Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Let's Settle This (neal.fun)
397 points by sangeeth96 4 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 498 comments



> Sock shoe sock shoe or sock sock shoe shoe?

This is an amusing question. I was thoroughly confused by what this meant.

In my country, I keep my socks in a completely different room from my shoes. So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes. I've observed the same in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and Spain (off the top of my head).

As a separate issue, the habit of walking in shoes within your house is still utterly baffling to me. I've seen people not walk in shoes even at the office (because it's uncomfortable). Can't imagine the smell of feet after walking in shoes the whole day.


So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes.

You could put one sock on, then go to the other room and put a shoe on, return to the first room for the other sock, and then go back and put the second shoe on.

It'd be like applying a bubble sort to getting dressed.


You can't, because you have to take off your shoes before entering the socks room.


Personally, I prefer to flip a coin to decide which room to visit at each step. It's probabilistically guaranteed to be an efficient way to put on shoes as long as you have no more than two feet.


Add Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Holland.

Pretty sure it's an American thing to constantly wear shoes, which is weird considering how little walking they appear to do (compared to driving).


It's actually caused by lack of walking. If you drive everywhere, and never put your foot on the ground - your shoes are clean enough to wear them at home.


No, they’re not. American homes are disgusting. (I’m American.) We don’t wear shoes in my house, and I really don’t understand how it’s considered acceptable generally. I had Asian roommates in university, and they, along with overseas travel, broke me of the “shoe in house” habit.


This is weird to me because I've only been in like 3 "shoes on" homes. Most people I know are "shoes off". I live in Atlanta.

Granted, all 3 of those homes were varying levels of filthy to me.


I heard a former US Army guy saying in a podcast, even at home he's always dressed to be ready to walk out the door at any second, because it's a habit he developed in the Army. Which makes sense, the enemy doesn't wait for you to wait to put your socks and shoes on.


Unfortunately that is called "hypervigilance" and is one of the central features of PTSD.


Can't imagine being prepared 24/7 waiting for some unnamed enemy to strike, over just going about my day in the most pleasant way (including foot health) possible.


It takes less than 5 seconds if you're good.


Sorry, am I reading correctly that you can put both shoes and socks on in less than 5 seconds?! I need to see this...


Depends on the type of shoes too... slip-ons are much less popular in North America, probably a self-reinforcing thing there.


Ah yes, the number of people who ended up dead because of being bare foot. That makes complete sense.


Agreed, I can't imagine wearing shoes all day.

The most pleasant footwear for me is Birkenstock Arizonas with socks, at home or office or when driving or running errands. This is the classic model with two straps over your foot and no back strap. I only switch to shoes when I will be walking some distance.

With the Birkenstocks, most of your foot is ventilated even while standing or sitting, and every time you take a step the bottom of your foot gets some air.

Don't over-tighten the straps. You should be able to slip your feet in and out of them without reaching down. Have at least two pair on hand, so you can easily slip out of one pair and into another.

In the summer I may leave off the socks to stay cooler, so it is especially nice to switch to another pair of sandals to let them dry out. With socks in cool weather, I'm comfortable wearing the same pair all day.

If you get these, be sure to get the "soft footbed" version. They are much more comfortable than the originals. And I like the suede version for the softer straps.

You may look geeky wearing them, but face it, you're already a geek!


Yeah, in Poland you don't wear shoes in the house, you put them on just before leaving the house. Often there's a separate room for shoes and jackets.

There are slippers for walking around in the house if you want them (and every family has "guest slippers" for when somebody comes to visit). Not taking off your shoes when you come to someone is very rude.


> In my country, I keep my socks in a completely different room from my shoes. So when I put on clothes, I first have to put on socks, then leave the room, and then put on the shoes. I've observed the same in Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and Spain (off the top of my head).

From Latvia here, more or less the same.

Then again, i really like wearing woolen socks everywhere, especially when it's cold outside, so they're on my legs most of the time anyways. Though i do have to change them often, or sometimes just put one pair on a radiator and wear another one, so that once i need to switch the new pair is warm.

It's actually really comfortable.


This debate has been in the popular psyche for quite a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prRtcQz8Uqk


Sock shoe sock shoe means you get dressed but hold off putting on your socks until you're about to put your shoes on and get out the door. The advantage is you don't put dirt/dust, and whatever else you drag off your floors, inside your shoes.


> The advantage is you don't put dirt/dust, and whatever else you drag off your floors, inside your shoes.

You put the dirt inside your sock instead though.


Well, I carry my socks to where the shoes are, and put them there. There's not reason to use the socks all the way there.

(I still put the socks first, but alternating isn't completely unreasonable.)


I've noticed as I get older, my feet are more cold. As such I now wear shoes a lot, compared to years ago, when I hardly did. So maybe it's an age thing as well ?


There's slippers for that. Yes, even for guests. And still nobody puts a slipper on after putting on 1 sock.

I think it's mostly climate + walking culture thing. If you live in a muddy/snowy climate and people walk a lot - wearing shoes in your house is simply a no-go. You'd have to clean up constantly.


> There's slippers for that.

Only "old man" ones. I want cool looking slippers that don't make me look like I belong in a retirement home.


"old man" slippers === cool slippers I mean 'come on'.


When was the last time you actually seen "sleepers department" in your local store? There are everything from oversized pink rabbits to star wars themed ones. Also sandals and flip-flops are an option too.


I don't shop in brick and mortar stores plus here in the UK a 'sleepers' department isn't a thing.

Online, 'cool' slippers are all of a very low quality, and mostly only available in kids sizes.


You might just be sitting more as you get older and thus are causing reduced circulation to your feet.


Sock shoe sock shoe...who would do such an atrocious thing??


Someone who's old or infirm enough that reaching their feet is an ordeal, so they minimize the number of "trips".


Can't you just take pair of socks with you when going down? And maybe place one in the other shoe or on top of it?


I wear house shoes, and keep my outdoor socks with my outdoor shoes.

I do sock shoe sock shoe because the sequence takes less time overall that way.


Wait, you have outdoor socks to go with the outdoor shoes? What purpose does it serve to change your socks before going outside?


I still don't understand the question. Are people laying their socks next to their shoes? I've never seen this before.


I carry my socks over to my shoes and then put them on. But of course, it's socks first, then shoes.


A more recent example of "how the heck do I pronounce this word" is Bazel, the build system.

I've always pronounced it like "hazel", but many of my colleagues rhyme it with "dazzle".

The Bazel website even has an FAQ entry about it, but they managed to completely confuse the issue:

> How do you pronounce “Bazel”?

> The same way as “basil” (the herb) in US English: “BAY-zel”. It rhymes with “hazel”. IPA: /ˈbeɪzˌəl/

https://bazel.build/faq.html

Little problem here... Basil, the herb, can be pronounced either like hazel or like dazzle. Or even rhymed with hassle!

So naturally I opened a PR attempting to clarify this. It led to an interesting discussion, and in the end I wrote a bad poem acknowledging both pronunciations:

https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-website/pull/323


Your poem does the subject justice. Just in case you have not seen it before, one who writes bad poetry is a poetaster, which the OED [0] defines as:

  A petty or paltry poet; a writer of poor or trashy verse; a rimester. 
I should very much like to be known as a rimester. It sounds adventurous.

[0] Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. No link; it's a handy 20 volume set.


Is that pronounced "poet taster" or "poet aster"?


According to the OED, it's poe'taster where ' indicates the accent.


I appreciate that it sounds like a misspelling of potater.


potater or potahter?


Yes.


Most wholesome GH thread I have read in a while. I for one appreciate your most terrible poetry.


I've always pronounced it the same as Basel, the city in Switzerland.


Uh, the way the Swiss pronounce Basel, or the way the English do?


>the way the Swiss pronounce Basel

You may have been making a veiled reference to the fact that the Swiss pronounce it three different ways themselves, but just in case you weren't:

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g188049-i752-k284241...

>The locals say without any doubt "Basel" with a long "a". So do the germans.

>So, in american it is something like "Baahsel"

>Some english folks pronounce it "Baahl", so do the french, who write it "Bâle".

>In italian, by the way, it is "Basilea".


> The locals say without any doubt "Basel" with a long "a".

I always find “long ‘a’” very unclear. Is it long like “ate” or long like “art”?


I swear, the early English grammarians did quite some damage calling the ej sound "long "a". I understand why they did that, but it really screws up any talk about comparing different languages: what pretty much everyone else calls "long "a" is the a:/ɑ: sound (or something very close to it) — which is actually long, compared to a/ɑ.


In the specific context of 'Basel', it's like "art", but I see your point.


The way the Swiss Germans pronounce "Basel", not the way the French and English pronounce "Basle".


It's pronounced baal I believe.


In French but not in Swiss German.


Didn't know that, thanks!


Or just call it blaze :)


Co za bajzel


For the people wondering what is that comment doing here: in Polish it means "what a mess".


I know MS Azure is Aah-zhur, but I hear it called uh-Zhur more often than not.

Don’t even get me started on the fourteen incorrect ways to say Omicron…


> Aah-zhur

So do you pronounce the "Aah" like the "o" in "otter", or like the "a" in "apple"?

Isn't it fun trying to describe pronunciation with contrived spelling? :-)


Here in London, UK it's mostly pronounced Ah-zuuure. With the 'zuure' part being almost twice as long as how americans say it.

I think I've ipa'd this right: http://ipa-reader.xyz/?text=%2F%C3%A6%CA%92%C9%9C%C9%9Cr%2F

(It sounds correct anyway)


Indeed. Much easier to use IPA here, but the likelihood people can write/read it is pretty low. I'm out of practice, but should be /æʒər/. Could also copy-paste that into here: http://ipa-reader.xyz/


My main hobby is choral singing. Learning IPA is insanely helpful; at a high level the pronunciation of words really really matters and making sure the choir place the vowels (and turn the dipthongs) in the same way is a big deal (think of Anthea Turner singing 'fire' in a pop song compared to a baroque English 'fire').

I've noticed consistently that more British people are familiar with IPA, even passingly or badly, than Americans. I've never quite known why -- unless you do a language degree here you're never taught it formally, but it's usually in the dictionaries (e.g. the Oxford English dictionary) by every word, often with multiple forms for different geographic regions. I've never actually seen a real physical en-us dictionary -- does Marriam Webster (sic) do the same?


It's my impression that there's a larger variety of accents in the UK, maybe that's why British people are more familiar with IPA? We do have IPA in our dictionaries, though.


> you're never taught it formally, but it's usually in the dictionaries

Amusingly, I don't ever remember a proper IPA pronuncation table in almost anything I used to learn English.

> does Marriam Webster (sic) do the same?

Looks like it [0]

[0] https://shop.merriam-webster.com/collections/dictionaries/pr...


Emphasis on the first syllable. Short A as in apple. [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/AmP11EgEM4g


Out of curiosity, how do you know that it's Aah-zhur? Does Microsoft offer any guidance on the topic?

(Honest question, I'm confused myself. An authoritative source would be awesome.)


Watch some Microsoft Azure talks, they pronounce it ah-zur not uh-zur or ay-zur


The Azure difference at my company very closely aligned with office location relative to the Atlantic Ocean.

Aah-zhur to the west, uh-Zhur to the east.


Not BUH-zel, as some of us affectionately call it?


Now we should start spelling it "Buzzle"!

But then it wouldn't be an anagram for "Blaze" any more. (That's Google's internal build system that Bazel is derived from.)


It also doesn't help that in the recommend setup that running bazel actually runs bazelisk which would give it the dazzle pronunciation.


Funny you mention that. My company just switched to Bazelisk; it was the first time I'd heard of it. Or I should say, read about it, because I've never heard it pronounced out loud.

Even though I say BAY-zuhl, my inner mind reads Bazelisk as BAZZ-uh-lisk. No doubt because I knew the reference to Roko's Basilisk, which I'd always pronounced BASS-ihl-isk. Again in my inner mind, because I don't think I've ever heard that word pronounced either.

So I might say "We run BAY-zuhl using BAZZ-uh-lisk." And my mind doesn't put a red flag on the inconsistency, it seems perfectly natural.

Just like I eat sea bass and listen to bass guitar!


The most stunning outcome here is the apparent internet consensus that Star Wars is better than Star Trek.

This is indefensible.

A Star Wars fan will tell you there are, at most, four good Star Wars movies. A Star Trek fan will tell you there are 6-7 good Star Trek movies, depending on whether you count Galaxy Quest. This might leave us with some room for debate about whether the cultural impact of Star Wars episodes 4 and 5 outweigh Star Trek's larger amount of quality material.

Except that Star Trek is a TV show.

For the movie franchise to not even be the better movie franchise is just... there's... it's not even a question.


I also thing that the maybe the reason why Star Wars wins today has to do with the age of the fanbase but also with dilution of movies ability to attract due to TV series.

Even if both of them started in almost the same period, it seems to be that Star Trek was more active (in the sense of promoting it) early (11 movies launched before 2010, only 2 launched after) so it probably has a fan base older.

Also somehow Star Wars seems more modern, in the sense that watching Star Wars seems more 2020 than watching Star Trek even if both of them launches movies (2 Star Trek and 3 Star Wars) in the last 10 years or so (2010-2020).

I know a lot of young people who saw Star Wars, but not many that watched Star Trek.

I am not saying Star Trek is better, but I am saying that maybe a lot of the fan base is not active or does not care enough to vote or contribute to this debate :)

Also even if I am a big fan of Star Trek I also really enjoy Star Wars. Both of them brings me different things like for example: Star Trek is exploring more what humans can become while Star Wars explores more the effects of human flaws on politics, culture and societies.

I think both of them explore current events or are influenced by current geo-political events or cultural shifts.

I also think that Star Trek should try to be back to its visionary origin and not try to compete with Star Wars on apocalyptical events.


It's just because those first couple of Star Wars movies were just so exciting/imaginative etc. The universe was so lived-in and fantastic.

Trek has its moments, but it's just more boring. A lot of talky talky and slow and/or repetitive sequences. Even if it's more intellectually interesting as a whole, story-wise.

Even Star Wars was kind of slow by modern standards but the audiovisual design was just monumental.


Yeah. You can try to compare the mass of quality material in one vs the other and I can see why Trek would win that faceoff. But the universe of Wars is just more relatable and this sort of kneejerk biases that way.

• Gritty vs clean

• Thieves and scoundrels vs naval officers

• Genuine clothing vs color coded uniforms

• Misfits save the world from pervasive evil vs bold leaders discovering some weird new thing

• Magic vs Science

• Jumping into a gun turret and swinging it around at your enemy vs “Mr. Worf, target their ships!”

• Swordfights and maulings vs redshirts getting blown up.

I think each of them has its own milieu that it speaks to more, but the internet is for sure gonna pick Star Wars over Star Trek if they just are asked “X or Y?”. Star Wars still has a cool factor while Star Trek still has a dorky factor.

And a lot of that factor comes back to the fact that Trek is better known as syndicated TV. The constraint is that the episodes may be shown in random order, and so every episode or every two episodes, the state of the crew and the ships needs to be returned back to the baseline. The dorkiness comes in part from that aspect where the system gets returned back to where it was.

That's not all of it because Deadliest Catch also has the same aspect where every Deadliest Catch episode is basically the same thing, hah. Firefly kind of can be viewed as the attempt to take Star Wars’ grittiness and somehow make it syndicatable, “we finish the job and you see us a month later seeking out the next job.”


To me the stunning part is the assumption the common denominator can decide on what is or isn't quality entertainment. Going by that metric, the Bachelor, Love Island, the various talent shows and the Great British Bake-off are all beacons of culture.

Star Wars is pop culture, knights-in-space, high-octane, good vs evil. Of course it wins a popularity contest. To be clear: I'm not dissing Star Wars. It was just made to appeal to the masses and sell action figurines. It targets broader audiences. Star Trek has always been niche.


Great British Bake-off is pretty entertaining (at least the celebrity version). Of course I watch all these British celebs in a bunch of comedy panel shows like QI, 8 out of 10 Cats Does Countdown, Would I Lie To You, Taskmaster, etc, so seeing them flail around trying to bake something is entertaining to me.


lol, now listen to this alternative perspective that may match an actual objective crowd

Despite the better and more coherent world of star trek, the original show is preachy. Its too preachy. Almost every episode was to be an allegory to a real world issue at that time and its slow, and awkward. Die hards appreciate it more so for the “bold exploration” than what actually happened!

Later on the themes began self referencing and evolving into their own lore, while largely retaining a self-contained episodic format.

The movie are just fan service or the dream conflict.

But remember the human in the audience. They dont want to be preached to, they dont want the origin story of a particular character to be anything more than scifi, instead of the plot piece for now contrived bigotry.

Star Wars provides this desired entertainment. A heros tale, over and over again. The classic formula for the acceptance of the masses. Star Wars is not a satisfactory chronicle when completed, but the world building in all of its other shows and actual tv series is more engaging.

The original lore in star wars is fantasy and audiences want that.

The original lore in star trek is allegories to a real world social issue, and audiences dont always want that.


This is easy. At least for me and I bet many people believe the same thing as me.

I'm a diehard fan of BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek. And I can say Star Trek has better influence, especially to the fandom who understand accurately what its messages are.


Honestly, I think that people have just been exposed to more Star Wars, lately. In my opinion they are different enough that being asked to choose one seems contrived. The cold take is that they are different genres, despite both involving spaceships: Star Trek is sci-fi, Star Wars is fantasy.


It’s very hard to sit through Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture, though. Like 20 minutes of footage of the Enterprise docking. I don’t think much of the Star Wars prequels, but they’re leagues ahead of Star Trek 1 and 5.

Star Trek 2 and 4 are really good though. Especially the whales in 4.


So I guess you would love 2001, for the really slow shots of spaceships moving from one side of the screen to the other.


I don't see why this is a numbers thing. A total utility of a franchise? Come on.


You are just going to have to start being comfortable with the fact the kids have more exposure to Star Wars now days than Star Trek. It’s okay, one day no one is going to remember the stuff they liked either.


> Except that Star Trek is a TV show.

A category in which it loses handily to Babylon 5, the best sci-fi show, nay, the best show in general, ever to have been made.


It's really too bad that Lucas didn't make any more movies after the first 3. It seemed to me that there was a lot of ground he could have explored after that. Oh well. Maybe some day he'll sell the franchise to a studio that will do great things with it. Here's hoping!


There are the series, those are interesting.


It's not the quantity but the quality. Peak Star Wars >>>> everything. Yes, now, Star Trek is more consistent and better on average, but for me the best Star Wars is some of the best storytelling ever, so it wins.


My take is: the love for SW is cultural. When you grow up in the culture where it is adored (no matter how justified that adoration is) you keep it in higher regard. I am not from US, I was not exposed to SW or anything around it as a kid so the movies were "meh" at best.


so we're judging it by the count of good movies included in the franchise, and not actually how good those movies are?


Prior to the Disney takeover I would’ve argued with you, but now? :(


If you count Galaxy Quest there are two good Star Trek movies


I voted Trek, but there are some good Star Wars TV shows.


Star Wars fans will also tell you about some of the greatest video games of all time. None of the Star Trek games ever made much of an impact.


But Baby Yoda!


>Except that Star Trek is a TV show.

Last I checked, there were several feature films with the title of Star Trek. Do I live in a fantasy world where this isn't true for you?


Let me paraphrase OP: Star Trek is mainly a TV show but also made some movies. A Star Wars fan will tell you there are 4 good Star Wars movies. A Star Trek fan will tell you there are 6 good Star Trek movies. For Star Wars to not even be the better movie franchise (and definitely not the TV franchise) means these responses are just... inexplicable.


Are you/they implying that having more good movies makes something better?

Maybe I think the best sci-fi series is one with only two movies and no notable TV presence, but they're two outstanding movies. I don't think there's anything wrong with an opinion like that.


I'm just translating. Personally I think debates about things that are opinion-based personal preferences are fun but fruitless.


What about something like Stargate? There was only 1 movie, yet multiple TV series.


Wow, TIL that some people puts their shoe before even putting the second sock ? And that they are the majority ? Where is that ? Is the civilization finally collapsing ? How do you do that ? Your socks are near your shoes ? Near the door ? What do you wear inside your house ? Am I an alien on this planet ? So much questions it broke my brain.


As someone who is doing that at the moment, the reason for me is because I treat the floor as dirty (due to cats) and want to avoid touching it with bare feet or socks. When I'm in the apartment, I wear slippers. My socks are stored inside my boots (merino wool, so doesn't need cleaning often). When I leave, my process is: remove foot from slipper, put on the sock while standing on one leg, put sock into shoe or boot, repeat for other foot.

I'd be surprised if my process is common though.


Coming up on the site:

Is a slipper a shoe?


Here in Germany, even the gloves are called hand-shoes, so I'd guess the vote here would finalize with a resounding "yes".


Whereas the joke for English speakers learning German is that they really should be called hand-socks ;-)


Only if they're made from fabric. Leather gloves would certainly be hand shoes.


They aren't they majority actually, according to the website they're like at 10% of all answerers.


Oh yes, i misread the result. You can't imagine the relief right now. No more civilization collapse (as long as we tackle this little climate thing, that is)


Being in the “socks drawer is nowhere near the shoes” camp, there is one situation where that happens: in summer I’ll walk around my house in sandals, without socks.

The only situation I’ll put socks on is when I’m going outside in closed shoes, and in that case I’ll bring a pair of socks to the front door because why bother removing the sandal, putting on the sock, putting the sandal back on, walking to the front door, removing the sandal, putting on the shoe? Instead I’ll usually go “foot at a time” so remove sandal, put on sock, put on shoe, repeat for next foot.


> What came first, the chicken or the egg?

This one does actually have a definitive answer!

Evolutionary, there has to be an ancestor to the chicken that is not a chicken itself. It doesn't even matter where exactly you draw the line - it just has to exist.

At some point in time, a genetic mutation occurred during fertilization, resulting in the very first chicken ever. Which of course started out as an egg.

So there you have it - the very first chicken of all time started as an egg, laid by an animal that was not a chicken.

Thus the egg came first.


> resulting in the very first chicken ever. Which of course started out as an egg.

No it didn't.

It started out as a fertilized egg cell, or ovum, but that is different from an "egg," which is the vessel containing the zygote. See [1]

This egg vessel -- yolk, albumen and shell -- was created entirely by the mother (i.e. unlike the fertilized ovum, it is not a result of fertilization by two parents, and contains no mutations which could make it a new species).

So a chicken was once in an egg. The question is whether this egg, created entirely by the non-chicken mother, counts as a "chicken egg" or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg


I think that to be able to properly answer a question, it is very important to first try and fully understand the question, and to know where it's coming from.

If the egg IS a chicken, then the question "the chicken OR the egg" does not make much sense, does it? You can't chose "the egg" for an answer as that still would be the chicken (just inside a shell).

Given that the question is ancient, as well as the fact that the question has been used to further philosophical debate about first cause, infinite regression and cause & effect, it seems pretty unlikely that - within the context of the question - "chicken" is meant to refer to the entire animal species including the ovum.

It seems way more likely to me, that "chicken" is originally meant to refer to the adult animal, as in:

ovum -> egg -> chick -> chicken

Thus the argument that the chicken came first, because of the ovum (also known as "egg cell") - does not just misinterpret the premise that the question is built on - it kinda breaks the question, because basically it turns it into "What came first? The chicken or the chicken?"

Of course the evolutionary answer does defy the purpose of the question as well - finding an answer was never the purpose - but at least it sticks with the meanings of "chicken egg" and "adult chicken", that are kinda implied in the question.

The question treats the egg as NOT being a chicken. And thus by extension the ovum should not be treated as a chicken as well. It's of the species chicken of course - but it's not an adult chicken - which is the meaning of "chicken" used in the question.


You may have misread my answer: I was not declaring that "egg" meant "ovum", I was saying that other people were.

The "egg" per Wikipedia, is the vessel that contains the developing chick. In that regard, it's analogous to the uterus.

Indeed, assuming we take "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" to mean "...or the chicken egg" (otherwise it's just a silly question, as dinosaurs had eggs), then we can make the analogy to "which came first, the human or the human uterus?"

That should clearly be trivial to answer: the first organism that we could call a "human" must have started developing before her uterus did. So the human came before the human uterus.

I'm saying that this is equivalent for a chicken egg. Since the "egg" is created 100% by the mother, albumen, yolk, shell and all, I'm saying it "belongs" to the mother, in the same way that a uterus belongs to a mammal mother. It's all her own cells.

Therefore, the first "chicken egg" had to be the one laid by the first chicken. So it comes after the chicken.


Unless of course you are someone who argues, that a fertilized ovum is already a new life.

In that case you need to start to argue about what makes an egg an egg, as the fertilization happens while the rest of the egg is forming(or so I just read). So depending on your egg definition, there might be a brief period where there is a chicken which will become an egg and then becomes a chicken again.


Elementary, my dear Watson.

While the question seems to strongly imply that "chicken" is meant to refer to the hatched animal (which is also the most commonly accepted interpretation) - it does not spell that out. Thus it's not perfectly clear which interpretations may be used.

Now, if we do allow alternate interpretations of the premise, then the egg still came first. Because dinosaurs laid eggs - and that was a long time before the first chicken ovum ever got fertilized.

But if we disallow alternate interpretations and clarify that within the context of this question "chicken" has to refer to the hatched animal - then your answer is simply no longer valid.

Well, let's ignore all that. Let's define our premise such, that: A) fertilized ovums ARE chickens B) fertilized ovums are NOT eggs and answer the question based on those assumptions.

The first problem with your argument is, that it's impossible to find a logical, internally consistent definition of "chicken", that does INCLUDE the fertilized ovum, while at the same time EXCLUDING the egg. There's no way, the ovum is a chicken - stops being a chicken while an egg - and becomes a chicken again. Every definition that does include the fertilized ovum will also include the egg. So, based on our assumptions A) and B), we can deduce: C) eggs ARE chickens

But if eggs are chickens, then the question "the egg OR the chicken" no longer makes any sense - and no correct answer can exist. Therefore, your provided answer cannot possibly be correct either.

Thus, within this set of assumptions A) and B) - the question becomes meaningless, and can't be answered either way.

P.S.: you are aware, that the "ovum" is more commonly called "egg cell"? ;)


Perhaps external egg laying evolved afterwards


Maybe, but I would argue that the animal that didn't externally lay eggs wasn't a chicken.


You can pronounce any word any way you like to. The only reason to pronounce some word a certain way is out of respect. The creators of the gif format called it "jif" as a riff on jif peanut butter. End.


There's no meaningful argument on how to pronounce "gif" except "how do people pronounce gif?". Otherwise we're all going to comb through historical records to find out who first said "gift" or "giraffe".

But we can all have preferences, and in some small way be part of the process of pushing English in one direction or another. So here's my pitch for the hard g:

Ambiguous letters are very annoying. I'm teaching my kids to read and it's very frustrating. C is sometimes like sometimes like k (except when k is followed by n) and sometimes like s (except when s is followed by h), unless c is followed by h in which case...you get the idea. We have more sounds than letters, so some ambiguity is required by a sort of pigeonhole principle. It's weird, then, that we have multiple letters for the same sound. A misuse of resources.

But at least C the rules are relatively clean. G is the worst of them, because you really can't tell. Gimble but giant, etc.

So we ought to try to minimize the degree to which this happens because it makes English more approachable for everyone. If you coin a word starting with a "k" sound, start it with a k. And if you want something to start with "j" use a j. (If you want a hard g, you have to use a g, so that's settled already). Then, on the margins, English is slightly more consistent.

With words where there's no consensus, you probably can't change the spelling (and with gif you surely can't) but the same logic applies: pick in the direction of less ambiguity. Since we already have a "j" sound, we should, where possible, make "g" hard.

So say gif with a hard g for humanity.


Ted Kaczynski got caught by preferring to speak the correct way rather than the common way. So you may have a point. In the original Latin alphabet there wasn't even a G letter either. That's why for example CAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR was spelled without a G. If I remember correctly, the G had been invented by his time, but he preferred the traditionalist spelling for his first name, since strictly speaking archaic latin would probably spell his last name Kaesar, but K had fallen out of fashion at that time.


Amount of words which would be written in IPA as some variant of a 3 phonemes [k*t] but actually written with from 3 to 6 letters is astounding.


The only reason to pronounce some word a certain way is to facilitate communication with other people. It helps to pronounce things the same as the plurality of people you are talking to, to reduce barriers to understanding.


> You can pronounce any word any way you like to.

OK, I'm pronouncing GIF as 'throatwobbler mangrove', then.


ThroatwaRbler...


The argument over this always frustrates me. People argue about which pronunciation is correct, but for a made-up word, the creator is the only one who can decide what's correct. People are free to ignore the creator's wishes or do something different out of personal preference or disagree about what should be correct, but if the creator pronounced gif "Throatwobbler Mangrove" that'd still be the only thing that counts as "correct".


All words are made up. The creator can certainly suggest whatever pronunciation they think should be used, but if most of the world decides otherwise, tough luck. "Correct" language is whatever language is most widely used and understood by people. Linguistics is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one.


>the creator is the only one who can decide what's correct

When I was young I never understood the French idea of 'the death of the author'. I found the idea of ignoring the author's intentions in writing a novel, and of ignoring their clarifications regarding the novel, quite absurd. In time, I have found myself more on the side of this idea.

An author can create something, but this does not give them dictates over how it is interpreted by the rest of us. Creation need not imply authority over understanding, nor later insights inspired from a work.

I'm not sure the pronunciation of an acronym for an image format quite fits into the concept of literary criticism, but I can't say that I'll ever be too bothered that the original author has had the misfortune of pronouncing their own format incorrectly.


The vast majority of my favorite authors - ergo the ones I'm interested enough in to go looking for their opinions - have explicitly recused themselves from public interpretation.


It's a lose lose for them. Regardless of the pronunciation they declare will effectively anger half of the fans. Debate on one of my novels on the internet so that people are continuously talking about that novel is a good thing. Why wreck it?


We don't see that logic applied for foreign words. People in the USA rarely say croissant correctly, nor mayonnaise, nor manga, etc... I don't expect it will be any different for created words.

The problem is people aren't going to look up the "correct" pronunciation. They're just going to say it how ever it seems like it would be said by reading it in their native language. Once enough people do it it's too late to fix.

An interesting related thing is how people pronounce initials. For example NOP ("No" "Awp" or "Nawp" or "Nope" I had a colleague that pronounced RTS as "ritz". What I find interesting with "ritz" is why the "i". Why not "rats" or "ruts" or "rets" or "rots".

In my domain, graphics, there's GLSL which some people say "Glisle" and "WGSL" which some call "Wigsle". But why not "Glasle" or "Glashal" and "Wagsle"/"Washal". Why did they choose "i". "a" makes more sense given that the letters stand for and if you're going to abandon what the letters stand for, still, why "i" and not some other vowel?


> I had a colleague that pronounced RTS as "ritz". What I find interesting with "ritz" is why the "i". Why not "rats" or "ruts" or "rets" or "rots".

This has an explanation! If a short vowel is inserted as a transition between two consonants, there is a strong tendency for the inserted sound to be a more ‘neutral’ vowel, such as the schwa /ə/. But in many English dialects, there has been a merger [0] between the schwa /ə/ and the short ‘i’ sound /ɪ/ — the two sounds are no longer distinguishable by native speakers of those dialects. Thus, what might be pronounced as [ɹəts] sounds very much like ‘ritz’, and ‘GLSL’ becomes [ɡləzl̩], sounding like ‘Glisle’.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_Englis...


There is no objectively correct way to pronounce anything. The only correctness that matters is if you were understood correctly. In that case both are correct, but they each are different signals.


Even in normal everyday conversational words let alone tech words. People in New England pronounce words differently than people in Minnesota or the South. Hell, in Texas, syllables are seemingly added to words in our pronunciations.


This might be somewhat true for English where there are so many odd spellings and exceptions [1] but, in general, there are rules for pronunciation and they are pretty strong for many languages.

[1]: https://www.thoughtco.com/chaos-by-charivarius-gerard-nolst-...


Why on earth would anyone think for a second that the inventor of a technology has any input on the pronunciation of the name of the technology?

Imagine if someone said “well actually the inventor of the paper clip pronounces it with a soft ‘c’ so it sounds like ‘paper slip’”

This seems so clearly absurd that I don’t even really know how to argue against it.


Right, but when the president declares it’s a hard g… well, the guy with the most nukes wins. https://time.com/2871272/obama-tumblr-gif-wars/


I like how we all know this is impossible to settle and yet wade in with our arguments anyway.

Graphics Interchange Format

Try to say Graphics with a soft G.


> Try to say Graphics with a soft G.

That's not exactly difficult to do, though it would be spelled "draphics".

It's difficult to see what this is supposed to be relevant to; acronyms are never given pronunciations taken from their hidden constituent words. Try to say "stimulated" with a /z/ (as in "LASER").


> Try to say "stimulated" with a /z/ (as in "LASER").

Yup, and there are plenty of others too:

SCUBA - U as in uh-nderwater

SIM / VIN - I as in I-dentification

YOLO - second O as in wuh-nce

CAPTCHA - first A as in aw-tomated

AWOL - soft a-bsent

ICE - ih-mmigration and Customs Enforcement

NATO - soft A-tlantic

OCONUS - ow-tside

OSHA - ah-ccupational

SCOTUS / POTUS - uh-f

AIDS - a-cquired

It's really a long list if you look. I vote for GIF with a J sound.


It bothers me a little that all of your examples are vowels. Especially when you include OSHA in the list of examples. It's not the Shafety and Shealth Administration.


That's a really good point. It seems like most English consonants have roughly one way to pronounce them, particular as a first letter in a word as in an acronym. I guess I should've looked for acronyms built on Ch, Ph, Sh, Th, Wh, Ph, hard or soft C's, and of course hard or soft G's (ginger, gypsy).

Here's a soft G word making a hard G acronym, and a hard G word making a soft G acronyn:

    GAD - Generalized Anxiety Disorder
    GEMA - Gas and Electric Markets Authority
Some other non-G examples:

    PAL - Phase Alternating Line
    PAWS - Phased Array Warning System
    SWF - ShockWave Flash
They're much harder to find though.


One consonant example: CUNY is pronounced with a hard C, but we don't say "New York Kitty"


Say Graphics with a mouthful of Jif peanut butter and see how it sounds!!!


I think you may have converted me. xD


I really don't like any argument for how to pronounce ".gif", so I pronounce it in as many ways as possible to try to annoy people.

Here's a wonderful video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmqy-Sp0txY


there's some leeway in how to pronounce things but obviously communication requires consensus on how to transmit things or else you can't exchange any information. See two people in very different thick accents trying to speak to each other in the same language.


I pronounce it with a guttural "g" as normal in Dutch, and that option is missing :(


Since learning spanish I've pronounced it with a slightly throaty H sound (and GIMP that way also), closer to yours I guess than hard-g gif or jiff.


I for one welcome the giraffe interchange format.


To me it’s gotta be different from “jif” because that’s already a word with a different spelling. I think that’s why there’s a tiebreaker: because “jiff” is already a different word, I jump to “gif”.


Well, the creator proposed it to be called "jiff" to specifically reference that word. Because Gifs are compressed, they would download much faster (a jiffy) over slow dialup internet connection than a bmp.


Yes but the creator screwed up in thinking that people were going to read the minutia of their document. The majority of people seeing "gif" with no instruction would use a hard-g. If they know it stands for "Graphics Interchange Format", again they'd use a hard-g. They screwed up (unless their goal was to cause all this endless useless discussion :P)


> The majority of people

Is this true? Basically a lot of people in europe will jump to soft g. Will latin america pronounce "gi" as the aspirated H?. Don't know anything about the countries in africa, I hear nigeria is pretty big and there's a lot of tech coming out of there. India (big elephant, pun intended) I suppose is hard g, but what about china -- I have no clue? Japan (120M, almost half the population of US, mind you) is exclusively soft g -- likely because hard g collides with the name of a prefecture (province). Korea I think is hard g (50 m, almost all very tech-savvy). Indonesia?


Homophones are valid words with valid pronunciations and we have a ton of them in English.


Sure, but I feel like when I encounter a new word, my brain assumes a homophone is less likely than two words having different pronunciations.


How there can be more than two ways to spell words that sound like “to” is just too much. When people do that, I wonder if they’re messing with me or if their minds have fallen prey to a language of many sources. I pray that we will one day have eliminated all of the homophones. Then we will have truly won. Eye think ewe agree…


Language follows patterns for all sorts of reasons. Some of it has to do with priors based on other words, or beliefs about pronunciation and so forth based on other information, or in many cases, the physiology of the throat, mouth, and tongue. People will do whatever they want and it doesn't matter what the originator of a word wanted or intended.

I don't say this out of disrespect; language is a sort of chaotic dynamic group-level system, and what happens initially is only one small input.


Anyone who says gif must also maintain consistency when saying giraffe. Otherwise, you are living too dangerously for me.

Edit: I think a lot of people thought I was serious. Just joking around.


There is no sense in which English pronunciation can be described as "consistent." As supporting evidence, may I introduce the poem "The Chaos":

https://ncf.idallen.com/english.html


As a non-native speaker who mostly reads English, this makes me very worried about my pronunciation.


The P in JPEG stands for "photo." You don't pronounce it "jpheg." English isn't a consistent language, and to try to apply consistent pronunciation is a failure in abstract thinking.


You've made a giant gaffe.


I know you were joking. My favorite example is

   ghoti 
"gh" from laugh, "o" from "women", "ti" from "tion" (like nation")

so "ghoti" can be pronounced the same as "fish"


I will go ahead and note that such a construction violates a ton of pronunciation rules. Yes english has those.


gin, gift, giraffe, giggle


git


I frequently work with some people in Argentina and they pronounce git as an English speaker might say “jit”

We never discus image formats tho. I’ll have to ask them about GIF next time.


The English call the Thames river Tims. Spanish call Barcelona Barthelona, and Ibiza Ibitha. So I don't put much in native pronounciations. Otherwise, if they are pronouncing it correctly, they need to go back to spelling skool!!

Don't get me started on Stuyvesant! ;-)

/s in case it's not obvious


So how do you pronounce "gill"?


The unit of measure? "Jill".


> The unit of measure?

You wouldn't think "the breathing apparatus of a fish" before "the unit of measure"? When was the last time you saw something measured in gills?


When I lived in Scotland around 25 years ago, many bars in the Highlands advertised the size of their whiskey measures in terms of gills (and I was laughed at for mispronouncing the term!). I'm not sure if it's still common. So for me, it does actually come to mind at least as readily as fish anatomy.


Jill, obviously. /s


There ought to be a 'law' (like Godwin's) that shuts down any debate about pronunciation if it devolves into mentioning the GIF file format.


We're all used to the idea that the creator of a thing can be wrong about the thing at this point. Wizard poop and all.


Pay respect to the author and also to people who use the word and want easy pronunciations so they can spend more time on what's more useful. If, say, our lovely Indian instructors on youtube decide that gif is git but with f, then let it be, for that they are making contributions.


Eggs existed long before chickens.

A whole 51% the internet currently appears to agree. Phew.


The question obviously doesn't mean any egg, it is asking about chicken eggs. But the question still always seemed ambiguous to me only because the terms are vague. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken, then it is the chicken first. If you define it as an egg that a chicken was hatched from, then it was the egg first. Define your terms and the question is simple to answer.


If evolution is correct and I think we can skip debate on this, then the chicken is results of mutations from a previous lineage of animals…

Those mutations happen at/inside the egg. At some point… little by little, two animals have an offspring that isn’t exactly like them.

The chicken egg came before the chicken that laid it. Some other animal laid it. And likewise the egg existed before the chicken inside it developed.

In no scenario that I can steelman does the chicken ever come first.


Let me try to steel-man it, then: the "egg" may be taken to refer to the "eggs laid by chickens", in which case there necessarily was a chicken before the first chicken-laid egg.

And that's the best I can do. But it's silly, because that interpretation of the question has an extremely obvious answer, which implies that this is _not_ the intended meaning of the question -- if the structure of the question contains the required answer, then you wouldn't bother asking that question at all.

So we're right back at of course the bloody egg came first.

Anyone else want to take a shot?


Now, to make it more messy. Are we talking about Chicken egg or Chicken's egg? That is an egg which from chicken came from or egg produced by a chicken? In first case, chicken egg came from non-chicken, in later case only chicken can produce one...


Amen.

Another way to put it is that a chicken was once an egg, so even if "the chicken came first," that chicken was once an egg.


A chicken wasn't once an egg.

A chicken was once a fertilized egg cell, but an "egg" is the vessel that contains the zygote [1], and was created entirely by the mother (i.e. it is not a result of fertilization). So a chicken was once in an egg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg


We’re not saying “what came first? The chicken or the zygote?”

Consider the context before trying to correct people. You’re just being pedantic for no reason.


Huh? No, I'm saying something very specific that you may have missed.

Many people in this thread are using the word "egg" in the same way as a female mammal releases an "egg" in estrus, i.e. the cell which will become an organism once fertilized. Hence the discussion elsewhere of how the mutation has already happened in this cell.

For instance, besides this thread, another person said "resulting in the very first chicken ever. Which of course started out as an egg.

I'm saying that a bird "egg", from the Wikipedia link, is not the gamete cell but rather simply the container, created by the mother.

So statements such as "[the chicken] started out as an egg" or "a chicken was once an egg" (your statement) are simply incorrect, just as saying "a human baby was once a uterus" is wrong.

It's not pedantic "for no reason" (at least any more than the rest of this by-definition pedantic discussion is).


Then the question just becomes which definition is correct.


But it's not about the definition, because the definition mentioned is not correct anymore than saying the definition is if the egg was laid on a Sunday.

> If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken

Species are assumed to produce eggs of the same species. Like many convenient turns of phrase, this isn't strictly true. What the egg contains (unless the egg casing is a relevant attribute) is how it is characterized.

A mutation exists in the developing embryo, so a non-chicken had a chicken-containing egg. This is a chicken egg, which necessarily came first. Looking at any given xenopregnancy (a hybrid Liger, or panda fetus in a cat, et al). The carrying species does not make the result of that species. eg If there was a non-chicken species (say, a turkey) which produced eggs that were genetically and practically identical to chicken-containing eggs, they would be called chicken eggs.


I mean that's a bit over-simplistic... It's not that a nonchicken lays a chicken egg, that implies an either/orness of chickenhood that would be radically unique. What actually happened was that at around 10,000 years ago a group of birds similar to modern red junglefowl either migrated or was forcibly taken from northern Thailand to the Indian subcontinent, where they started mating with the local birds similar to grey junglefowl with whom they were still able to interbreed. If you call those each 99%-chickens each then you had a steady meeting of two 99%-chicken lines interbreeding until they formed something steadily closer to our 100%-chicken lines, but presumably also creating 98%-chickens etc. in their breeding population. The variation inside the breeding population is larger than the distance of the progenitor populations to the final result.

Viewed this way, what actually caused chickens to happen was the migration, not the genetics. It was the part where the two red junglefowl groups came out of genetic contact and started to diverge. On the assumption that these red junglefowl were adults (which is obvious if it was a migration, but merely likely if it was forced by humans), this means that a population of non-chickens was divided into two subpopulations, one of which was chickens, one of which wasn't.

So even agreeing that we should categorize the egg by the creature it produced immediately after hatching, you still get by this argument that a nonchicken egg hatched into a nonchicken which by circumstance became a chicken... Chickens came first, and then their chicken eggs.


Suppose you have a definition of a chicken that is rigorous enough to break any ties. Then the first chicken that meets this definition was hatched from an egg. That egg was laid by a non-chicken (some animal that was very close to, but not exactly, a chicken). So the egg came first.


Even with this perfect definition there are still ambiguities.

You could still debate if a non-chicken egg with chicken DNA is a chicken egg. Its shell and yolk, all contents, were produced by a non-chicken - imagine the eggshell was blue, not white, and the final allele change to become “chicken” switched the “egg color laid once grown” to white.

If all this eggs contents were produced by a genetically non-chicken - the egg is blue - is it really a “chicken egg”?

Imagine you took a chicken egg, and modified the DNA so that an elephant would hatch. Is this a “chicken egg (with elephant DNA)” or an “elephant egg (with shell, white, and yolk produced by a chicken)”?


So in case you missed what is wrong with that, what is wrong with that is that you have a very checkered history of chickenhood.

Viewed your way, a chicken actually gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a chicken who gave birth to a nonchicken who gave birth to a chicken that was finally the mother of an unbroken line of hens that survives to this day, some of whom had nonchicken fathers.

The problem is that the variation of the breeding population is much larger than the distance from the originals to the final result.


> So the egg came first.

Which egg?

Obviously "the egg that the chicken hatched from" came first, no one's debating that. But that's all you've said.

If the question is "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg", then it depends on whether the chicken egg is one that houses the chicken, or the one that is laid by a chicken.


A hybrid of a canary and a goldfinch is a mule.

Would you really argue that those eggs hatching into mules are not mule eggs?

I could see an argument that those eggs, coming out of canaries, could count as canary eggs, but not in a way that stops them from being mule eggs. "mule eggs" definitely needs to include the eggs that hatch into mules.


Ok, and is this chicken a perfectly spherical chicken?


Maybe it should've been Eggs or That Which laid the Egg...

To expand to dinosaurs, chickens, and Bronteroc's.

Assuming there's just chickens, and we're talking just about chicken eggs, then the chicken came first. Chickens need a mother to hatch the egg, to create the egg in it's womb, etc. An egg cannot exist without a mother to birth it.


How did the chicken come about though? If we define chicken as exactly what we have today, that means it must have been born in a hard shelled egg.

I'm assuming that evolution would happen slowly over time, the creature that ended up becoming the chicken would have had to already been laying eggs. The egg laying feature would need to already be present for it to be our modern day preciously defined chicken.

The egg had to have come first


> Assuming there's just chickens

I don't think the question is about a fantasy world that only has chickens, and the chickens came from ????.

Just treat it as "chicken" vs. "chicken egg".


The correct why to pronounce gif out loud is "image," because who asks for a particular file format, and if you do care about the format of the image, it should be something other than gif.


Gif became part of the vernacular to describe a short looping video clip or animation with no audio that can be easily shared. Nowadays people are often actually sharing mp4s or webms even when they think it’s gif. It’s just a bit of internet heritage, and causes little harm.


Similar to how the term "podcast" became part of the language even though almost nobody uses an iPod to listen to them anymore.


Huh. I always called those "animated gifs." I guess soon they'll be known as "silent ticktocks" though.


I’d be okay with using the new pronunciation for this new meaning.

- GIF /dʒɪf/: Graphics Interchange Format

- gif /ɡɪf/: short looping silent video


It is very rare to see GIF images these days. 99.9% of the time I hear GIF people are talking about videos (usually short and automatically looping).

The fact that GIF videos are considered an image is really just a quirk of evolution of the image format to support videos and browsers supporting these videos in an <img> tag (and nowhere else).


Why try to pronounce it at all... Just spell it out as G-I-F.

I get that people want to be lazy but pronouncing acronyms/contractions has always been fraught with disagreement. Same goes for things like SQL (which somehow gets pronounced as "sequel") while people leave PDF alone.


The SQL one is different. It was originally "Structured English Query Language", or SEQUEL. When IBM released it into the public domain, it became SQL, but retained its pronunciation. That's not to say that spelling it out is incorrect—it's at least as correct as "sequel"—just that the "sequel" pronunciation is not arbitrary.


> It was originally "Structured English Query Language", or SEQUEL.

Sounds like you meant it was originally "Structured English QUEry Language"?

Not the most inspiring way to form an acronym.


Why not? It's very common. Better than GNU.


Ah, that’s mostly because the proposed pronunciation for PDF File is trademarked by Dateline NBC


Who asks for a particular file format?

Uh, literally anyone who works with graphics?


As an Italian, I stopped after I saw the internet has decided that pineapple on pizza is ok.

Illegal.


I'm one of the wretched sinners, but I was honestly surprised at the results.


Tomato is a fruit too, so why not pineapple? :)


"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad" (Miles Kington)


Yes, because it's not sweet. Pineapple however pairs well with tomato on a pizza giving it a sweet and tangy flavour.


Now I want to make a pizza with pineapple sauce in it...


And tomato topping


Have you tried it?


Yeah and it is disgusting.


Stop yucking people's yums.


Ham is a necessary component. I wouldn't eat a pizza with only pineapple...but the Hawaiian! It's so good, if it's made right.


If you are a vegetarian you can suplement Ham with Feta cheese. It's also very good.


That was fun. I'm genuinely shocked pineapple on pizza is in a dead heat. I'm a fan and I thought it would be less popular, but this makes me realize why debates rage on about it.


One time I was in a small US town making conversation with a hotel clerk, and she couldnt stand Chinese food, and I’m confused how her experience was not pleasant and am trying to convince otherwise with a tasting date like at the restuarant across street, to no avail.

I went to that restuarant a few days later and it was horrible food, but similar to the other cuisine experiences possible in that town, region.

So, now I understand. Maybe their pineapple on pizza experience has been bad because of the way it was prepared.


I've had pineapple in a number of cooked preparations, the only one I enjoy is sweet and sour. For me it's definitely the kind of preparation and not a lack in execution.


No.


It's so difficult when we learn people aren't naturally good ;)

Pineapple with cashews & onions on a pizza is da bomb


Definitely an acquired taste. I used to hate "Hawaiian pizza" with a passion as a kid but nowadays I'd be OK with it.


Gif vs jif? Isn't that like asking "Do you pronounce it like it's pronounced or like a different word is pronounced"


Nah. People don't get to change the rules. I can't tell you my name is spelled K-Y-L-E and insist it is pronounced "Mark". GIF is a crappy image format. JIF is peanut butter.


Craig in the USA is "Creg", and in other countries it's "Crayg".

Language is constantly evolving.


That one is extremely weird (and distracting if you happen to be talking about a Craig).

I assume they just don’t notice the difference, like with marry/merry/Mary.


Where in the USA are you hearing “Creg?” I’ve never heard it pronounced that way.


I'm in New England and have only ever heard it pronounced Creg.

Wikipedia agrees that this is common: "In North America it is often pronounced with a short vowel sound /krɛɡ/, as in "egg"" [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_(given_name)


> I can't tell you my name is spelled K-Y-L-E and insist it is pronounced "Mark"

Not the same thing at all. This is more like someone following different pronunciation rules insisting that your name as spelled is pronounce "Kee-lay"; and if you actually want "Kaa-il", you should spell it K-A-I-L instead. It kind of makes sense that way too, as long as the rules are somewhat consistent in their version.

If the creator wanted to name it after Jif, the extension and name should have both been JIF. Putting in a G instead of a J is begging to create confusion about the pronunciation.


My name is Blarfengar, spelled S-M-I-T-H.


> My name is Blarfengar, spelled S-M-I-T-H.

Are you from Wales?


Nah, probably from Ireland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVaHvRLlHr0 "My name contains seven silent letters"...


I didn't know how to answer this question since I pronunce "gif" and "jif" the same. Of course I pronunce "gif" "gif" that's a tautology.


Is it pronounced "gist" or "jist"? "Gem" or "jem"? "Giraffe" or "jiraffe"?


Is it pronounced "beard" or "heard"? "Tear" or "tear"? "Grieve" or "sieve"? "Lover" or "clover"? "Device" or "crevice"?

You're implying that there should be a logical correspondence between how English words sound and how they're spelled. I'm not convinced that is true.


No I'm implying the exact opposite.


That's actually quite funny, I would say gist is pronounced jist but only because it's clearly a play on the word "jist" in the first place. Like a branded version of a generic term - like tumblr where we all know it's actually tumbler rather than tumblr but with a different pronounciation due to copyright.


Gist is a word. Jist is a misspelling of gist or just, no more.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=gist%2Cjist&ye... makes me wonder just what happened around 1840. I suspect https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_the_Little_Frenchman_Wear... (uses jist regularly as a misspelling of just) may have something to do with it.


Gingko or jingko? Given our jiven? Give or jive? Gill or Jill? Giddy or jiddy?

Both patterns exist in the language.


> Give or jive?

These are both words pronounced really differently, though. Give is a hard 'g' short 'i', jive is a 'j' and a long 'i'.

I'd like to add 'Gaol' or 'Jail'? Debra vs Zebra (These are pronounced differently in the US).


> Both patterns exist in the language.

Yes that is my point.


Haha, it's totally trolling us. You can tell because of the little icon for the peanut butter


I'd say Sean is pronounced >Shawn<, not >Sean<, so there's that.


Yeah a better option would be "like Gift" or "like Jiffy"


A more better option would be "like Gin or like Ginkgo" because it makes it obvious that the "gift has a hard G, therefore..." people have made a mistake.

So many people come up with so many fake rules for why it should have a hard G, but there are only two real rules for names, and, yes, GIF is a name (of a format). 1) If the named thing can't speak for itself, the people who named it dictate how the name is pronounced. 2) If it can speak for itself, it dictates. Nobody who isn't the named thing or its namer(s) gets to say how its name is pronounced regardless of what they think of the spelling.


There are only 2 rules for making up arbitrary rules on the internet. 1) The person making up the rule can demand the rule be followed. 2) People will do what they want regardless of the earnestness of the arbitrary internet rule maker.


Gin derives from Jenever and Wikipedia suggests the Dutch pronounced it differently. It's mispronounciation all the way down.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenever


In my opinion this is only true until the "unplanned" usage becomes mainstream. Language is always evolving. Once the majority is using the g sound from "gift" not "gin", the majority rule is correct, even though they would have been initially incorrect.

Consider the changes of people's names as they migrated around the world. In NZ, we pronounce Craig as "Crayg", in the US they pronounce it "Creg", which I struggle to make sense of, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are better examples than Craig but that was the first one that came to mind.


but that doesn't make it wrong

I agree with everything you said except that bit, it’s megawrong


You mean that saying Craig->Creg is wrong? It's always bothered me and it's very jarring, but if you grew up being called Creg, then it wouldn't be wrong. But it sounds so wrong to me.

I feel like it doesn't make sense, because then Greg should be spelled Graig, but that's the whole point, language evolves in an inconsistent way, and the only defining point of correct pronunciation is really "how do the majority of people say it", and that is often only a regional thing too.

Either way, the assertion that because something is a name it cannot evolve in pronunciation is easily disproved.


I’m mostly being facetious (but only mostly)


At least you don't say it "Creag" as with Air NZ :D


Maybe I'll start now!


> because it makes it obvious that the "gift has a hard G, therefore..." people have made a mistake.

That's obvious anyway; gift is one word (well, also give) swamped in a sea of other gi- words.

And gift is a very strange one. What is it, a loan from Norse? You'd think, if it were a native word, that it would have turned into something more like "yift", the way we see in e.g. day, I, or yard.


Yard -> Gard/Jard -> Garden. Mind blown.


English has a few words taken from Norse that also maintain native equivalents. See also ship / skiff[1]; shirt / skirt.

[1] This one's not Norse.


Or, "Do you pronounce 'GIF' like 'giant/ginger/gibbon' or incorrectly?


> Or, "Do you pronounce 'GIF' like 'giant/ginger/gibbon' or incorrectly?

...you are aware that "gibbon" isn't pronounced with /dʒ/?


I think a better option would be, "Like Gila or like dagga?"


Is it smooth or crunchy?


Gif if crunchy.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: