flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > within vs inside ?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
ouadji



Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 1081
Location: Belgium
ouadji

a small question for those whose English is the native tongue !

What's the difference between "within" and "inside" ??? Confused

thank you.

_________________
I am not young enough to know everything (Oscar Wilde)- Image
Post 08 Nov 2010, 21:25
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
That's hard to answer, I found a good explanation(http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/node/969). See if that helps.

Basically, "within" is abstract(dealing with ideas), "inside" is concrete and only used with objects/places not ideas.

Does that help? Ask about anything unclear.
Post 08 Nov 2010, 21:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ouadji



Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 1081
Location: Belgium
ouadji
Quote:
Basically, "within" is abstract (dealing with ideas),
"inside" is concrete and only used with objects/places not ideas.
This explanation is perfect

Thank you Tyler. Razz

_________________
I am not young enough to know everything (Oscar Wilde)- Image
Post 08 Nov 2010, 22:09
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
Basically, within is a preposition, and inside is a noun.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 06:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Fanael



Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 168
Fanael
guignol wrote:
Basically, within is a preposition, and inside is a noun.
inside can be either, really - it can a noun, it can be a preposition, it can even be an adjective or an adverb. And this is the case with within, too.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 07:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
falafel wrote:
And this is the case with within, too.
No, it isn't.


Last edited by guignol on 10 Nov 2010, 14:58; edited 1 time in total
Post 10 Nov 2010, 08:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Fanael



Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 168
Fanael
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but apperently you're not right.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 13:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
I am - OED shows no within adjective.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 14:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edemko



Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 549
edemko
"within" as an adjective: "A within revolution" :)
Post 10 Nov 2010, 15:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17450
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
guignol wrote:
I am - OED shows no within adjective.
Who is to say that the OED is the god of dictionaries?
Post 10 Nov 2010, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
rev wrote:
Who is to say that the OED is the god of dictionaries?
Ignoramus.
For the god of dictionaries has a different name.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 17:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DarkAlchemist



Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 108
DarkAlchemist
Inside my head, and within my dreams, comes that which you could not imagine.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 18:19
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
It is irrelevant what any dictionary defines. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Commonly accepted standard are the only standards. Dictionaries describe those standards. I assume that's why he asked for the opinion of a native speaker instead of that if a dictionary.
Post 10 Nov 2010, 22:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DarkAlchemist



Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 108
DarkAlchemist
Tyler wrote:
...Commonly accepted standard are the only standards....
You are correct, but, alas, it is a thug mentality where the majority "MOB" mentality dictates what is correct, or accepted, in practice.

It all boils down to the butchering of a language, and I doubt English is the only one that the butchering happens to.

Ebonics has even crept into the dictionaries, as of late, but that doesn't mean those words are correctly used or, in of themselves, correct in regards to the English language.
Post 11 Nov 2010, 00:24
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17450
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
<revolutions "correctness" rant> Wink

There is no such thing as "correct" English because there is no one person or authority to define what is correct and what is not correct. Ebonics cannot be said to be either "correct" or "incorrect". All that can be said is that Ebonics is used in some places.

</rant>

At the very most all one can say about spellings and usage "errors" is that they are not the normal way that the reader/listener is expecting. But that doesn't make them wrong, that just makes them unnormal (oops, did I just use a non-word "unnormal" there?).

Actually I see this often. People fall into the trap of thinking there is some sort of higher authority that has defined what is correct/right/proper. Whereas the reality of it is that it is the people themselves that are defining the language each and every time they speak or write anything.

eg. Not so long ago many would cringe at the use of "blog", saying it was an abomination (butchering) of the language. But lately, because of continued usage and the frequent exposure, the word has become relatively acceptable. Another example: "gay" now has a new meaning when compared to ~50 years ago. And the old meaning is almost non existent in modern day writing and speech.

English grows, expands, shrinks, changes, shifts ... it is a huge mess. I wonder how long it will take until "teh" is considered an acceptable variant of "the"? Razz
Post 11 Nov 2010, 00:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DarkAlchemist



Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 108
DarkAlchemist
Basically we will end up using a guttural variation of a mix mash of various languages as was heard in the Blade Runner movie? Count me out because as far as I will go is when a word finally loses its hyphen (takes about 50 years).
Post 11 Nov 2010, 02:21
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17450
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
DarkAlchemist wrote:
Basically we will end up using a guttural variation of a mix mash of various languages ...
Erm, well we already have that. It is called English.

I wonder what the folks of 200 years ago would think of current English? They might say it is crass, weird, silly or nonsensical (perhaps all). I wonder if the folks in 200 years time will look at our current English and say it is antiquated, pompous and too wordy.
Post 11 Nov 2010, 04:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
What ignorami don't know, is that all English dictionaries derive from OED.

rev, darling, don't confuse acceptance of a new word with that of its alteration. If teh will once mean some new, previously not described concept, then you will have it as a new word; having it replacing the won't happen.
Unless, of course, someone who is way too cool to allow dictionaries won't start destroying them to the final one.
In fact, can you explain me, where is the "punch letter" in teh, cause I ain't kinda diggin' it.


Tyler
Sure, you're a true nugget.
When you'll become an etalon, make sure to give us a notice.
Post 11 Nov 2010, 10:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17450
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
guignol wrote:
... all English dictionaries derive from OED.
Nonsense. And easily proved wrong nonsense at that. MW and RH are just two examples. There are many more.
Post 11 Nov 2010, 10:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 724
guignol
What is RH?
And how exactly "are examples", anyway?


What about teh?
(I kinda wanna dig it... I kinda wanna dig it... Laughing )
Post 11 Nov 2010, 10:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.