Page 1 of 2

Pronunciation?

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:54 pm
by dustrg
Is it - ree jecks ,

or - rej ecks ?

Or is it a hard g?

Re: Pronunciation?

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:57 pm
by superdezign
dustrg wrote:rej ecks ?
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.'

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:57 pm
by alex.barylski
Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions ;)

Ultimately, I say potae-toes and you say potah-toes

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:13 pm
by ReverendDexter
Hockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions ;)

Ultimately, I say potae-toes and you say potah-toes
Who in the hell says "potah-toes"? I've never heard that pronunciation in my life outside of that infernal song...

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:30 pm
by superdezign
ReverendDexter wrote:Who in the hell says "potah-toes"? I've never heard that pronunciation in my life outside of that infernal song...
It's more like 'potatoes' and 'potayytoes.' Depends on how 'cuntry' you are.

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:35 pm
by yankees26
I say:
re j ex

re like the renovation.
j like the letter.
And ex like the letter x (not sure why I put the 'e' in then...).

ree jecks reminds me of rejects...anyone else?

And I too have never heard potahtoes...but I have heard robot said like rowbutt.

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:37 pm
by Benjamin
lol re-jects

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:52 pm
by iknownothing
astions wrote:lol re-jects
Same. And with that Potato comment, I thought it was Tomatoes that were like that, not Potatoes. Tom Ate o's, Tom Art o's

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:47 am
by The Phoenix
Rehj-ecks

First part like "Reggie", second part like "Excellent".

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:19 am
by TheMoose
Hockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions ;)
Winner ;)

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).

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:35 am
by superdezign
TheMoose wrote:
Hockey wrote:Reg Ex seeing how it's Regular Expressions ;)
Winner ;)

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).
Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:04 am
by TheMoose
superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full 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).

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:21 am
by Sorayna
I vote for the first one

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:28 am
by ReverendDexter
TheMoose wrote:
superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full 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).
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"?).

By pronouncing it with the 'h', then I'll type it with the 'h'.

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:00 pm
by TheMoose
ReverendDexter wrote:
TheMoose wrote:
superdezign wrote:Abbreviations don't need to sound exactly like the original word.
They don't need to, no, but the average person will assume that an abbreviation will sound similar to the full 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).
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"?).

By pronouncing it with the 'h', then I'll type it with the 'h'.
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 stuff :P