Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: how about

Salve,
     uso spesso "how about" per formulare frasi tipo: "...how about 
going to the flicks this evening?"
Ora vorrei sapere come usare "how about" con "I" o "me"
"How about if I call for you at 8pm?"
"How about me calling for you at 8pm?"
sono giuste?
con un significato di: "che ne dici se..."
potrei magari dire: "what if I call for you at 8pm?"
Grazie

 sono giuste?
Sono colloquiale. 

 (00:40-00:50)
I thought the first was completely wrong (i.e. I cannot find any 
instances in my dictionaries).
Can I say "How about my calling [...]"?
Kiuhnm

 Can I say "How about my calling [...]"?
It's ok to say that, but I'm reluctant to recommend that anyone say any of
these expressions. I use them at times, but only when I want to appear
exceedingly casual, nonchalant, and non-threatening, bordering on overripe.
They demonstrate a colloquial understanding of the language, but so does
using 'I ain't' for ' I am not'. ('Ain't' is in the dictionary, too.) By the
way, you can also say 'what about my calling'. It sounds equally loose but
acceptable. I certainly wouldn't use it in the same sentence as 'bijective',
but then I can't think of any situation where I would interject such a term
unless I was posing as a math nerd.

 unless I was posing as a math nerd.
Anyone should know what a bijection is. After all we call ignorant (in 
its less politically correct meaning) one who doesn't know what a solar 
eclipse is. Moreover, this ng is not a pub where you meet your friend, 
gossip and try not to appear too smart and/or erudite.
Did you know that mathematics also study grammars and languages? My 
sentence was midway between a technical document and a popular article.
Kiuhnm

> Did you know that mathematics also study grammars and languages?
Did you mean mathematicians? Some of my best friends are mathematicians,
poor tortured souls as they may be. They do pretty well with languages, it's
learning social skills that leaves them bemused.
By the way, I wasn't criticizing your choosing to use the word bijective. In 
fact, I'll be looking for an opportunity to use it one day just to get a 
laugh. I was just letting you know, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek way, how 
that particular word would be perceived in real life by an English speaker. 
It's the kind of thing dictionaries don't do very well.

 eclipse is.
OK , I'll take the bait !
'should know' ? On what grounds ? This reminds me of arguments put forward 
by the scientist/novelist C P Snow in the UK in the early sixties, which I 
had some fun demolishing at the time .
The analogy with knowledge of a solar eclipse is quite false  : a solar 
eclipse is part of our experience of living ; virtually everyone knows what 
it is ; no specialist knowledge of astronomy is required to understand the 
term ; the words of which the phrase is composed are both words familiar to 
anyone of fairly modest education , and the phrase itself has no more 
everyday equivalent which might be used instead (if astronomers have a more 
technical phrase , it is never used in ordinary contexts) .
In the case of your use of 'bijective' , however , the use of the everyday 
word 'one-to-one' would , as far as I can see , have conveyed your meaning 
just as effectively , and to a far wider audience . What , in your use of 
the word , justifies the notion that everyone should become familiar with 
the advanced mathematics of sets (or whatever realm bijection belongs to) in 
order to respond to such uses ?
By the way , have you ever watched the UK TV programme 'University 
Challenge' (which has been somewhat corrupted by this way of thinking) ?
Mike 

 My sentence was midway between a technical document and a popular article.
Accipicchia!

 It's the kind of thing dictionaries don't do very well.
See what a strange person you are? You say you're not hungry but keep 
eating...
No technical discussion about grammar and languages should be out of 
place in this ng.
Did I make myself understood this time?
Kiuhnm

 bijection belongs to) in order to respond to such uses ?
Perhaps the fact that this is not *advanced* at all but is the most 
basic and simple concept in mathematics?
It's unthinkable that a person who spent so many years at school doesn't 
even know what a bijection is!
But it's not a revelation that the population is shamefully ignorant in 
math.
Kiuhnm

 Accidenti!
You already know what it is. You just don't know the tech term for it.
For example you take for granted that your car keys are the only (legal) 
keys that open your car.
Do you really think a chef would change his terminology for you? If you 
don't understand something you can always ask or just read something 
else. For example, I don't understand someone who talks about baseball.
Kiuhnm

 Did I make myself understood this time?
I don't recall ever saying that any part of this discussion was out of place 
(or that I'm not hungry). I must confess though, that my attention is waning 
quickly. Let me compliment you on your rich inner life, but now I should 
turn to other things.

 math.
In the UK , everyone learns maths in school for 11 years ; at the end of 
that time , they will leave school without knowing what a bijection is , 
because it's not on the syllabus . If it is indeed the most basic and simple 
concept in maths , isn't this something of an oversight ? And who is 
responsible for it ? Surely maths syllabuses are devised by mathematicians ?
Physician , heal thyself !
In case anyone wonders why my 'one-to-one' was 'wrong' , here's the simplest 
explanation I could find of these elementary concepts (Wikipedia, formulae 
omitted)) :
'In mathematics, injections, surjections and bijections are classes of 
functions distinguished by the manner in which arguments (input expressions 
from the domain) and images (output expressions from the codomain) are 
related or mapped to each other.
[In an injective function (one-to-one)] One could say that elements of the 
codomain (sometimes called range by mistake) are mapped to by at most one 
element (argument) of the domain; not every element of the codomain, 
however, need have an argument mapped to it. An injective function is an 
injection.
A function is surjective (onto) if every element of the codomain is mapped 
to by some element (argument) of the domain...Note that with this 
definition, some images may be mapped to by more than one argument. 
(Equivalently, a function where the range is equal to the codomain.) A 
surjective function is a surjection.
A function is bijective (one-to-one and onto) if and only if (iff) it is 
both injective and surjective. (Equivalently, every element of the codomain 
is mapped to by exactly one element of the domain.) A bijective function is 
a bijection (one-to-one correspondence).
(Note: a one-to-one function is injective, but may fail to be surjective, 
while a one-to-one correspondence is both injective and surjective.)'
Silly me ! However , I have to say that , however maths may have 
appropriated these terms for its own purposes , 'one-to-one' in ordinary 
English usage seems to me to mean exactly the idea conveyed by 'bijective' !
Mike

 math.


 'bijective' !
It's a bit different, but correct (not wrong as I said).
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fcb2pi$a89$1...@aioe.org...

Hmm... How would you say, in Italian, "a bijective function is a function
which is both 'one-to-one' and 'onto'?".
Joe from Massachusetts

 which is both 'one-to-one' and 'onto'?".
Una [funzione biiettiva | biiezione] č una funzione che č sia [iniettiva 
| 1-1] che [suriettiva | "su"(raro)].
More briefly:
"una biiezione č una suriezione iniettiva."
that is
"a bijection is an injective surjection."
Kiuhnm

 Non potrebbe essere una iniezione suriettiva?
I just hate needles.
Kiuhnm

 Non potrebbe essere una iniezione suriettiva?
Fai attenzione con le parole ampollose, o riuscirai a dargli un'erezione 
intensiva. 

 Try the "supposed".
I hate suppositories as well.
Kiuhnm

potrei magari dire: "what if I call for you at 8pm?"
pure
ciao
-- 
G
Niente contribuisce di più alla tranquillità 
dell'animo del fatto di non avere alcuna opinione. 
(Lichtenberg)
->Ashkenazis Rule!

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fc74b8$re7$1...@aioe.org...

Although mathematics, like linguistics and semantics, is a plural noun, it
is normally treated as a singular, therefore: "mathematics studies".
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mathematics?view=uk
Joe from Massachusetts

 
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mathematics?view=uk
Yes, I know. I was just too concentrated on what I wanted to say.
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fctm7j$ph4$1...@aioe.org...

We are a bit schizophrenic when it comes to plural nouns used as singulars.
A discipline, such as mathematics, optics, or semantics, is a singular noun.
For example: "Optics is the study of light", but "The optics (lenses,
mirrors, prisms, etc.) in that lensometer are very complicated".
Joe from Massachusetts