1709: Inflection

2016-07-22T10:18:21Z

141.101.81.121: /* Explanation */ Added a quick explanation of the comic itself, before the details of inflection and pictographs take place...

{{comic
| number = 1709
| date = July 20, 2016
| title = Inflection
| image = inflection.png
| titletext = "Or maybe, because we're suddenly having so many conversations through written text, we'll start relying MORE on altered spelling to indicate meaning!" "Wat."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The discussion that Cueball and Megan has are not discussed. The whole emoji segment and the fact that they are in color and are like Chinese pictogram is not even mentioned. Also needs wiki link for the main explanation. Maybe the table should be a subsection of the explanation, with link from the main body of the explanation?}}

While walking, Megan tells Cueball that in inflected languages -- such as English -- changes in the spelling of a word changes its' meaning, in a predictable way. Megan exemplifies this with how plural forms of nouns are created by sticking an 's' at the end, and past tense of a verb is done by the suffix 'ed'. Megan then explains that this works well in languages which build on alphabets, compared to pictographic languages where a picture show a whole word (since it's more difficult to slightly alter a picture then to add some letters). After hearing that English is ecoming less inflected then it used bo be, Cueball asks if English might transition into becoming a pictographic language. Instead of using traditional words, Megan replies by the three emojis "Thumbs up" (like), "Applause" and a smiley -- thus showing a pictographic version of the language which has become more pouplar in the last years.

Pictographic languages are written using graphics in place of words, so are not usually suitable for "spelling" changes to show slight variance in meanings. Examples of pictographic languages include ancient Egyptian and Chinese (ancient and modern).

Early modern English (think Shakespeare or the KJV Bible) used more forms for the tenses than we do today, which can help illustrate the trend away from inflected forms. In contrast, verbs in English today are often conjugated with auxiliary verbs. Here a sample of a modern verb conjugation in English:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Verb: Walk
!Voice->
!colspan="2"|Active
!colspan="2"|Passive
|-
!Tense
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
!Singular (he/she/it)
!Plural (they)
|-
|Present
|walks
|walk
|is walked
|are walked
|-
|Present progressive
|is walking
|are walking
|is being walked
|are being walked
|-
|Present perfect
|has walked
|have walked
|has been walked
|have been walked
|-
|Present perfect progressive
|has been walking
|have been walking
|has been being walked
|have been being walked
|-
|Past
|walked
|walked
|was walked
|were walked
|-
|Past progressive
|was walking
|were walking
|was being walked
|were being walked
|-
|Past perfect
|had walked
|had walked
|had been walked
|had been walked
|-
|Past perfect progressive
|had been walking
|had been walking
|had been being walked
|had been being walked
|-
|Future
|will walk
|will walk
|will be walked
|will be walked
|-
|Future progressive
|will be walking
|will be walking
|will be being walked
|will be being walked
|-
|Future perfect
|will have walked
|will have walked
|will have been walked
|will have been walked
|-
|Future perfect progressive
|will have been walking
|will have been walking
|will have been being walked
|will have been being walked
|-
|Conditional
|would walk
|would walk
|would be walked
|would be walked
|-
|Conditional progressive
|would be walking
|would be walking
|would be being walked
|would be being walked
|-
|Conditional perfect
|would have walked
|would have walked
|would have been walked
|would have been walked
|-
|Conditional perfect progressive
|would have been walking
|would have been walking
|would have been being walked
|would have been being walked
|}

In all of these conjugations, the only inflections on the main verb "walk" are "-s", "-ed", and "-ing". (The highly irregular helper verbs, "be" and "have", have somewhat more interesting inflections.) And although this table shows only the third person, the first and second person would not introduce any additional words whatsoever; similarly, the table shows only the indicative mood, but the subjunctive and imperative moods would not introduce any additional words, and the conditional mood would only introduce the helper verb "would" (an inflection of the irregular helper verb "will") without any additional inflections on the main verb "walk". If instead we made this table in Spanish (for example), then there would be many more inflections on the main verb (12 in the third-person indicative alone, 45 including all persons and moods, if I didn't miscount).

The title text points out that some intentional misspelling are used in Internet slang to alter the meaning of a word: "what" becomes "wat" to express confusion, disgust or disbelief [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat][http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wat]. The title text also uses the intentional misuse of grammar to emphasise the word MORE. Such emphasis is difficult to show with inflected language alone.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan, holding a hand up, are seen walking together from afar in silhouette.]
:Megan: Inflected languages change words to add meaning, like "-s" for plurals or "-ed" for past tense.
:Megan: Alphabets—where symbols stand for sound instead of words—work well for them, since you can show the changes through spelling.

:[Zoom in on the two as Megan turns her head back towards Cueball and spreads her arms out.]
:Megan: Our language family is inflected, but the English branch has lost most of its inflection over the millennia. It's why we don't have all those Latin conjugations.

:[Cueball speaks as they walk on and Megan replies with three orange-yellow emoji: Thumbs Up Sign pointing right, Clapping Hands Sign pointing up left with two times three small lines to indicate the clapping and Smiling Face With Blushing (red) Cheeks and Smiling Eyes. Below given the closest match possible as of the release of the comic.]
:Cueball: Could that mean English writing is ripe to become more pictographic?
:Megan: <font color="orange">👍 👏 😊</font>

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:1667: Algorithms

2016-04-13T08:52:02Z

141.101.81.121: Quicksort efficiency

How can an excel spreadsheet be complicated? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.244.85|108.162.244.85]] 04:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC
:See this example http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/04/how-an-accountant-created-an-entire-rpg-inside-an-excel-spreadsheet/ {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.82}}

Leftpad is a reference to the recent incident where a developer unpublished all his libraries from the NodeJS Package Manager, causing much disruption: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.231|162.158.85.231]] 05:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In the off chance that this is referencing an actual spreadsheet, and if anyone has a link, please post it in my talk page. (And in the article of course, but talk page first) [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 06:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The remark about quicksort's efficiency doesn't make sense. It's still the most common and practical general sorting algorithm. It's about as efficient you can typically get except in specialized cases or with some specific type of data. Should be removed imo. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.121|141.101.81.121]] 08:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1709: Inflection

Talk:1667: Algorithms