I understand, you being American. To clarify, "it" referred to the "the word data", not its grammatical number.
By the way, “being” is a gerund, so it’s “your being American”.
At the risk of veering very deeply into the weeds: to my ear, "you being American" sounds acceptable. I think it parses correctly (though differently from "
your being American").
It sounds like something Dickens might have written.
Is it grammatically acceptable English? I mean here and now?
I understand, you being American. To clarify, "it" referred to the "the word data", not its grammatical number.
By the way, “being” is a gerund, so it’s “your being American”.
At the risk of veering very deeply into the weeds: to my ear, "you being American" sounds acceptable. I think it parses correctly (though differently from "your being American").
It sounds like something Dickens might have written.
Is it grammatically acceptable English? I mean here and now?
It's hard to research this subject. My standard reference, B A Garner
Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford (2009) refers to it as "Fused Participles", following the discussion in Fowler's
Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford (1965).
He approves of Fowler's belief (if not his absolute dislike) that "Especially in formal prose, the possessive ought to be used whenever it is not unidiomatic or unnatural" (Garner).
Garner has grades for usage evolution, and rates the non-possessive (e.g., "you being American") as Stage 3 ("widespread, but...), which is better than Stage 2 ("widely shunned") and worse than Stage 4 ("ubiquitous, but ...").
I'm not a pedant, but I try to write carefully. Of course, nobody speaks as carefully as he can write.
But couldn't "you being American" be considered just a subordinate clause? In which case it should pass muster, even if it's not the most elegant construct.
Grammar makes my head hurt almost as much as math does ...
But couldn't "you being American" be considered just a subordinate clause? In which case it should pass muster, even if it's not the most elegant construct.
Grammar makes my head hurt almost as much as math does ...
You mean "You are American" or "Being an American", grammatically correct phrases?
I'm not a power electronics guy primarily so I can't comment on this
Wow. That's worse than Beavis and Butthead.
CPS -> Hertz: Ah, yes. There was a lot of confusion, when the new unit was introduced. Since this was before digital computers were readily available, engineers had to resort to those charts.
Looks like it was designed by Escher.
Q: What do you get, if you combine Pringles with a bored engineer?
A. This:
An Englishman an Irishman and a Sotsman walked into a quantum pub.
The Englishman said : "I'll have a Schrödinger’s beer—it's both here and not here until I look."
The Irishman said: "I'll take a Heisenberg whiskey—I'm uncertain about its exact location, but I know it's somewhere in my hand."
The Scotsman was totally wasted collapsed in his own dribble and urine. He sat next to an untouched Feynman ale and had passed out through multiple paths to get to this point.
Source:
comments section of this video:
From my hardware-store humor file
*:
* Also from the faxlore file, as this was copied from a fax (remember those?).
Source:
comments section of this video:
See, things like the content of this video is why quantum physics and all that razzmatazz is on my permanent ignore list.
I just don't care about that stuff. Don't want to know any more about it. It's just not relevant to me
at all.
Does that make me a terrible person?
More from the hardware-store/faxlore humor file:
See, things like the content of this video is why quantum physics and all that razzmatazz is on my permanent ignore list.
I just don't care about that stuff. Don't want to know any more about it. It's just not relevant to me at all.
Does that make me a terrible person?
No.
It makes you ignorant.
Imo not the smartest approach.
See, things like the content of this video is why quantum physics and all that razzmatazz is on my permanent ignore list.
I just don't care about that stuff. Don't want to know any more about it. It's just not relevant to me at all.
Does that make me a terrible person?
No.
It makes you ignorant.
Imo not the smartest approach.
As I have posted before:
One of my co-workers was a “wingnut” and took his science from politics.
He was therefore against evolution, climate science, and quantum mechanics.
I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which require quantum physics for operation.
Vacuum tubes require only a small dose of quantum physics to operate.
More from the hardware-store/faxlore humor file:
(Attachment Link)
With respect to the bolt head with two male threads:
In vacuum work, we used “ConFlat
tm” flanges with many bolt holes.
The flange vendors sold double nuts (with a strap between the two threaded holes) so that only one wrench was required to tighten the bolts.
[One of my co-workers was a “wingnut” and took his science from politics.
He was therefore against evolution, climate science, and quantum mechanics.
I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which require quantum physics for operation.
Look, Tim:
One needn't understand quantum physics--
at all--in order to successfully design and build solid-state circuits.
You do get that, don't you?
That's for the pointy-headed scientists behind the curtain who are creating the semiconductors. We're just their consumers.
[One of my co-workers was a “wingnut” and took his science from politics.
He was therefore against evolution, climate science, and quantum mechanics.
I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which require quantum physics for operation.
Look, Tim:
One needn't understand quantum physics--at all--in order to successfully design and build solid-state circuits.
You do get that, don't you?
That's for the pointy-headed scientists behind the curtain who are creating the semiconductors. We're just their consumers.
Nonsense. A little understanding of quantum physics helps to understand the function of semiconductors, such as bipolar transistors and LEDs.
I don't expect engineers to be experts in solid-state quantum physics, but "needn't understand quantum physics
at all..." is plain wrong.
[One of my co-workers was a “wingnut” and took his science from politics.
He was therefore against evolution, climate science, and quantum mechanics.
I told him he would have to stop using solid-state electronics, which require quantum physics for operation.
Look, Tim:
One needn't understand quantum physics--at all--in order to successfully design and build solid-state circuits.
You do get that, don't you?
That's for the pointy-headed scientists behind the curtain who are creating the semiconductors. We're just their consumers.
Nonsense. A little understanding of quantum physics helps to understand the function of semiconductors, such as bipolar transistors and LEDs.
Helps, maybe, but is in no way essential to the art.
How many folks here who deal with semiconductors have a working knowledge of quantum physics? And of those who do, how many actually use that in their work with these devices?
My guess is that the numbers here are pretty small.
And for a hobbyist like me, the answer is that it's totally irrelevant.
If you like to mess around with quantum stuff, fine, more power to you.
But please don't try to impute that it's some kind of requirement for the rest of us.