From: Rick DeNatale Date: 2006-09-29T01:00:07+09:00 Subject: Re: String starts? and ends? methods On 9/28/06, Hal Fulton wrote: > Marcelo Alvim wrote: > > I don't think the person is really the question here. I think it's the > > imperative form of the verb. > > In that case, I have always interpreted that (both in english and in > > my native language) as you telling the string to squeeze itself. > > File.open, for example, reads like "Hey, File class, open this for me, > > please". I'm imperative, but polite :). > > Interesting. Some methods are imperative in form. But the ones > that are interrogative take the form they do (IMO) because it's > the infinitive form of the verb. (Of course, the imperative > usually uses the infinitive...) Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitive#Uses_of_the_bare_infinitive most modern grammarians don't consider the imperative and present subjunctive to be uses of the bare infinitive. I think that the older view that they are the same might actually an example of the trap of thinking that English grammar is the same as or very similar to Latin grammar. A good example of this is the old-fashioned prohibition against splitting an infinitive. "To go boldly where no one has gone before," instead of "To boldly go where no one has gone before." This came from the fact that in Latin, and some of it's descendants, the infinitive was/a single word, so splitting an infinitive is impossible, whereas in English the use of the full infinitive (to x) is much more common than the bare infinitive, and splitting an infinitive seems to be both commonly used and often sounds and flows better. The prohibition, like not ending a sentence with a preposition, is "something, up with which I will not put." As an analogy to what is commonly said here: Ruby is not Java Python is not Ruby Ruby is not C++ English is not Latin Le francais, n'est pas l'anglais. Not that this is a big thing with me, I just find it interesting. -- Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/