from first grade on too.
If you're a New York City mathematics teacher then perhaps you also know "gazinta" (I've heard it claimed that "gazinta" is unique to New York math teachers, but I've seen some evidence that it, or something similar, is found generally in AmE.
To tell you the truth, the format in Latvian schools ... 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 ... as a variant of the minus sign, and until recently it was still used to mean subtraction in some countries.

You are right. I slipped up. The colon it is.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
R J Valentine filted:
} "Times the number by a thousand." } } Is this construction: } } (1) Rural/regional? } (2) Childish/illiterate? } ... and I want to know if I'm out of } line to demand it be reworded..r Of whom? A subordinate?

A colleague from another company we're doing business with...now that I've picked up enough data I can reveal that the author was British, which is why I asked if the usage might be seen differently in the UK than here...and at least one person from the States saw nothing wrong with it; he grew up on a farm in Wisconsin, which is why I wondered about the possibility that it's considered unremarkable in some places..
The same author referred in two places to "numbers" where context made it clear he meant "digits"...(paraphrased example to avoid revealing any business secrets: "add all the numbers in your telephone number")...he also (nearer and dearer to aue hearts) used "less than" when he meant "fewer than"...I let both of these go because they're no worse than most of the specifications floating around this shop..
(Incidentally, "times it by a thousand" was not only semantically troublesome, it was technically wrong as well; the correct instruction would have been "multiply it by ten thousand")..r
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
(Email Removed) posted the following:
Laura F Spira typed thus:

Yes, I was about to post the same comment but ... long time since I've had any conversations on this topic.

I think you must be right - it's to do with learning by heart, which tends to indicate children. Other items which are possessed are Scales and "Pieces" (I.e. the pieces you need for your music exam).

However, I think that "your pieces" is different because the pieces that you play for a music exam probably would vary from person to person, and thus the possessive makes sense.
"your ABCs" is another one.
-Chris
Adrian Bailey wrote on 12 Aug 2004:

I want to know why you assume that "everday speech" is generally sloppy and illiterate sounding, Adrian. Is it because most of the people who use everyday speech are also sloppy and illiterate?

I'd've though that went without saying.
That would be my conclusion. I would never say "There's a lot more rabbits than there used to be". I'd have to say "There are a lot more . . .", so I guess I'm affected.

More strawman rhetoric. Give it a rest, fellas.
Adrian
I didn't make that claim. My claim referred only to ... can usually spot by the presence of the word "by".

I assumed that is what you meant. The word jargon is inappropriate in that case. If you use the word "jargon" consistently in the way you have done, you may end up claiming that almost everything is jargon.

Give up with this ridiculous non-argument. As I've already pointed out, the relevant definition of "multiply" has a classification label in most dictionaries. What general name would you give to the subset of lexemes which have such labels (if not "jargon")?
arithmetic Just because non-mathematicians use it doesn't mean it's not jargon.

Are you saying that any technical language used by a social subgroup in the same way it is used by the population as a whole is jargon?

You've got that the wrong way round. "Multiply (by)" is a mathematical operation which we learn at school.
Or is it not a matter of who uses the word, but how it is used?

Clearly. If I start going on about "factors of five", "right-angles" and "exponential growth" it doesn't matter that I'm not a mathematician, it's still jargon.
hey, if my use of the word "jargon" is rubbing ... a word, whether the technical use is commonplace or not.

But you don't make a similar distinction when considering your alternative use of "times", which is no less technical.

"Times", technical?
Adrian
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
But do we say: "Have you learned your Equations of Motion"?

Only before they're potty-trained.

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Show more