![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 28th, 2003
Gacked from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
malanai.
I suspect if the statistics of Québec were used instead there'd be a significant difference. ;)
After all, Brunelle is the second most numerous names (if you include both spellings of Brunelle and Brunel) after Tremblay here in Québec, and now everyone and their cousin is naming their kids Daphnée (note the extra "e" which is an annoying gallic affectation).
( Middle names and such )
malanai.Daphne is the #618 most common female name.
0.019% of females in the US are named Daphne.
Around 24225 US females are named Daphne!
source namestatistics.com
0.019% of females in the US are named Daphne.
Around 24225 US females are named Daphne!
source namestatistics.com
Brunelle is the #5632 most common last name.
0.002% of last names in the US are Brunelle.
Around 5000 US last names are Brunelle!
source namestatistics.com
0.002% of last names in the US are Brunelle.
Around 5000 US last names are Brunelle!
source namestatistics.com
I suspect if the statistics of Québec were used instead there'd be a significant difference. ;)
After all, Brunelle is the second most numerous names (if you include both spellings of Brunelle and Brunel) after Tremblay here in Québec, and now everyone and their cousin is naming their kids Daphnée (note the extra "e" which is an annoying gallic affectation).
( Middle names and such )
Gacked from malanai.
I suspect if the statistics of Québec were used instead there'd be a significant difference. ;)
After all, Brunelle is the second most numerous names (if you include both spellings of Brunelle and Brunel) after Tremblay here in Québec, and now everyone and their cousin is naming their kids Daphnée (note the extra "e" which is an annoying gallic affectation).
( Middle names and such )
malanai.Daphne is the #618 most common female name.
0.019% of females in the US are named Daphne.
Around 24225 US females are named Daphne!
source namestatistics.com
0.019% of females in the US are named Daphne.
Around 24225 US females are named Daphne!
source namestatistics.com
Brunelle is the #5632 most common last name.
0.002% of last names in the US are Brunelle.
Around 5000 US last names are Brunelle!
source namestatistics.com
0.002% of last names in the US are Brunelle.
Around 5000 US last names are Brunelle!
source namestatistics.com
I suspect if the statistics of Québec were used instead there'd be a significant difference. ;)
After all, Brunelle is the second most numerous names (if you include both spellings of Brunelle and Brunel) after Tremblay here in Québec, and now everyone and their cousin is naming their kids Daphnée (note the extra "e" which is an annoying gallic affectation).
( Middle names and such )
"Not as bad" does not a fun time make
Jul. 28th, 2003 02:09 pmOkay, so the new text isn't as badly-written as the first: it has a coherent structure, and is syntactically a lot clearer and more accurate.
However, this guy (and the three people who co-wrote the article with him) also has a great deal of trouble ditching the sociological and political science-y jargon that make these texts a nightmare to translate.
*grumble*
I also have to translate this text (which is the same length as the last one) in half the time because they kept giving me extra work which "took priority" over the first text, meaning that I finished the first text four days later than I'd anticipated. :P Luckily this one so far doesn't seem to have an incomprehensible sentence structure, and the author(s) seems to have a good grasp of grammar and spelling. I'm also quite pleased that this author (et al.) is not falling into the trap of sensationalist rhetoric the way the last one did, because it's goddamn hard to translate clichés.
Hmph.
However, this guy (and the three people who co-wrote the article with him) also has a great deal of trouble ditching the sociological and political science-y jargon that make these texts a nightmare to translate.
*grumble*
I also have to translate this text (which is the same length as the last one) in half the time because they kept giving me extra work which "took priority" over the first text, meaning that I finished the first text four days later than I'd anticipated. :P Luckily this one so far doesn't seem to have an incomprehensible sentence structure, and the author(s) seems to have a good grasp of grammar and spelling. I'm also quite pleased that this author (et al.) is not falling into the trap of sensationalist rhetoric the way the last one did, because it's goddamn hard to translate clichés.
Hmph.
"Not as bad" does not a fun time make
Jul. 28th, 2003 02:09 pmOkay, so the new text isn't as badly-written as the first: it has a coherent structure, and is syntactically a lot clearer and more accurate.
However, this guy (and the three people who co-wrote the article with him) also has a great deal of trouble ditching the sociological and political science-y jargon that make these texts a nightmare to translate.
*grumble*
I also have to translate this text (which is the same length as the last one) in half the time because they kept giving me extra work which "took priority" over the first text, meaning that I finished the first text four days later than I'd anticipated. :P Luckily this one so far doesn't seem to have an incomprehensible sentence structure, and the author(s) seems to have a good grasp of grammar and spelling. I'm also quite pleased that this author (et al.) is not falling into the trap of sensationalist rhetoric the way the last one did, because it's goddamn hard to translate clichés.
Hmph.
However, this guy (and the three people who co-wrote the article with him) also has a great deal of trouble ditching the sociological and political science-y jargon that make these texts a nightmare to translate.
*grumble*
I also have to translate this text (which is the same length as the last one) in half the time because they kept giving me extra work which "took priority" over the first text, meaning that I finished the first text four days later than I'd anticipated. :P Luckily this one so far doesn't seem to have an incomprehensible sentence structure, and the author(s) seems to have a good grasp of grammar and spelling. I'm also quite pleased that this author (et al.) is not falling into the trap of sensationalist rhetoric the way the last one did, because it's goddamn hard to translate clichés.
Hmph.
Meep! Hey Rich?
Jul. 28th, 2003 02:18 pmYou don't seem to have received my email, so I'm pinging you publicly just in case you don't have access to your email at work or something. :) Sorry about this, but I'd really like to know if FVLMINATA is on tonight, and if it is, whether I should arrive already fed.
Let me know?
Thanks. :)
Let me know?
Thanks. :)
Meep! Hey Rich?
Jul. 28th, 2003 02:18 pmYou don't seem to have received my email, so I'm pinging you publicly just in case you don't have access to your email at work or something. :) Sorry about this, but I'd really like to know if FVLMINATA is on tonight, and if it is, whether I should arrive already fed.
Let me know?
Thanks. :)
Let me know?
Thanks. :)