Elvith Ma'for

Former Reddfugee, found a new home on feddit.de. Server errors made me switch to discuss.tchncs.de. Now finally @ home on feddit.org.

Likes music, tech, programming, board games and video games. Oh… and coffee, lots of coffee!

I � Unicode!

  • 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2024

help-circle




  • They’re pronounced differently (although there’s a difference between British English and American English but for these that difference is quite consistent and you just omit the r):

    horse [hɔːs]/[hɔːrs] - worse [wɜːs]/[wɜːrs]

    cord [kɔ:d]/[kɔːrd] - word [wɜːd]/[wɜːrd]


  • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.orgtomemes@lemmy.worldtruex
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    There are a few of them. There’s also

    Phoney Phonetics.

    One reason why I cannot spell,
    Although I learned the rules quite well
    Is that some words like coup and through
    Sound just like threw and flue and Who;
    When oo is never spelled the same,
    The duice becomes a guessing game;
    And then I ponder over though,
    Is it spelled so, or throw, or beau,
    And bough is never bow, it’s bow,
    I mean the bow that sounds like plow,
    And not the bow that sounds like row -
    The row that is pronounced like roe.
    I wonder, too, why rough and tough,
    That sound the same as gruff and muff,
    Are spelled like bough and though, for they
    Are both pronounced a different way.
    And why can’t I spell trough and cough
    The same as I do scoff and golf?
    Why isn’t drought spelled just like route,
    or doubt or pout or sauerkraut?
    When words all sound so much the same
    To change the spelling seems a shame.
    There is no sense - see sound like cents -
    in making such a difference
    Between the sight and sound of words;
    Each spelling rule that undergirds
    The way a word should look will fail
    And often prove to no avail
    Because exceptions will negate
    The truth of what the rule may state;
    So though I try, I still despair
    And moan and mutter “It’s not fair
    That I’m held up to ridicule
    And made to look like such a fool
    When it’s the spelling that’s at fault.
    Let’s call this nonsense to a halt.”

    - Attributed to Vivian Buchan, 1966


  • We do have a defined standard to send IP packets with avian carriers. It was even adapted for IPv6.

    According to Wikipedia:

    IPoAC has been successfully implemented, but for only nine packets of data, with a packet loss ratio of 55% (due to operator error), and a response time ranging from 3,000 seconds (50 min) to over 6,000 seconds (100 min). Thus, this technology suffers from extremely high latency.

    On 28 April 2001, IPoAC was implemented by the Bergen Linux user group, under the name CPIP (for Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol). They sent nine packets over a distance of approximately 5 km (3 mi), each carried by an individual pigeon and containing one ping (ICMP echo request), and received four responses.

    Script started on Sat Apr 28 11:24:09 2001
     $ /sbin/ifconfig tun0
     tun0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
              inet addr:10.0.3.2  P-t-P:10.0.3.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
              UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:150  Metric:1
         RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
         TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
         collisions:0
         RX bytes:88 (88.0 b)  TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)
    
    $ ping -c 9 -i 900 10.0.3.1
    PING 10.0.3.1 (10.0.3.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=6165731.1 ms
    64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=3211900.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=5124922.8 ms
    64 bytes from 10.0.3.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=6388671.9 ms
    
    --- 10.0.3.1 ping statistics ---
    9 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 55% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max = 3211900.8/5222806.6/6388671.9 ms
    
    Script done on Sat Apr 28 14:14:28 2001
    

  • Elvith Ma'for@feddit.orgtomemes@lemmy.worldtruex
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    When the English tongue we speak.
    Why is break not rhymed with freak?
    Will you tell me why it’s true
    We say sew but likewise few?
    And the maker of the verse,
    Cannot rhyme his horse with worse?
    Beard is not the same as heard
    Cord is different from word.
    Cow is cow but low is low
    Shoe is never rhymed with foe.
    Think of hose, dose,and lose
    And think of goose and yet with choose
    Think of comb, tomb and bomb,
    Doll and roll or home and some.
    Since pay is rhymed with say
    Why not paid with said I pray?
    Think of blood, food and good.
    Mould is not pronounced like could.
    Wherefore done, but gone and lone -
    Is there any reason known?
    To sum up all, it seems to me
    Sound and letters don’t agree.

    - Lord Cromer, 1902