A treatise on language

[tater]

16 minutes ago, Temeter said:

It's 4 weeks, which does qualify as a couple in common language.

In English "a couple" means exactly two. It never means 1 or 4. A married couple is not 4 people.

A few weeks would mean between 3 and 6, and Several would mean 7+.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

In English "a couple" means exactly two. It never means 1 or 4. A married couple is not 4 people.

A few weeks would mean between 3 and 6, and Several would mean 7+.

We must consult the Internet Bible.

...

The Internet Bible Lets Forth Its Infinite Wisdom.

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Hobbes Novakoff
The Internet Bible, In Its Infinite Command Of The Forum, has deleted a line break that was making things look weird.

[tater]

"Sometimes up to five" includes dumb people talking. People who are actually using words more carefully use a couple to mean the 2 that it actually means. I can come up with all kinds of examples of English usage... look at all the people who cannot tell their, there, and they're apart... that does't make the misuse acceptable/correct.

[FullMetalMachinist]

Well, to be fair, the whole "4 weeks" idea is a bit of a stretch. 1.1.2 was released on April 30th, that's 3 weeks + two days. 

[Temeter]

44 minutes ago, tater said:

In English "a couple" means exactly two. It never means 1 or 4. A married couple is not 4 people.

A few weeks would mean between 3 and 6, and Several would mean 7+.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple

Quote

Idioms

14.

a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there.

A dinner party, whether for a couple of old friends or eight new acquaintances, takes nearly the same amount of effort.

Also, Informal, a couple.

You know, you shouldn't try to correct a figure of speech nearly everyone uses that way. Common language is btw what defines language, not professors or dictionaries.

[Kerbart]

7 hours ago, Temeter said:

It's 1 month vacation. Understandable considering the crunching, but i'd really prefer if they hadn't release with these ctds.

You're either saying you would prefer no vacation ("Work! Work!  Work you lazy pigs! work!"). Or you prefer no release.  Since I'm apparently so stupid to think you meant no release, what you're saying is that Squad should have continued their death-march towards bugged patches, instead of taking their time, recharging and fixing it right and proper?

Or are you saying they should not have released 1.1.2 at all, and leave it at 1.1.1? I might be stupid, but at least I have a memory to recall that there were a couple of really bad bugs in 1.1.1 that needed fixing, and 1.1.1 was a much welcomed fix of 1.1.0. So what bug-ridden release should they have stuck to, before going on a break?

So what are you asserting? Because, yes, I'm that stupid that I cannot figure it out.

[tater]

No one I know (in the US) uses "a couple" to mean anything other than two. Perhaps it's just people who are young and ignorant of what it actually means, like people who think "irregardless" is a thing.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

You're either saying you would prefer no vacation ("Work! Work!  Work you lazy pigs! work!"). Or you prefer no release.  Since I'm apparently so stupid to think you meant no release, what you're saying is that Squad should have continued their death-march towards bugged patches, instead of taking their time, recharging and fixing it right and proper?

Or are you saying they should not have released 1.1.2 at all, and leave it at 1.1.1? I might be stupid, but at least I have a memory to recall that there were a couple of really bad bugs in 1.1.1 that needed fixing, and 1.1.1 was a much welcomed fix of 1.1.0. So what bug-ridden release should they have stuck to, before going on a break?

So what are you asserting? Because, yes, I'm that stupid that I cannot figure it out.

I think they should have left 1.1 in "pre-release" (possibly a more open pre-release") until it had no show stopper flaws.

(I know this wasn't directed to me, but this would take things more on topic  )

Edited May 23, 2016 by tater

[Temeter]

Quote

You're either saying you would prefer no vacation ("Work! Work!  Work you lazy pigs! work!"). Or you prefer no release.  Since I'm apparently so stupid to think you meant no release, what you're saying is that Squad should have continued their death-march towards bugged patches, instead of taking their time, recharging and fixing it right and proper?

Or are you saying they should not have released 1.1.2 at all, and leave it at 1.1.1? I might be stupid, but at least I have a memory to recall that there were a couple of really bad bugs in 1.1.1 that needed fixing, and 1.1.1 was a much welcomed fix of 1.1.0. So what bug-ridden release should they have stuck to, before going on a break?

So what are you asserting? Because, yes, I'm that stupid that I cannot figure it out.

That they should have delayed the release. Not really sure how else you're gonna make sure a games being in a better form; even two weeks more could've solved those issues.

[Kerbart]

Just now, tater said:

I think they should have left 1.1 in "pre-release" (possibly a more open pre-release") until it had no show stopper flaws.

A reasonable suggestion, especially with the benefits of hindsight. But don't forget that the pre-release was only available on Steam, which on the evil-scale hovers only a few notches below Curse, if I were to judge by the forum responses.

I like to believe that the hastened release (because it absolutely could have benefited from another week or four in pre-release) was part due to the backlash about the Steam-only pre-release. So, hopefully by the time 1.3 comes out that process has been optimized to everyone's satisfaction (I'm sure 1.2 will come with its own set of road bumps).

[Temeter]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

No one I know (in the US) uses "a couple" to mean anything other than two. Perhaps it's just people who are young and ignorant of what it actually means, like people who think "irregardless" is a thing.

Because american english is truly to be known as the most precise and correct language that totally doesn't twist the meaning of words constantly.

I don't really care what you think, using a couple as 'few' is incredibly common. That meaning is even listed in countless dictionaries. Just look it up if you don't believe it.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Temeter

[tater]

I'm a  non-Steam person, but I would have preferred even the Steam only pre-release vs calling 1.1.X "production" and making it live. I'm not one who even cares about save games, I started a new career (to test it)---if I had a previous save game, it would have been destroyed by this update as brushing landing legs on my bases would destroy them.

4 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Because american english is truly to be known as the most precise and correct language that totally doesn't twist the meaning of words constantly.

I don't really care what you think, using a couple as 'few' is incredibly common. That meaning is even listed in countless dictionaries. Just look it up if you don't believe it.

What native English speaking country are you from? I imagine English usage regarding "a couple" is not dissimilar in Canada, the UK, and Australia. I wouldn't presume to argue with a German about when to use "doch," for example.

"A few" is generally used to be very indeterminate, but less than several. A handful is generally 5 (because 5 fingers). A few weeks off would be how any native speaker would call 3 weeks. No one would ever ask their boss for a couple days off, and take 3, they'd likely be fired.

Edited May 23, 2016 by tater

[Temeter]

29 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm a  non-Steam person, but I would have preferred even the Steam only pre-release vs calling 1.1.X "production" and making it live. I'm not one who even cares about save games, I started a new career (to test it)---if I had a previous save game, it would have been destroyed by this update as brushing landing legs on my bases would destroy them.

What native English speaking country are you from? I imagine English usage regarding "a couple" is not dissimilar in Canada, the UK, and Australia. I wouldn't presume to argue with a German about when to use "doch," for example.

"A few" is generally used to be very indeterminate, but less than several. A handful is generally 5 (because 5 fingers). A few weeks off would be how any native speaker would call 3 weeks. No one would ever ask their boss for a couple days off, and take 3, they'd likely be fired.

And yet you are speaking for candians, british and australians...

[tater]

12 minutes ago, Temeter said:

And yet you are speaking for candians, british and australians...

Are you Canadian, British, or Australian?

I am not speaking for them at all (though I converse with Canadians pretty frequently, so I have a feel for their usage). If you reread what I wrote, it was incredibly conditional. I said "I Imagine that..." "usage is not dissimilar". This means (in case the nuance is being lost on a non-native speaker) that I am not at all sure, but I think that it is probably similar. That is nothing at all like speaking for other people, and I'll happily acknowledge that I was mistaken regarding their usage should people from those countries chime in and correct me.

Generally speaking, American English is more, not less sloppy than UK English, BTW, which is what informed my conditional statement.

Edited May 23, 2016 by tater

[something]

"What native English speaking country are you from? I imagine English usage regarding "a couple" is not dissimilar in Canada, the UK, and Australia. I wouldn't presume to argue with a German about when to use "doch," for example. "

This is so funny as doch is the word you guys are missing. It means "I am right and you are wrong - end of discussion". You don't need to give any further arguments - you just say doch. Well and then, as your antagonist disagrees you reply with nein (i.e. no) which basically means "No, I am right and /you/ are wrong". So instead of writing entire novels about who is right and who is wrong, you can simply compress everything you just said to this discussion:

Nein.

Doch.

Nein.

Doch.

Nein.

Doch.

and so forth.

 

Congratulations, you just mastered the mental level of a German Kindergarten discussion.

 

This is my toy!

Nein.

Doch.

....

[tater]

Ah, so doch is like f-bombs in the English of New Yorkers

[Temeter]

Oh, this wasn't about informal language? What exactly were we discussing again?

9 minutes ago, tater said:

Are you Canadian, British, or Australian?

I am not speaking for them at all (though I converse with Canadians pretty frequently, so I have a feel for their usage). If you reread what I wrote, it was incredibly conditional. I said "I Imagine that..." "usage is not dissimilar". This means (in case the nuance is being lost on a non-native speaker) that I am not at all sure, but I think that it is probably similar. That is nothing at all like speaking for other people, and I'll happily acknowledge that I was mistaken regarding their usage should people from those countries chime in and correct me.

Generally speaking, American English is more, not less sloppy than UK English, BTW, which is what informed my conditional statement.

That was what I've been implying.

I'm not a native english speak, but i've learned that couple can mean very well something along the lines of few. Of course school english has not necessarily anything to do with english in actual use, but i'm constantly seeing people using couple that way on the internet. Recently also more and more people trying to correct it.

My original point is, the way Squad used it ment - clearly considering claws statement - 'few', so I was at least correct in my interpretation of Squads answer.

Just now, sackfalte said:

Funny that the first thirteen definitions of 'couple' mean 'two':

Language isn't a numeric game.

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Temeter

[sackfalte]

--

3 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Language isn't a numeric game.

then what have we been playing?

Edited May 23, 2016 by sackfalte

[Temeter]

4 minutes ago, sackfalte said:

--

then what have we been playing?

Well, I was the only one guessing correctly what Squads answer ment, so I win!

Edited May 23, 2016 by Temeter

[PB666]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I think they should have left 1.1 in "pre-release" (possibly a more open pre-release") until it had no show stopper flaws.

(I know this wasn't directed to me, but this would take things more on topic  )

I think they should have released it as normal. I count on a bunch of obsessive gamers will always be at the site waiting for the update to come out, and they also obsessively find every bug and complain about it. So after the dust settles and they are at 1.1.4 or so i will download. Giving quite thanks to the obsessives, but remembering to look both directions when crossing intersections on the day after the new android galaxy 23 is released. 

[tater]

The landing gear/legs problems are total non-starters to me. Don't build anything that needs to land?

[Camacha]

2 hours ago, Temeter said:

Because american english is truly to be known as the most precise and correct language that totally doesn't twist the meaning of words constantly.

I don't really care what you think, using a couple as 'few' is incredibly common. That meaning is even listed in countless dictionaries. Just look it up if you don't believe it.

Is it not wonderful how language is a fluid thing? It can mean one thing in one decade and another in the next, just like nuances can change or words can mean the polar opposite when you change the location or time.

The Cambridge Dictionary tells us that it is synonymous to a few, in the sense that it does not always signify exactly two. That is true for both American and British English:

Quote

two or a few things that are similar or the same, or two or a few people who are in some way connected:

 

The Oxford Dictionary seems to agree that, even though informally so, a couple can mean any arbitrary small number.

Quote

informal An indefinite small number: [as pronoun]: he hoped she’d be better in a couple of days we got some eggs—would you like a couple? [as determiner]: just a couple more questions North American clean the stains with a couple squirts dishwashing liquid

It seems pretty clear cut to me that maintaining that a couple always denotes two is stretching it. It used to mean that, but language has clearly moved on, for better or worse.

[Kerbart]

If there was a need to express the number of weeks unambiguously, and that number was to be an integer larger than one and smaller than three, one cannot help but think that the word "two" would have been used. It's really a good choice in that scenario.

The fact that the word "couple" was used indicates that, in the initial communication, there was a need for at least some maneuvering space regarding the exact number. I yet have to find a dictionary that defines couple as "two, and only two, and nothing else."

[swjr-swis]

See, this is why I simply keep to 'moar' in my vernacular, none of this couple/few nonsense. The exact number is never in question, it's just moar. And the next time it comes up, it's still moar. It is always moar. Case closed.

...

...

(adds one moar)

[Camacha]

2 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

See, this is why I simply keep to 'moar' in my vernacular, none of this couple/few nonsense. The exact number is never in question, it's just moar. And the next time it comes up, it's still moar. It is always moar. Case closed.

...

...

(adds one moar)

Did you like those boosters? Would you like a couple moar?