ok, apologies to all and really, nothing serious intended :)
On Wednesday 02 June 2010 20:20:44 b@pad.ma wrote:
Sorry, my English is weak ;)
not really:
you are mixing up history, physics, astrology and grammar
ill stick to grammar, since the intent of my post was to clarify the grammar and perhaps logic of the statement 'foss.in happens at the end of the year', and not the history, physics or astrology of the same.
happens = simple present tense, referring to something that is 'either a habit' or 'happens regularly'. I think it would be reasonable to conclude that since FOSS.in has 'happened' toward the end of the year for the past 9 years, that it 'happens' during November / December.
History: foss.in has not 'happened' for the past 9 years - it has 'happened' for the past 5 years - 2005 to 2009.
I will stand corrected - was perhaps confused by their website which has event schedules that go back to 2001. My point still stands. It is an event with noticed periodicity, hence it 'happens'.
Physics/chemistry: if an event (physical event) happens with regularity in fixed conditions with fixed materials, it is reasonable to predict that it will happen again in the same conditions with the same materials. For example I have noticed that water freezes at 7 degrees C in my house, so it is reasonable to expect it to do so if I put a pan of water in conditions of 7 degrees centigrade.
I guess this can be a matter of debate, but the simple present tense is not a statement of certainty about the future - something like "he goes to school at 9 in the morning" again is a bit different from "he will go to school at 9 tomorrow morning". The first is based on observed habitual behaviour, in that he goes to school, without a definitive statement about the future, which, imo, is valid. It would be a bit ridiculous to say, "he has gone to school at 9 in the morning for the past 9 years and so will probably go to school at 9 tomorrow morning" instead of "he goes to school at 9 in the morning". It is not a scientific certainty that he will go to school at 9 in the morning, of course, but simple present tense is not making a definitive statement about the future - it is simply saying something 'happens' based on observed periodicity.
Astrology: if an event happening is based on the whims of a person, predicting it's occurence is the subject of astrology.
Saying foss.in 'happens at the end of the year' isn't a predictive statement - saying 'foss.in will happen at the end of this year' is. The first is just a statement based on observed periodicity. It has nothing to do with astrology or physics or chemistry. We can argue on what would qualify something as being observed periodical behaviour, but the way I see it an event running for 5 (9?) years makes it qualify as observed periodical behaviour. This is in no way a definitive statement about the continuation of this observed periodical behaviour.
Maybe a statement that does not make any assumptions about the future would read something like "foss.in has happened at the end of year for the past 9 years.".
5 years
sure, I apologize for my error. I think the grammatical point I was making still stands.
Am not sure if you violate the spirit of The Zen of Python (in the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess) by saying 'happens', but I certainly don't think it would be against english grammatical rules to say something 'happens' if it is an observed predictable pattern of behaviour over a period of time, in this case, foss.in 'happening' at the end of the year.
this is not the subject of grammar - rather of logic
I wouldn't disagree with you necessarily on the logic part of it, nor on the astrology or physics or chemistry part of it. I still stick to my point about the correctness of grammar though - if something is observed behaviour for a period of time, it is perfectly reasonable to say something 'happens'. It doesn't have to be a certain prediction of the future, or correct in terms of astrology, physics, chemistry, etc. for it to be a grammatically and semantically correct statement.
Sorry for that - awakened the grammar nazi in me.
sorry for this - awakened the stickler_for_facts Nazi in me
if we team up, we could be the greatest force since the third reich?
ok, apologies to everyone for taking this OT . shall try and refrain from any more of this :)
cheers, Sanjay