Thread: Летс ми спик фром май харррт

There was a topic about it here right after he spoke it. Search the forum.

Here you are

ат леест 95%, ее обвиуслее спеекс инглиш то сом хтент.

Originally Posted by sperk

ат лееист 95%, еехи обвиуслееи спееикс инглиш то соам хэкстент.

Лёрн ту цирнглишь!

Originally Posted by Basil77

Лёрн ту цирнглишь!

Йеа, ай диднт андестэнд э синг.

Лет хим спик фром хиз харт, чего пристали к человеку? Все правильно сделал.

I don't agree with the status of English as an international langauge at all. I think the world language should be a "neutral" language that belongs to no country, religion or political idea, and is extremely easy to learn. English is illogical in many ways and hard to pronounce for lots of people. It is associated with the USA (or Britain) in the past, and the political and economic goals of these countries.

I happen to speak English fluently, and it is very useful, but the idea that everyone in the world who is in an important position has some kind of obligation to learn to speak English, irritates me.

For that reason I would never critisize, or make fun of anyones English accent. I had no problem understanding the speech.

It takes a LONG time, and hard work to learn to speak accent-less English, or even grammatically perfect English.
Why should some people have to dedicate years of study on this, and then be laughed at?

When are we going to hear a minister in the US government (or British) deliver a decent length speech in a world language such as French, Spanish, Russian or Chinese?

Originally Posted by Hanna

When are we going to hear a minister in the US government (or British) deliver a decent length speech in a world language such as French, Spanish, Russian or Chinese?

It's going to be in C++ perhaps This is a truly international language.

I think the world language should be a "neutral" language that belongs to no country, religion or political idea, and is extremely easy to learn. English is illogical in many ways and hard to pronounce for lots of people.

I agree with you. There is a problem that the difficulty of artificial languages strongly depends on one's mother tounge. For example, Esperanto is easy for speakers of Indo-European languages, but it is still difficut for a Chinese. Phonology of such languages is an extremely difficult issue.
I asked about Mutko's speech because I wanted to understand how accent influences the comprehension.

The undeniable lack of Esperanto is the lack of natural (or native) literature and poetry or any expression of art which can transfer the idea of this art to native speakers of all other languages. While C++ has tons of texts, which are understandable for the people all over the world. Some examples of code are really the pieces of art. So C++ is the real candidate for the universal language

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

... C++ has tons of texts, which are understandable for the people all over the world. Some examples of code are really the pieces of art. So C++ is the real candidate for the universal language

I suspect you are a fluent speaker, and therefore biased!

But actually, I read that someone made a language that contains a proportion of grammar and similarities to reflect the population of the world.... So it had lots of Chinese and Indian type words in it, obviously.
I do think Esperanto is nice and I like the "ideology" of Esperanto too.
(but I don't actually know the language... does anyone here speak it?)

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

The undeniable lack of Esperanto is the lack of natural (or native) literature and poetry or any expression of art which can transfer the idea of this art to native speakers of all other languages. While C++ has tons of texts, which are understandable for the people all over the world. Some examples of code are really the pieces of art. So C++ is the real candidate for the universal language

Code:

Esperanto::Esperanto() { 
  char* dest=(char*) self; 
  idLang Lang=idEnglish;
  while(dest-(char*)self<=sizeof(self*)) {
    dest++*=(((char*)&::Languages[Lang])+rand()%sizeof(Languages[Lang]))*;
    if (++Lang>idChinese) Lang=idEnglish;
  }
  for(int i=0; i<nRules; i++) if (GrammarRules[i]->Size>3) GrammarRules[i]=NULL;
}

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Code:

Esperanto::Esperanto() { 
  char* dest=(char*) this; 
  idLang Lang=idEnglish;
  while(dest-(char*)this<=sizeof(*this)) {
    *dest++*= *(((char*)&::Languages[Lang])+rand()%sizeof(Languages[Lang]));
    if ((Lang = (idLang)((int)Lang + 1)) > idChinese) Lang=idEnglish;
  }
  for(int i=0; i<nRules; i++) if (GrammarRules[i]->Size>3) GrammarRules[i]=NULL;
}

A few corrections...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

A few corrections...

Code:

#define self this
idLang operator ++(idLang &, int);

//etc...

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Code:

#define self this
idLang operator ++(idLang &, int);

//etc...

Ok... then:

Code:

Esperanto::Esperanto() { 
  char* dest=(char*) self; 
  idLang Lang=idEnglish;
  while(dest-(char*)self<=sizeof(*self)) {
    *dest++*= *(((char*)&::Languages[Lang])+rand()%sizeof(Languages[Lang]));
    if (++Lang > idChinese) Lang=idEnglish;
  }
  for(int i=0; i<nRules; i++) if (GrammarRules[i]->Size>3) GrammarRules[i]=NULL;
}

But:

1. No code like "this*", in this case macros won't let you get away with a syntax error.
2. No code like "<pointer_name>*" when dereferencing the pointer. That's just wrong and gives you a syntax error as well.
3. It's generally recommended you define return types of such overloaded operators as "<class_name>&", ie:

Code:

idLang& operator ++(idLang &, int);

That allows you to avoid an unnecessary (and potentially expensive) call of the copy constructor.

I don't speake it, but I have read a textbook, so I know the principles of Esperanto. After reading lessons I could understand texts and saw that the language is really easy, so it is, probably, a good choice for Europe.

Ah, Marcus - I meant C++ ( I was guessing that you are a programmer...)

Anyway - yes, well in C++ you cannot lie, you cannot make mistakes and you would be speaking very fast and efficiently.... !

Funny code it-ogo!

#define self this
2. No code like "<pointer_name>*" when dereferencing the pointer. That's just wrong and gives you a syntax error as well.

Just a heavy Borlandian Pascal accent

Like "operator int()"?

const LanClass operator[](idLang)

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Just a heavy Borlandian Pascal accent

Yep. Severe childhood, cast-iron toys...

Originally Posted by it-ogo

const LanClass operator[](idLang)

That fits here as well. Right. (but again, consider using "const LanClass& operator[](const idLang&)")

What I meant was something like

Code:

class idLang
{
    //...
public: 
    operator int();
};