JargonFile/original/html/speech-style.html
2014-03-27 18:54:56 +00:00

39 lines
4.6 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>Chapter 7. Hacker Speech Style</title><link rel="stylesheet" href="jargon.css" type="text/css"/><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.61.0"/><link rel="home" href="index.html" title="The Jargon File"/><link rel="up" href="pt01.html" title="Part I. Introduction"/><link rel="previous" href="email-style.html" title="Chapter 6. Email Quotes and Inclusion Conventions"/><link rel="next" href="international-style.html" title="Chapter 8. International Style"/></head><body><div class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="3" align="center">Chapter 7. Hacker Speech Style</th></tr><tr><td width="20%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="email-style.html">Prev</a> </td><th width="60%" align="center">Part I. Introduction</th><td width="20%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="international-style.html">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr/></div><div class="chapter" lang="en"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a id="speech-style"/>Chapter 7. Hacker Speech Style</h2></div></div><div/></div><p>Hackish speech generally features extremely precise diction, careful
word choice, a relatively large working vocabulary, and relatively little use
of contractions or street slang. Dry humor, irony, puns, and a mildly
flippant attitude are highly valued — but an underlying seriousness and
intelligence are essential. One should use just enough jargon to communicate
precisely and identify oneself as a member of the culture; overuse of jargon
or a breathless, excessively gung-ho attitude is considered tacky and the mark
of a loser.</p><p>This speech style is a variety of the precisionist English normally
spoken by scientists, design engineers, and academics in technical fields. In
contrast with the methods of jargon construction, it is fairly constant
throughout hackerdom.</p><p>It has been observed that many hackers are confused by negative
questions — or, at least, that the people to whom they are talking are
often confused by the sense of their answers. The problem is that they have
done so much programming that distinguishes between</p><table border="0" bgcolor="#E0E0E0"><tr><td><pre class="programlisting">
if (going) ...
</pre></td></tr></table><p>and</p><table border="0" bgcolor="#E0E0E0"><tr><td><pre class="programlisting">
if (!going) ...
</pre></td></tr></table><p>that when they parse the question “<span class="quote">Aren't you going?</span>” it
may seem to be asking the opposite question from “<span class="quote">Are you
going?</span>”, and so to merit an answer in the opposite sense. This
confuses English-speaking non-hackers because they were taught to answer as
though the negative part weren't there. In some other languages (including
Russian, Chinese, and Japanese) the hackish interpretation is standard and the
problem wouldn't arise. Hackers often find themselves wishing for a word like
French si, German doch, or Dutch
jawel — a word with which one could unambiguously answer
yes to a negative question. (See also
<a href="M/mu.html"><i class="glossterm">mu</i></a>)</p><p>For similar reasons, English-speaking hackers almost never use double
negatives, even if they live in a region where colloquial usage allows them.
The thought of uttering something that logically ought to be an affirmative
knowing it will be misparsed as a negative tends to disturb them.</p><p>In a related vein, hackers sometimes make a game of answering questions
containing logical connectives with a strictly literal rather than colloquial
interpretation. A non-hacker who is indelicate enough to ask a question like
<span class="quote">So, are you working on finding that bug <span class="emphasis"><em>now</em></span> or
leaving it until later?</span>” is likely to get the perfectly correct answer
<span class="quote">Yes!</span>” (that is, “<span class="quote">Yes, I'm doing it either now or later,
and you didn't ask which!</span>”).</p></div><div class="navfooter"><hr/><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="email-style.html">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="u" href="pt01.html">Up</a></td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="international-style.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">Chapter 6. Email Quotes and Inclusion Conventions </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> Chapter 8. International Style</td></tr></table></div></body></html>