Speech Pathology Cute Quotes

Comment Úbeda:

Commentary post Rowing megapenique The project

What he says about the SAR's next. The DRAE

:

billion ( Del fr. milliard).
1. m. Econ. billion. One billion pesos.

In doubts panhispánico Dictionary:

billion. Graphic Adaptation French voice milliard, 'Billion (10 9)': "Gross [...] stood at 1.1 billion (1146 million) dollars' ( National [Ven.] 20/12/1996). Recent addition is the voice of the English, whose use is recommended to banish the use of the word billion this sense, tracing American English objectionable and that may lead to dangerous confusion (v. billion).

billion. Voice from French billion, 'a million million (10 12). " It is unacceptable to use in English with the meaning of 'Billion', which is the one with the word billion in American English. In the latter regard, the voice should be used billion (v. billion), also from the French or the English equivalent one billion .

What does my highly respected Martínez de Sousa in Dictionary of English customs and current questions is:

billion. 'thousand million. "

• Apparently, the Academy hosted the word in December 1995 with the meaning that is targeted to academic Venezuelan proposal of Rafael Caldera, who was then president of that country. It is a mistake. The word billion, creating what scholars believe, it solves the problem of billion U.S., but rather to complicate things. The doubt lies not in use the spelling or one billion billion , but knowing when billion means' thousand million ', according to American usage, and when' a million millions ", according to the most widely used in Europe . (V. BILLION.) Using either term would be immaterial if it were not billion is a word of foreign origin do not need at all.

billion. 'A million million. "

• In the U.S., billion is equivalent to 'Billion', not 'a trillion', as in Europe. The American billion has become a paronym interlingual or false friend for many translators. Commenting on the problem that the word has, Jesus de la Serna, defender readers El País (07/02/1993, 12), says: "However, long ago in the United Kingdom is used increasingly mode billion U.S. (1000 million). Just take a look at the British press every day. In the prestigious Collins (edition 1988) and noted that the United States "now often" in the UK a billion are 1000 million. " According ensures urgent English Manual, also occurs in Portugal and Italy. In any case, hopefully, as often happens, the context must be considered to clarify whether billion relates to one billion or a trillion. [...] It would also have to wonder if the European Union legislate to end this disparity in the significant value of the words used internationally.

to vary not agree with the SAR and other with Sousa. Indeed, years ago I translate from French and English, and I've never needed to use the buzzword billion. The problem is knowing what you're talking about, not how to write in Castilian. And if you're in a specialized context, it is more common to pass numbers. If you are 36 or milliards billions U.S. 000 million write '36 'and you get so wide.

How To Make A Helmet Cake

billion CPL Clinic: Clinic

Good!

Yes, I have risen! After a few weeks of intensive and extensive, I can go back to my dear blog ... I hope that your feelings of abandonment have not been turned into despair or, worse, contempt. I wish I could promise bitacoril some continuity in the future, but I think it will be no ... My dedication can only be erratic, so I hope we enjoy our meetings Cybersphere despite their intermittency.

To return, I thought it best to answer some of the consultations I have been receiving CPL. Let's start with Paul. On February 11 I sent the following message:

one and a half I've been studying and living in English often and everywhere I see English people do not clearly separates the syllables when a word is cut between two lines. Let me explain: in Castilian have clearly defined syllables, so that if writing a short text must be cut between two lines, include the hyphen between two syllables and you're done.

[...] When I read in English, I also see this separation of syllables, but without any logic that can decode. I do not get that matches the way I divide the syllables in a word. And I go crazy because I find it horrible to behold. When I saw it on blogs or sites is not very purists thought it might be a error, but I time reading The Economist and here too I see it, and continuously. And The Economist The Economist is ... I can not believe that mistake over and over. A couple of examples (taken from the edition of The Economist 4 to February 10 this year):

1) "... America's Economic Performance for years, warn-ing about the
the trade deficit .. .

2) "It Seems That Extremely unlikely cultural vital-ity will somehow renew
European Ideals ..."

3) "... Had Islam and barely Mentioned
NORTH-ing to say about the challenge ..."

Only these three examples, I think you know what I mean. I'm surprised, it almost hurts to look at, and do not know if it's because I hardly see the logic and rules of hyphenation English or who do not have any rules and separates which is best suited to the editor. Do you know anything about it?

Paul, I hope you are reader of Asterix, because the answer to your question is simply this: "These Anglophones are crazy!". The thing is yes there are some rules, but extremely complicated. Nothing to do with the clean simplicity of the Castilian. It's like spelling: to not be based on phonetics systematically, is a nightmare. Therefore, in the movies American many times we spelling contests , poorly translated by spelling bees, spelling bees are. It is something that our society simply can not give: our spelling is too easy and systematic as to give rise to a contest.

For the hyphenation of words, in English, the complexity is given for the various English dialects differ: in American English, are based on sound, while British English of the etymology of the word, then fixed on phonics. Moreover, there are many exceptions.

Ultimately, it is not something you can easily understand. So the Word counts among its tools Hyphenation function and, indeed, many dictionaries addressing the issue. If you want a quick reference, please consult the Merriam-Webster OnLine where dots indicated by the hyphenation of words. But note that the reference is American, so probably will not match separations The Economist (for the Oxford Dictionary Inglés, subscribe).

remember one English class someone asked the teacher about this issue and his response was: "Never remove the words I myself know how it's done! ". ***

Let's go to another query, it also has to do with the scripts. Suka sent me the following message:

My question is about the compound words have been written in so many ways (together, separated by a hyphen or space separated) that I ended up doubting and not knowing how to write. For example: geochronology, geo-chronology or geo chronology. The truth is that most of the time I opt for the script but do not really know where I draw, and I'm not sure that's the right thing. When post-depositional write and read elsewhere posdeposicional I have doubts.

First, I wanted to tell you I was surprised by the examples of your question: when you use the word posdeposicional ?

;-) Regarding your question, I will say that the rule is that no separate or hyphenated let alone with a space (that never!). To see where the script itself is used, you can check out the article on the script doubts panhispánico Dictionary.

***

few weeks ago, my dear Remo forwarded me the following message Gexplorer:

time I have a doubt hanging around the head. There are in our daily lives a little effervescent tablets that when you enter effervescing water, but what is the explanation that does not exist in our precious language the verb randy? What do they do these pills then? If a pill take consciousness itself could not say " efervezco, therefore I am " ?

In this case, the answer is simple: the question is yes there is. Not in the dictionary does not mean that there is. Surely it is not included since it is very common that the pills are aware of themselves and put Cartesian ... ;-) But I guess everything will come ...

addition, the strangest thing is that the effervescent adjective comes precisely from a verb: the present participle of the Latin verb effervescere , 'start to boil. " The termination -body tells you: as a lover (the lover), absorbent (the absorbing) or fluorescent (which glows, verb itself which is reflected in the María Moliner). Finally, it is worth saying that effervescent has a common root and fervent fervor : all Fervens from , -NTIS , present participle of fervere , 'boil'.

***

The following query is also answered in the etymology. March 22 Omalaled I asked:

You see, I have understood that all the superlatives of adjectives that have ue are changed by a or , for example: new , newest ; of good , bonísimo ; of strong, very strong , etc. Everything was fine and the world of letters was wonderful ... until I found that is most cruel cruel , which seems to be an exception.

The question is: Does the rule changes ue or correct?
In this case, is most cruel the only exception?

The answer to your question requires an investment of around factors. I mean, the rule is not to switch to ue or, rather the reverse. One of phonological processes is characteristic of Castilian diphthongization: the process by which some vowels ( or in this case) from the Latin have ended up turning into a diphthong (ue ). It also happens in the inflected forms of some verbs: for example, p and nsar , ie p nso. I do not remember what the exact rules of this process ("a specialist in the history of English phonetics between these?), But the point is that diphthongization occurs with some vocal Latin phonetic or chains. And I say that is characteristic of the Castilian language because it is the only Latina who has been so widespread that phonetic evolution: One of the reasons (besides the great influence of Arabic lexical) by which speakers of other languages \u200b\u200bso hard Latinas understand Castilian (much more than vice versa). That is also why it is a nightmare to study the Castilian conjugates when it is not your native language.

The examples you used, note that the original words were novus, bonus and fortis. And the point is that, unlike the adjective that it has diphthong the superlative is not, and maintains its original voice. In contrast, in the case of cruel , the original word was not crolus but crudelis . The thing about this word is that the adjective has lost intervocalic d, while the superlative is not lost.

In summary, the mnemonic to which it referred, but is based on an etymological rule is not entirely accurate, so do not always work. I guess the best way to check whether the rule applies in a particular case is to look at other products: novelty , goodness and strength also maintain or original, while cruelty, as the word has lost intervocalic d . It also helps to know other Latin languages, of which I know, only Italy maintains that d (in Catalan and French is cruel , in Italian, crudele ), and as for the other almost always are or : fort and forte ; nou (the or comes from v), neuf (not a diphthong, but a rare vocal from French) and novo; bo , bon and buono (here in Italian also seems to make a kind of diphthongization). ***

We started with scripts and also ends with dashes. Well, no, end up with stripes. In Castilian, this script is called (-) sign, not to be confused with the hyphen (-), ie a longer script. The consultation is Jorge:

How 'translate' the British dashes?

I ran into this problem when translating http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

suppose you write translate in quotes because it seems odd to say about the parent translate punctuation. Well, it looks like you do not! Indeed, should also be translated. The traditions of score change much from one language to another and is something that we should not lose sight of. In this aspect, to me what works is to know me very well scoring rules and customs of my native language (fortunately, Catalan and Castilian on that fact very much) and not get confused by the language of origin. Obviously, it helps to know the score tradition of the original language, but for that you have read much and have studied. Following

that recommendation, to start we must ask how to use the line in Castilian. Basically used to introduce clauses: separation points stronger than commas and not as emphatic as the parentheses. When used for that there must be a sign of openness in part and a sign of closure, even if the item is at the end of sentences, to understand I'm going to enter this comment here. Also used to make dialogues and make lists. (For a fuller explanation, you can check the article on the line Dictionary of doubt panhispánico .)

If you have those applications the line in mind when translating from English, any use other than the sign must put on guard, if not a proper use of Castilian, you can not use the line. You have to understand what that line said in the original and find the equivalent sign in Castilian.

Regarding the use of line in English, from my experience I think are three basic uses. I think you can find all three in the text translated. First, as in Castilian is used to introduce clauses (but not to enter dialogue). Secondly, sometimes used in places where we use the colon Castilian that is, to indicate a cause-effect, to take one example, and so on. And third Instead, use that to me seems strange, sometimes use it to cut or end of a sentence or to mark emphatically a surprising element. In these cases, there is a unique solution: it can be translated by a colon, semicolon, for point and even with three points at the end of the sentence to mark the emphasis or surprise. It should also be borne in mind that English must not close the fragment introduced by line when the fragment is at the end of sentences, to understand, do not make the sign of closure, which in Castilian, but I will do here should not be done. ***

And Today, that's enough. I hope you have enjoyed my return.