"Five of Nine" equals what time?

[CZroe]

[bracing myself for impact...]

Seeing your text in quotes while I post a reply, I notice you double-space between sentences. Someone told you that was "correct" or "proper."

Despite what teachers may have told you, double-spacing is only "correct" for fixed-width monospaced fonts and old typewriters. It's also futile to double-space online because all web browsers convert 2+ spaces into 1 while rendering HTML code.

People are surprisingly contentious when they learn that it's not actually required to be correct/proper -- because their teachers taught them to use 2 spaces. At least that doesn't lead to confusion in communication, so there's really no important reason to stop doing it. Saying "[x] of [y]," however, will frequently be misunderstood and you should avoid using it if you want to communicate as effectively as possible. Clearly you do not wish to communicate as effectively as possible.

What did you do?!

 

[Matthiasa]

It looks correct when not on a phone.
He really did add either a tab or a ton of spaces before each word.

 

[Ichinisan]

It looks correct when not on a phone.
He really did add either a tab or a ton of spaces before each word.

:sneaky:

 

[JujuFish]

[bracing myself for impact...]

Seeing your text in quotes while I post a reply, I notice you double-space between sentences. Someone told you that was "correct" or "proper."

Despite what teachers may have told you, double-spacing is only "correct" for fixed-width monospaced fonts and old typewriters. It's also futile to double-space online because all web browsers convert 2+ spaces into 1 while rendering HTML code.

People are surprisingly contentious when they learn that it's not actually required to be correct/proper -- because their teachers taught them to use 2 spaces. At least that doesn't lead to confusion in communication, so there's really no important reason to stop doing it. Saying "[x] of [y]," however, will frequently be misunderstood and you should avoid using it if you want to communicate as effectively as possible. Clearly you do not wish to communicate as effectively as possible.

On your first point: Thank you, Captain Obvious.
On your second: I don't even say "of", but I do make it a habit to learn something when I don't understand it. Taking your argument to the extreme, we should all just reduce our language to its most basic form, because we can't possibly bear the thought of being misunderstood due to someone else's ignorance. Heaven forbid we use any fancy words around these parts. I JujuFish. You Ichinisan. We make words together. Hi!

 

[CZroe]

On your first point: Thank you, Captain Obvious.
On your second: I don't even say "of", but I do make it a habit to learn something when I don't understand it. Taking your argument to the extreme, we should all just reduce our language to its most basic form, because we can't possibly bear the thought of being misunderstood due to someone else's ignorance. Heaven forbid we use any fancy words around these parts. I JujuFish. You Ichinisan. We make words together. Hi!

Excuse me but that usage for "of" has no other meaning in any other context, directly contradicts other established meaning for the word, and can only be understood with prior knowledge of this originally incorrect usage. Because it has no redeeming value and there are multiple superior alternatives which make perfect sense even without having heard them used to tell time before, there is no reason for this one to exist and no reason for it to be perpetuated. Cut it out.

It was originally used IMPROPERLY and got perpetuated enough in a small region to get its own entry in the dictionary despite most of the country and the rest of the English-speaking world having no idea what it means.

If I start using "one-third OF the way" to mean "one third OF the way remains" instead of the established usage meaning "one-third OF the way completed" and enough people start using it incorrectly that it becomes understood and dominant in a particular region, it makes NO SENSE to defend it and try to perpetuate it in other regions. Cut it out.

Cut it.

Out.

Cut it out.

The fact remains: Most people have no idea what you are talking about. Defend it all you want but it only makes you look like the less-informed one until you acknowledge this.

 

[JujuFish]

It doesn't matter how its use started, the fact remains that the definition of "of" in reference to time is in every credible English dictionary on the planet. The fact that you won't accept it doesn't make it any less legitimate an option. Sorry if that's not something you want to hear, but linguistics isn't beholden to your beliefs.

 

[CZroe]

It doesn't matter how its use started, the fact remains that the definition of "of" in reference to time is in every credible English dictionary on the planet. The fact that you won't accept it doesn't make it any less legitimate an option. Sorry if that's not something you want to hear, but linguistics isn't beholden to your beliefs.

Ha! The only belief I am challenging is the one where clueless people assume it is understood. Look back to the beginning of this thread at how many people CLUELESSLY thought it was the dominant way to tell time while having NO IDEA that they were sorely mistaken and frequently misunderstood outside of their small region. Perknose himself thought this with all his wisdom and years on this planet! Isn't it great to have your eyes opened?! Now: what are you going to do with your new-found knowledge? Continue acting like there isn't a problem when there demonstrably is?

As for every dictionary going to "11-b" lengths to define "Of:" LOL!

 

[JujuFish]

First, you seem to have missed the fact that I don't use the word.

Second, you also seem to be assuming that I believe it's universally understood.

Third, when the problem is ignorance, the cure is information.

Fourth, would you care to tell me of a dictionary that doesn't include it? Because it's in Merriam-Webster's, Random House's, Cambridge's, the OED's, as well as every dictionary on the first page of Google.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, dear God, not that site again.

That's the same place where that idiotic lie started about the effectiveness of blowing on Nintendo Entertainment System carts being a placebo reinforced by confirmation bias. Then we got PBS doing YouTube specials based on that lie but presenting it as truth to teach about confirmation bias.

It's not that hard to remove reseating as a factor and actually do some damned testing!

DUDE!


You are such a nerd!

 

[CZroe]

First, you seem to have missed the fact that I don't use the word.

Second, you also seem to be assuming that I believe it's universally understood.

Then why are you challenging people for telling others that they are wrong to assume that or behave that way?

Third, when the problem is ignorance, the cure is information.

Which is why I'm sharing information that some people aren't willing to accept.

Fourth, would you care to tell me of a dictionary that doesn't include it? Because it's in Merriam-Webster's, Random House's, Cambridge's, the OED's, as well as every dictionary on the first page of Google.

There is a such thing as abridged and pocket dictionary.
Also:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/learner/of

 

[CZroe]

DUDE!


You are such a nerd!

Yup.

 

[JujuFish]

Then why are you challenging people for telling others that they are wrong to assume that or behave that way?

Other than my initial response to your brother using the word ignorance, which I found amusing, I have only been responding to people who've been responding to me. I'm not challenging anyone for spreading information. It's good to know that you might not be understood if you use a word a certain way; it's not good to try forcing someone to not use a word because you didn't understand the meaning.

Which is why I'm sharing information that some people aren't willing to accept.

See above, I'm all for spreading information.

There is a such thing as abridged and pocket dictionary.
Also:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/learner/of

True, I'm not going to check abridged or pocket dictionaries to verify, but I would also be inclined to look in more thorough dictionaries if the one I chose wasn't helpful. With smartphones and internet access to dictionaries, that's not really a problem.
Also: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/of

 

[Matthiasa]

You do know the oxford dictionary adds any and every word ever used in any way ever used whether it is correct or not. Take a look of some of their recent additions...

It is also not the Oxford English dictionary which is still requires subscription.

But maybe more important:

Our people and our heritage – More than 250 language specialists research the language as it changes and develops every day. As the creators of the OED, we take pride in our language expertise, and we strive to bring the results of our daily research straight to you in the format you choose.

Global reach, local knowledge – We have dedicated dictionary offices throughout the world, from the UK and the US to South Africa, Australia, India, and Canada. Our teams of international experts monitor the latest language trends in English and other languages worldwide, from the moment they appear.

To reiterate that means as previously stated it does not matter if it correct or not they will add it.

 

[WelshBloke]

You do know the oxford dictionary adds any and every word ever used in any way ever used whether it is correct or not. Take a look of some of their recent additions...

I bet cockwomble isn't in there, I use that quite a bit.

 

[zinfamous]

I bet cockwomble isn't in there, I use that quite a bit.

You should send a formal request

 

[WelshBloke]

You should send a formal request

Excellent!

I shall make a list.

Cockwomble
Arsebiscuits
Chuffluffer

Any other suggestions?

 

[Ichinisan]

This thread erases all doubt that it is frequently misunderstood. If you want to communicate effectively, conveying a thought in a way that ensures comprehension, then don't say "of." Simple as that. You can still say it if you want to.

That 11-b definition is the only example of the word "of" being used that way, so it's nearly impossible for someone to determine your meaning if they were unfamiliar with that usage unless they look-up the word "of" (why would they?) and read every possible definition. If a lot of people have to do that to understand what you said, you have failed to effectively communicate what you intended to say.

I challenge anyone to identify an inaccuracy in this statement.

 

[Excelsior]

I'm just going to say I've never heard anyway my generation or younger, particularly in my region, use "of" like this.

 

[Chiropteran]

My mom used to talk like that. When she said we are leaving a quarter of 8, I'd just assume she meant 2. I refused to learn it in the broken form because it sounds stupid.