The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
You'll find many similar examples in most languages. In Norwegian, I could list half a dozen of words that starts with a "u-" ("un-" in English) prefix, while the non-negated form went out of use generations ago, like "uhumsk", "ufyselig", "uflidd", "uføre", ... Sometimes, the non-negated form is found in the dictionary, but with a completely different meaning, such as "uføre" meaning trouble, but "føre" refers to weather affected driving/skiing conditions.
Look up in a dictionary other words starting with "re" - ask a programmer if recursion sometimes causes him to curse . First you peat something, then you repeat it. You member it, and later you remember it. For "in-" words, the prefix may have two different roots, either as a preposition ("inhale") or as a negation ("inappropriate"). Interpreting the preposition as a negation may lead you in the wrong way: Something referred to as "infamous" is likely to be famous as well. (By the way, the Norwegian term "infam", often quotes as a translation of "infamous", means someting quite different, like nasty and cunning, having nothing to do with being famous for it.)
I am equally fascinated by appearently similar terms in different languages, turning out to be quite different: In English, you may be "primed" for something - eager and ready to start doing it. We don't have that term in Norwegian, but we have its negation, "deprimert", de-primed. English-speaking don't use that term, they say "depressed". But being depressed is not the opposite of being pressed! Norwegian has the term "nedtrykt" (ned = down, trykk = press), but being "nedtrykt" is like being sad, far from being depressed!
And then, there is English and English... One of my books ("Big Business Blunders") refers a case where a joint effort by a British and an American company did not work out very well. For one meeting, the bosses had agreed "the cooperation issues to be tabled". Problem was that to the one party, this meant to lay the problems out on the table, "face up", for everybody to see and discuss. For the other party, "tabling" the problems meant to put them on the table face down, and not touching them. So one party was insisting on talking about those issues they had agreed to discuss, while the other party was trying to stick to the prior agreement of not letting those issues affect the meeting.
Scotch Whisky is 'peated', so one could repeat that (how, I couldn't guess).
But your description of infamous (en) and infam (nr) being so different: totally wrong as you wrote it. Infamous people are those (well) known for doing nasty things. Similarly, you write '"nedtrykt" is like being sad, far from being depressed!' - no, that's what depressed means. Derivation? Pressing forward shows drive, spirit, and ambitions, so depression is the opposite thereof. Look deeper.
Primed - no doubt derived from the implication of first (1) step(s) taken toward some end, and (2) top of the heap (as in the political office Premier) or prime suspect.
Consider the use of in- as a negation; or not. It was pointed out earlier that there's flammable and inflammable, both meeting the same thing - and rolling right back into my declaration, it would be clear if one used the UN-word. Or would it? So, we have nonflammable.
As for regurgitate vs. ungurgitate: even from the latin, as the root implies to 'engulf', when one's food comes back up, one is UN-engulfing it. If one the re-ingests the materials, one is, at that time, regurgitating it.
Furthermore, per the British use of English? They've strayed from the path of righteousness long ago. The trunk of a car is called 'the boot' - but it originally was, literally, a trunk.
It's time for the world to let me set them straight.
I have found no indications that "peat" and "repeat" has a common origin - the similar spelling is just a coincidence.
You missed my point about "infam": The Norwegian word has nothing whatsoever to do with being known for their behaviour - that was my main point. Translating "infam" to "infamous", or the other way around, is simply wrong. Even though the roots are common, they have diverged so much that today they are very different words.
You also missed my point about depressed/nedtrykt: Even though the meanings are related, the degree of sadness (or whatever you'd like to call it) is so huge that if you translate a text believing that they are the same, you will change the message significantly.
E.g. Google translate will suggest that Norwegian "infam" and English "infamous" are the same words, one can be translated to the other. That doesn't mean a professional translater would ever do that. Sometimes, Google translate makes completely crazy proposals, just like people using dictionary word-by-word translations without knowing both languages.
Do you really expect something like Google Translate to get every nuance of every language coordinated? I'm glad when, if I take the result of a translation and run the retro-translation, that it's close enough.
Perhaps you made a better point, implicitly: the analogies between English and Norwegian are going to be dubious, at best. As in your first line, about 'peat' and 'repeat'.
Or, to put it in terms that more dramatic:
An English speaker should be wary about accepting a Gift from a German speaker!
I was trying to suggest the opposite: That whatever Google says, do NOT trust it to be correct.
(A humorous one: Norwegian "postoppkrav", charge on delivery, was translated to Swedish "TORSK". First, "postoppkrav" was translated to COD, and then back to Swedish, this time intepreted as a codfish (torsk) in the upper case...).
I mentioned Google because I sometimes see people argue that "Look here, Google translate says that 'nedtrykt' translates to 'depressed'! So I was right, it is the same thing!" It often takes a few examples of total misses for some people to realize that word-by-word translation never works, and even phrase-by-phrase translation can be badly off target.
I have VS 2015 installed as well, and no matter how I approach getting them to open in VS 2008 by double-clicking them from Windows Explorer, they will only open in VS 2015. VS 2008 doesn't even show up in the list of programs, and even selecting C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE\devenv.exe doesn't work. The only way is to open them from inside VS 2008 through File > Open Project.
Anyone know how to correct this?
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
So far what MC said is true. So the reason's prolly due to a registry entry. That said, try searching in the registry for this VS2008 of which you say so much. Discrepancies can often be at fault or you might even be as bold as one who'd save the VS2015 slice (on_01.reg), substitute a logical VS2008 path/find/whatever in another slice then delete the VS2015 slice (off_01.reg) and try to start with VS2008.
Think of the Common Files idea. Many MS apps have shared drivers, etc.
If you do that, you will no longer be able to open solutions directly in VS 2015.
The problem is you can only have a single application registered to open files with any particular extension. In your case, that would be .SLN files. So, which one do you want? Open those in 2008 or 2015? The choice is up to you.
System.ItDidntWorkException: Something didn't work as expected.
What used to work for me when push came to shove was just deleting the solution file after you write down all the files in the project that get referenced there and reassembling them in an updated 2015 project.
If that doesn't work, and trying to get a MS wizard to chime in hasn't yet resulted in a conversion of some kind, you could try to search MSDN for a possible workaround.