Pronunciation?
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:54 pm
Is it - ree jecks ,
or - rej ecks ?
Or is it a hard g?
or - rej ecks ?
Or is it a hard g?
A community of PHP developers offering assistance, advice, discussion, and friendship.
http://forums.devnetwork.net/
Rej-ecks. Technically, I guess you could make it a hard 'g' since it's short for 'regular expressions,' but by the rules of the English language, it's a soft 'g.'dustrg wrote:rej ecks ?
Who in the hell says "potah-toes"? I've never heard that pronunciation in my life outside of that infernal song...Hockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions
Ultimately, I say potae-toes and you say potah-toes
It's more like 'potatoes' and 'potayytoes.' Depends on how 'cuntry' you are.ReverendDexter wrote:Who in the hell says "potah-toes"? I've never heard that pronunciation in my life outside of that infernal song...
Same. And with that Potato comment, I thought it was Tomatoes that were like that, not Potatoes. Tom Ate o's, Tom Art o'sastions wrote:lol re-jects
WinnerHockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions
Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.TheMoose wrote:WinnerHockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions
I always thought of it as this too, just seemed the logical assumption to make seeing as it's not a real word anyway (the shortened version anyway).
They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full word.superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
I've always pronounced the datatype as it's spelled, and said "char". By your logic, it wouldn't be "car" if it was prounounced like a shortened version of the word anyway, it would be pronounced "care" (unless you pronounce it "car-ic-ter" instead of "care-ic-ter"?).TheMoose wrote:They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full word.superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
Another example would be "char". Majority of DBA's I've ever talked with say "car", not "ch-arr", because it represents the word "character". It's easier to contextually understand "car" than it is "ch-arr" when talking about field types (although most know that if someone says "ch-arr" they mean "char" given the topic already being implied).
You're missing my first sentence, that it will sound similar to the word; that doesn't mean it will sound exactly like the word. I personally don't even use abbreviations in conversation. I use the full word, as I assume that the person I am talking to knows that when I say character, I mean a single character, and not a cartoon character or whatnot. If I say integer, they know I'm referring to int, or if I say number, I'm referring to a double (or long). If they ask what I mean, it's usually because they are not a programmer, and I wasn't talking to them specifically in the first place, they just overheard a conversation I'm having regarding that stuffReverendDexter wrote:I've always pronounced the datatype as it's spelled, and said "char". By your logic, it wouldn't be "car" if it was prounounced like a shortened version of the word anyway, it would be pronounced "care" (unless you pronounce it "car-ic-ter" instead of "care-ic-ter"?).TheMoose wrote:They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full word.superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
Another example would be "char". Majority of DBA's I've ever talked with say "car", not "ch-arr", because it represents the word "character". It's easier to contextually understand "car" than it is "ch-arr" when talking about field types (although most know that if someone says "ch-arr" they mean "char" given the topic already being implied).
By pronouncing it with the 'h', then I'll type it with the 'h'.