Friday, October 08, 2004

Couple ?!

We've been having an animated discussion for a quite some time now - about .5hrs or so !! :)

The topic is the word "couple" - what does it mean - two, more than two, close to two, a few, ... ?!

One of us, Suresh, is very adamant that it's only 2 (acceding for something close to two, say 2.5).

Krishnamoorthy, Senthil and I are maintaining our stance that it can also mean a few (not necessarily two or something necessarily close to it). We've to back us up for the informal version which can mean few (what is few) ?

On a lighter note, read - Just what does a "couple" mean anyway.

And then, there's the prominent "Just a couple of days" book and the famous article related to it. What do you think "couple of days" meant in the article ?

I'm not contesting that couple can't mean 2, all I'm saying is it can also mean few (which is not necessarily too close to two, but not even obscenely large). So, what do you think ?

Anyway, the context in which this whole discussion started was the following mail sent out in 2000 (read it from the forwarded mail).

And, all this is our kind of a Friday evening happy hour fun :) :)

And, just for a moment, when I saw the spate of mails (rather subjects' thru' newmail) that I had received, on this topic, I was astonished at the technical expertise that we have at store here ;-)

Anyway, as has already been pointed out, the posting to ace was probably a result of misinterpretation of the possible usage of the word "couple". Certainly a very good candidate for a (Weak ^ n) ace.

For the sake of technical accuracy of the definition of the word couple, here's something to feed on, from

cou ple (kpl)

1.Two items of the same kind; a pair.
2.Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
3.(used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a.Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
b.Two people together.
4.Informal. A few; several: a couple of days. <----- note this
5.Physics. A pair of forces of equal magnitude acting in parallel but opposite directions, capable of causing rotation but not translation.

BTW, can we try and get back to the technical contents of the mail ??


P.S: Couldn't help sending out this mail especially since I had received more than 10 mails (more of the copies rather than actuals) as replies on this, with nothing to address my actual problem !! Have fun ;-)

XYZ wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:55:28 +0530
>> From: Me
>> To: local mailing list
>> Subject: Problems with Reflection X
>> Hi,
>> I'm using Reflection X (from Rational) to connect to my Linux box. I'm running
>> 6.2 (from PCQ CD) with KDE as my default desktop. I'm unable to stay connected
>> for more than a few hours at a stretch. After a couple of hours, say 5-6, the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> whole session just blanks out. I can see only the outline of all the windows,
>> but not their contents and can't do anything with them.
>> I have no such problems when I connect to a Solaris box.
>> Any ideas why this happens ??
>> Thanks,
>> Sudhir.P

1 comment:

Krish said...

That article was interesting.... :)

Sure ur comments please ....