• Dominic (unregistered) in reply to tharpa

    [quote user="tharpa"][quote user="RD"]I am a native speaker of English (American dialect). No, "What's Ray short for?" can not be correctly read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?" It could, however, be read as "What is the purpose of Ray being short", in which case the answer above, "She hasn't got any legs" does not make any sense. If the question were, "What's Ray got no legs for?", then the answer could be, "To fit in her VW Bug." So I agree with NamingException above.[/quote] nerrrrrrrrrrd

  • (cs) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    tharpa:
    No, "What's Ray short for?" can not be correctly read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?"

    What color is the sky in your little world?

    It depends. Blue on a sunny day. Black at midnight. Grey on a cloudy day, etc.

  • RD (unregistered) in reply to tharpa
    tharpa:
    (American dialect)

    Well, if you're not going to speak it right there's nothing I can do for you, old boy.

    I jest, of course. It's a very colloquial usage over here, but a valid one nonetheless. The version I'd heard previously was:

    Q. What's E.T. short for? A. Because he's only got little legs.

    You'll note the phrasing of the answer is in keeping with the colloquial misreading of the question ("because he's only got" vs "because he only has"), which I always thought added to the joke.

  • Hasse de great (unregistered) in reply to tharpa

    Cyan is more correct.

  • (cs) in reply to Hasse de great
    Hasse de great:
    Cyan is more correct.

    For why?

  • (cs) in reply to Done
    Done:
    Long time reader, frist time poster here. After much consideration, I am now done with TDWTF. It hasn't been funny or WTF'y for months now.

    You will be back. I assure you.

  • jjh (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:
    "Why" can describe a purpose or a cause.

    Purpose: Why is the light off? We want to surprise the guest.

    Cause: Why is the light off? It is broken.

    You can substitute, What is the light off for? What? is targeting a purpose or cause.

    No, sorry. tharpa has it right.

    "Why" can indeed refer to either cause or purpose. "For what" and its variations can only refer to the latter.

    "What is the light off for?" should correctly be answered as: "The light is off for surprising the guest." Or: "The light is off for a surprise for the guest." That is how the "what... for" construction makes grammatical sense.

    You wouldn't ever say: "The light is off for being broken."

    It's like squares and rectangles. "What is/does ... for?" can always be reformulated as "Why is/does...?" but the reverse does not hold.

  • (cs) in reply to jjh

    "The light is off for technical reasons."

  • (cs) in reply to Ziplodocus
    Ziplodocus:
    Quango:
    Any database structure that prefixes tables with tbl_ is guaranteed to be horrible.

    Really?

    response_Yes!

    Seriously, it's a throwback to 20th century programming when tools were weak and you needed the naming hints that you're doing it wrong. Most tools and languages make this redundant.

    Plus in meetings you don't have try to say "tbl_UpdStatBkup" instead of "UpdateStatisticsBackups"

    If you want the full detailed argument read Uncle Bob's Clean Code chapter 2. http://www.amazon.com/Clean-Code-Handbook-Software-Craftsmanship/dp/0132350882

  • Chris Judge (unregistered) in reply to NamingException
    NamingException:
    RD:
    NamingException:
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?

    A. She hasn't got any legs.

    WTF?

    Not a native English speaker?

    "What's Ray short for?" can also be read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?"

    CAPTCHA: valetudo, an Ancient Roman infantry formation for waving goodbye.

    Oh, of course. I haven't had enough coffee for Borscht Belt yet.

    No, the original question placed quotation marks around "Ray" - just like I did now. This means that the question is being asked about the three letter word "Ray" not about the person to whom this name refers.

    This is known as the use/mention distinction. So, while

    What's Ray short for?
    can be read as "Why is the person named Ray not tall,"
    What's "Ray" short for?
    can only be read as "What longer word is the three-letter word "Ray" a shortened version of?".
  • (cs)

    If you're arguing about whether to use the name "tbl_Table" or just "Table", you're probably missing out on doing some other part of your job correctly.

  • (cs) in reply to MrOli
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?
    (Going a different with with this....)

    It's actually her last name. Her first name is Bobbin.

  • Cliff (unregistered)

    Art, maybe. A nice diagram to distract the business analysts, for sure. They often like to see a nice official looking diagram with lots of links and opaque names for things. It means they in turn can prove to their management that 'things are being done'.

    It's a shibboleth - only developers are going to query what it truly represents, Ray has passed.

    Incidentally, instead of being lots of tables, all those lookups could just be instances of the same table, there could be validity in the design for some reporting or DRI validation purposes.

    And as for the 'what's x short for' sidebar here, that's kinda how this class of jokes work, twisting expectations or meanings leaving the brain momentarily stunned into laughter. Figure the same with the 12" pianist joke, the horse 'why the long face' joke, etc - they play on dual meanings and quirks of grammar.

  • (cs) in reply to da Doctah
    da Doctah:
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?
    (Going a different with with this....)

    It's actually her last name. Her first name is Bobbin.

    http://www.bizapedia.com/ny/BOBBIN-RAY-LLC.html

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Ike:
    "She poured over all of the documentation provided to her by her team lead."

    What did she pour over all of the documentation? Tears? I think you meant to say that she PORED over the documentation.

    No, no, no. It's PAWED obviously. Like a kitty cat.

    ;)

    She phuored over the documentation: "Phuor! This stinks!"

  • Dominic (unregistered) in reply to Nagesh

    if you quit TDWTF where will you post exasperated comments?

  • norwalker (unregistered) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    Done:
    Long time reader, frist time poster here. After much consideration, I am now done with TDWTF. It hasn't been funny or WTF'y for months now.

    You will be back. I assure you.

    It's been going steadily downhill ever since Alex stopped writing articles himself and started delegating to his minions.

  • (cs)

    Wow, his last article was 10/9/2012. Can't believe that it's been that long.

    http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/My-Dearest-Amy.aspx

  • Sole Reason for Visiting (unregistered) in reply to Ike
    Ike:
    "She poured over all of the documentation provided to her by her team lead."

    What did she pour over all of the documentation? Tears? I think you meant to say that she PORED over the documentation.

    You really have no clue how this site works, do you?

    A WTF isn't a WTF until you've run it through Creative Writing 101. In Creative Writing 101, a spell-checker (and Cliff Notes to the collected works of Miguel Cervantes) are your friend!

    Now, you or I would choose to spell the verb correctly, on the assumption that this would make it easier for the reader to work out what on earth is going on. And you or I would be wrong!

    It's about time we started anonymizing verbs on this site!

    The actual mistake here, as any professional Creative Writer should know, was to "anonymize" the verb simply by mis-spelling it.

    I'd suggest that "She crepusculated over the documentation" would be a far better choice.

    Maybe we could leave out the intransitive altogether and go nonsensically transitive: "She cromulated over the documentation."

    With a bit of luck, we'll end up with Creative Writing Bingo. It would certainly make the comments more entertaining, not that the commentators are at fault over the last year or so.

  • (cs) in reply to Sole Reason for Visiting
    Sole Reason for Visiting:
    Ike:
    "She poured over all of the documentation provided to her by her team lead."

    What did she pour over all of the documentation? Tears? I think you meant to say that she PORED over the documentation.

    You really have no clue how this site works, do you?

    A WTF isn't a WTF until you've run it through Creative Writing 101. In Creative Writing 101, a spell-checker (and Cliff Notes to the collected works of Miguel Cervantes) are your friend!

    Now, you or I would choose to spell the verb correctly, on the assumption that this would make it easier for the reader to work out what on earth is going on. And you or I would be wrong!

    It's about time we started anonymizing verbs on this site!

    The actual mistake here, as any professional Creative Writer should know, was to "anonymize" the verb simply by mis-spelling it.

    I'd suggest that "She crepusculated over the documentation" would be a far better choice.

    Maybe we could leave out the intransitive altogether and go nonsensically transitive: "She cromulated over the documentation."

    With a bit of luck, we'll end up with Creative Writing Bingo. It would certainly make the comments more entertaining, not that the commentators are at fault over the last year or so.

    Your wrong their, were you said it would be moor entertaining. Moor entertaining then what?

  • Barf 4Eva (unregistered) in reply to Codd

    "truck ROWS". :)

    Don't make me go Celko on yo ass...

  • linepro (unregistered) in reply to Ted
    Ted:
    Zog:
    what do legions of people such as Tim Berners-Lee and co know about data eh?
    Not much. I mean he created this massive web that lacks referential integrity, something we had pretty well worked out by, oh what was it, 1980 or so?

    The web has loads of references and some of them have integrity!

  • zippy (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:

    They're afraid that they'll get name collision.

    Same reason for FirstNameTextbox.

    Those people never learned that in WPF you bind to data, and in Winforms you do the same thing. You don't have to make a object for the control, you can make a object for the databinding in winforms.

    Same mistake people make in SQL. You name your tables like plural for entities. Then you name your sProcs like actions.

    trucks writeTrucks deleteTrucks exportTrucks

    It's pretty clear what's the table and what're the sProcs.

    trucks is a table of trucks; writeTrucks is a table of trucks which were written off; deleteTrucks is a table of trucks which we can't find; exportTrucks is a table of trucks we sold to Canada.

    No sProcs there.

  • Reductio Ad Ridiculousum (unregistered) in reply to Cliff
    Cliff:
    Art, maybe. A nice diagram to distract the business analysts, for sure. They often like to see a nice official looking diagram with lots of links and opaque names for things. It means they in turn can prove to their management that 'things are being done'.

    It's a shibboleth - only developers are going to query what it truly represents, Ray has passed.

    Incidentally, instead of being lots of tables, all those lookups could just be instances of the same table, there could be validity in the design for some reporting or DRI validation purposes.

    And as for the 'what's x short for' sidebar here, that's kinda how this class of jokes work, twisting expectations or meanings leaving the brain momentarily stunned into laughter. Figure the same with the 12" pianist joke, the horse 'why the long face' joke, etc - they play on dual meanings and quirks of grammar.

    +1

    "It's a shibboleth - only developers are going to query what it truly represents, Ray has passed."

    ...and if this little joke is all it takes to get her to quit, I'd say good, she's going to cause a lot of trouble in the future.

    And speaking of humorless, re: short Ray, I pose this question: How many programmers does it take to get a joke?

  • (cs) in reply to Reductio Ad Ridiculousum
    Reductio Ad Ridiculousum:
    And speaking of humorless, re: short Ray, I pose this question: How many programmers does it take to get a joke?

    Depends on the spec, hardware, etc...

  • Cheong (unregistered)

    "It's not for anything. It's art."

    It's good to find out that you can have significant number of table that can safely ignored.

    You can have another diagram that contains table that actually is used. Case solved.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    RD:
    NamingException:
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?

    A. She hasn't got any legs.

    WTF?
    Not a native English speaker?

    "What's Ray short for?" can also be read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?"

    What did you bring that joke that I don't want to be told about up for?

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to jjh
    jjh:
    No, sorry. tharpa has it right.

    "Why" can indeed refer to either cause or purpose. "For what" and its variations can only refer to the latter.

    You wouldn't ever say: "The light is off for being broken."

    Wherefore did that rule arise?

    For want of a nail the shoe was lost, etc.

  • Meep (unregistered) in reply to Ike
    Ike:
    "She poured over all of the documentation provided to her by her team lead."

    What did she pour over all of the documentation? Tears? I think you meant to say that she PORED over the documentation.

    I suspect he meant to write it, as we wouldn't hear him say it.

  • Drak (unregistered)

    Quote from story:

    So that fSID1 lines up with the tblSetSizes_2. All in the name of avoiding confusion by the developer

    Actually, fsID2 through fsID11 line up with tblSetSizes_1 through 10, fsID1 lines up with tblSetSizes11, and fsID12 through fsID15 line up correctly.

  • (cs) in reply to Nagesh
    Nagesh:
    I am seeing two WTF's in here.
    1. Software developer bothering to read documentation.
    2. A girl named Ray.

    2nd one is not that much of WTF, but the first one is definitely.

    A Girl named Ray, A Boy called Sue...

    Sounds logical to me.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    Nagesh:
    I am seeing two WTF's in here.
    1. Software developer bothering to read documentation.
    2. A girl named Ray.

    2nd one is not that much of WTF, but the first one is definitely.

    A Girl named Ray, A Boy called Sue...

    Sounds logical to me.

    Ray could be short for Raylyn.

  • (cs) in reply to Cliff
    Cliff:
    It's a shibboleth - only developers are going to query what it truly represents, Ray has passed.

    Haha! That's evil and will use in the future.

  • (cs) in reply to zippy
    zippy:
    Valued Service:

    They're afraid that they'll get name collision.

    Same reason for FirstNameTextbox.

    Those people never learned that in WPF you bind to data, and in Winforms you do the same thing. You don't have to make a object for the control, you can make a object for the databinding in winforms.

    Same mistake people make in SQL. You name your tables like plural for entities. Then you name your sProcs like actions.

    trucks writeTrucks deleteTrucks exportTrucks

    It's pretty clear what's the table and what're the sProcs.

    trucks is a table of trucks; writeTrucks is a table of trucks which were written off; deleteTrucks is a table of trucks which we can't find; exportTrucks is a table of trucks we sold to Canada.

    No sProcs there.

    I don't know what kind of tools you use, but here I have a GUI which shows in a nice tree view the different components of an schema with different icons all separated by their type: tables, views, functions, etc.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to zippy
    zippy:
    Valued Service:

    They're afraid that they'll get name collision.

    Same reason for FirstNameTextbox.

    Those people never learned that in WPF you bind to data, and in Winforms you do the same thing. You don't have to make a object for the control, you can make a object for the databinding in winforms.

    Same mistake people make in SQL. You name your tables like plural for entities. Then you name your sProcs like actions.

    trucks writeTrucks deleteTrucks exportTrucks

    It's pretty clear what's the table and what're the sProcs.

    trucks is a table of trucks; writeTrucks is a table of trucks which were written off; deleteTrucks is a table of trucks which we can't find; exportTrucks is a table of trucks we sold to Canada.

    No sProcs there.

    The real WTF is implementing a separate table for each of these subsets rather than implementing a flag in the trucks table indicating whether that instance has been written off, can't be found, or exported to Canada.

  • MrOli (unregistered)

    Why did Ray fall of the swing? A. She hasn't got any arms either.

    Poor Ray.

  • 011010100010100 (unregistered) in reply to tharpa
    tharpa:
    RD:
    NamingException:
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?

    A. She hasn't got any legs.

    WTF?

    Not a native English speaker?

    "What's Ray short for?" can also be read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?"

    I am a native speaker of English (American dialect). No, "What's Ray short for?" can not be correctly read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?" It could, however, be read as "What is the purpose of Ray being short", in which case the answer above, "She hasn't got any legs" does not make any sense. If the question were, "What's Ray got no legs for?", then the answer could be, "To fit in her VW Bug." So I agree with NamingException above.

    Maybe developed like this: "For what reason is Ray short?" => "For what is Ray short?" => "What's Ray short for?"

    As a Brit it sounds okay but clumsy. Perhaps it's a UK/US thing? Q: What's the Atlantic ocean wide for? A: To make the heart grow fonder....

    Captcha: abigo... What's abigo for? Expressing shock....

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to 011010100010100
    011010100010100:
    tharpa:
    RD:
    NamingException:
    MrOli:
    What's "Ray" short for?

    A. She hasn't got any legs.

    WTF?

    Not a native English speaker?

    "What's Ray short for?" can also be read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?"

    I am a native speaker of English (American dialect). No, "What's Ray short for?" can not be correctly read as "What is the reason for Ray not being very tall?" It could, however, be read as "What is the purpose of Ray being short", in which case the answer above, "She hasn't got any legs" does not make any sense. If the question were, "What's Ray got no legs for?", then the answer could be, "To fit in her VW Bug." So I agree with NamingException above.

    Maybe developed like this: "For what reason is Ray short?" => "For what is Ray short?" => "What's Ray short for?"

    As a Brit it sounds okay but clumsy. Perhaps it's a UK/US thing? Q: What's the Atlantic ocean wide for? A: To make the heart grow fonder....

    Captcha: abigo... What's abigo for? Expressing shock....

    Pass me a tissue, I've just picked abigo out of my nose.

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to jjh
    jjh:
    Valued Service:
    "Why" can describe a purpose or a cause.

    Purpose: Why is the light off? We want to surprise the guest.

    Cause: Why is the light off? It is broken.

    You can substitute, What is the light off for? What? is targeting a purpose or cause.

    No, sorry. tharpa has it right.

    "Why" can indeed refer to either cause or purpose. "For what" and its variations can only refer to the latter.

    "What is the light off for?" should correctly be answered as: "The light is off for surprising the guest." Or: "The light is off for a surprise for the guest." That is how the "what... for" construction makes grammatical sense.

    You wouldn't ever say: "The light is off for being broken."

    It's like squares and rectangles. "What is/does ... for?" can always be reformulated as "Why is/does...?" but the reverse does not hold.

    I disagree.

    You can absolutely say "The light is off for being broken."

    Just because it sounds ODD because it's older English, doesn't mean it's wrong.

    for [fawr; unstressed fer] preposition 1. with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise. — conj 26. ( coordinating ) for the following reason; because; seeing that: I couldn't stay, for the area was violent

    given the second definition:

    The light is off because it is broken

    The light is off for it is broken

    "What is the light off for?" "The light is off for it is broken."

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service

    In other words...

    The joke relies on people misinterpreting "for" as a preposition, instead of a conjunction.

  • Aaaaaakkkkkkkkk! (unregistered)

    Glarrrgghhhhh!

    Since today's WTF is using a new comment system that doesn't let me post comments I had to return here. I hope someone who cares is reading this.

    First slashdot, now TDWTF!

    If it ain't busticated, don't fixify it!

    Seriously I was trying to hang on through the ever duller stories hoping for an occasional gem, or at least we still have Error'd on Fridays.

    Well now, I don't know. I'm going to go catch up on failblog. When I return, if this site is still so badly broken, I think I'll have to ask for my years' worth of posts back.

  • NotANaiveEnglishSpeaker (unregistered) in reply to RD

    In the frist place, 'What's "Ray" short for?' can't be answered as MrOli did [if I know how to quote it, I would, but I'm a naive TDWTF commenter] because it's mentioning the name, not using it.

    Neither can "What's Ray short for?" - it's not even English. "What's X for?" is about intention/purpose/function, not cause.

    NamingException's "WTF" stands.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Aaaaaakkkkkkkkk!
    Aaaaaakkkkkkkkk!:
    Glarrrgghhhhh!

    Since today's WTF is using a new comment system that doesn't let me post comments I had to return here. I hope someone who cares is reading this.

    First slashdot, now TDWTF!

    If it ain't busticated, don't fixify it!

    Seriously I was trying to hang on through the ever duller stories hoping for an occasional gem, or at least we still have Error'd on Fridays.

    Well now, I don't know. I'm going to go catch up on failblog. When I return, if this site is still so badly broken, I think I'll have to ask for my years' worth of posts back.

    Yeah. WTF indeed. It's an absolute mess. It's thread all weirdly where the same post pops up multiple times and it's hard to keep track of what you've read and what you haven't.

    Have years of absorbing WTFs finally pushed Alex and his crew over the edge?

  • vulputate (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:
    You can absolutely say "The light is off for being broken."

    [snip]

    given the second definition:

    The light is off because it is broken

    The light is off for it is broken

    "What is the light off for?" "The light is off for it is broken."

    Your conclusion doesn't match your original claim.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Aaaaaakkkkkkkkk!:
    Glarrrgghhhhh!

    Since today's WTF is using a new comment system that doesn't let me post comments I had to return here. I hope someone who cares is reading this.

    First slashdot, now TDWTF!

    If it ain't busticated, don't fixify it!

    Seriously I was trying to hang on through the ever duller stories hoping for an occasional gem, or at least we still have Error'd on Fridays.

    Well now, I don't know. I'm going to go catch up on failblog. When I return, if this site is still so badly broken, I think I'll have to ask for my years' worth of posts back.

    Yeah. WTF indeed. It's an absolute mess. It's thread all weirdly where the same post pops up multiple times and it's hard to keep track of what you've read and what you haven't.

    Have years of absorbing WTFs finally pushed Alex and his crew over the edge?

    Yeah, I'm probably done commenting on future WTFs.

  • DWalker (unregistered)

    Poor girl. Pouring over the documentation like that.

    Maybe she shouldn't do that.

  • (cs) in reply to Reductio Ad Ridiculousum
    Reductio Ad Ridiculousum:
    How many programmers does it take to get a joke?
    Zero, one, or infinitely many.
  • nothere (unregistered) in reply to QJo

    I once knew a Hilary who sometimes went by Ray.

  • nmclean (unregistered) in reply to jjh
    jjh:
    "Why" can indeed refer to either cause or purpose. "For what" and its variations can only refer to the latter.

    "What is the light off for?" should correctly be answered as: "The light is off for surprising the guest." Or: "The light is off for a surprise for the guest." That is how the "what... for" construction makes grammatical sense.

    You wouldn't ever say: "The light is off for being broken."

    It's like squares and rectangles. "What is/does ... for?" can always be reformulated as "Why is/does...?" but the reverse does not hold.

    It's actually a much more versatile word than you describe. Consider:

    "The light is off, for it is broken."

    "The light would be on, but for its malfunction."

    "I feel sorry for him."

    Although the phrasing is awkward, the joke is actually grammatically correct -- and common enough usage to be understandable.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:
    It's bad English, but it is commonly used. You should avoid ending a statement in a preposition or conjunction.

    Yes, yes, those classic rules pedants always bring up:

    Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.

    A pronoun must agree in type and number with their antecedent.

    About sentence fragments.

    Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.

    It may seem like a good idea to end a sentence with a conjunction, but.

    Is there really any point in asking rhetorical questions?

Leave a comment on “Finding Meaning”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article