eGorZ
Gold Member | Редактировать | Профиль | Сообщение | ICQ | Цитировать | Сообщить модератору
UKPR
спасибо  только глянул бы для начала в шапку,
и, кстати, попал ты в ветку форума, в которой прорабатываются/обсуждаются все около-Wn98SE паки и ведется их дальнейшая совместная разработка
bredonosec
критика принята - действительно "another=any+other" и "have" там более уместен - виноват - ща исправлю Да и ваще - м.б. нам ещё создать подветку по англ. языку??? 
впрочем, это уже оффтоп ...
ну, чтобы завершить эту тему, небольшая история о развитии современного англ. языка в интернете (читать рекомендую оч.внимательно - чем дальше, тем интереснее )
Цитата: Kud Ve Al Be Rong?
Over the past decade, a debate has raged throughout academic circles
over the consistent decline in the reading and writing skills of
American workers. To remedy this problem, some have suggested
increasing standards, improving schools, and weeding out incompetent
teachers.
Others have argued that sub-standard English is here to stay,
recognize the reality and accept it. You have probably witnessed this
problem first hand. No where is it more evident than in routine memos,
e-mail and performance evaluations written by supervisors, managers
and some higher level executives.
Critics of the English language have often pointed out that English
spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for example: COUGH, PLOUGH,
ROUGH, THROUGH AND THOROUGH. What is clearly needed is a phased
program of changes to iron out these anomalies. Your company could
serve as the "test case" for this new approach. I submit to you that
it will not only reduce time spent on correcting spelling mistakes,
but reduce costs, and improve efficiency. I recommend the formation of
a committee to implement this plan.
In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 'S'
instead of the soft 'C'. Sertainly, your employees in all sities would
resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'C' could be replaced by
'K', sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this
klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters
kould be made with one less letter (kost savings).
There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was
announsed that the troublesome, 'PH' would henseforth be written, 'F'.
This would make words like 'FOTOGRAF' twenty persent shorter in print.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reatsh the stage where more komplikated tshanges are
possible. Your kompany would enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. We would al agre
that the horible mes of silent 'E's in the languag is disgrasful.
Therfor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as though
nothing had hapend.
By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would
be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'TH' by 'Z'. Perhaps zen ze
funktion of 'W' kould be taken on by 'V', vitsh is after al, half of
'W'. Shortly after zis, ze unesasary 'O' kould be dropd from vords
kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters.
Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trublsm
difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze
drems of Mr. Orvel (and Covey) vud finali have kum tru.
No slur intended toward members that aren't fluent in English |
|
Всего записей: 6866 | Зарегистр. 21-10-2003 | Отправлено: 02:30 07-04-2005 | Исправлено: eGorZ, 02:39 07-04-2005 |
|
) 
