3 ms·
The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to claim that somebody did not read the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycomb
by jsnell 2y ago
The HN guidelines specifically ask you not to claim that somebody did not read the article: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But if you're going to do it, the one time it's really misplaced is when you're claiming the author of the article didn't read it.
- jimmaswell 2y agoTo be fair, I missed the double negative in "isn't a nickname nobody has any more" too until I saw this comment and looked closer.
- xp84 2y agoThis is the best possible comment (besides perhaps the author replying that "Yes, I did read it after I wrote it")
- quietbritishjim 2y agoIt's actually even more relevant here than it appears, in that the rest of the comment is true: half the article really is about nicknames that people do still use, so there was no reason for the author to object. But that point is lost thanks to the snark.
- mjd 2y agoThe first part of the article explains the pattern, where a nickname becomes a patronymic surname, using familiar examples. This sets up the main point, which is that the pattern holds so reliably that when you meet a patronymic surname you can often infer the existence of a nickname, even when it's one you don't recongize. Hence the title.