Print

Print


On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:05:46 -0400, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>Doug, copying from your site,
>
>df/dt = (∂f/∂x)(dx/dt) + (∂f/∂y)(dy/dt) + (∂f/∂z)(dz/dt)
>
>that is relatively sort on paper is actually a mouthful when spoken. You
>might also recall your professor speaking it as follows, nearly turning blue
>at the end:
>
>dee-f dee-t *equals* the partial of f with respect to x, times dee-x dee-t *
>plus* the partial of f with respect to y, times dee-y dee-t *plus* the
>partial of f with respect to z, times dee-z dee-t

I've been taught to pronounce ∂ as /do:/, which does help quite a bit. No
idea how widely that is in use (or if that would be /du:/ or /doʊ/ in English).

I also find that distinguishing "dx dt" from "dx/dt" (or anything of the
sort) works largely by prosody rather than actually including "per" in the
latter. There's an upstep between each top-level multiplicand, I think.

Another, fairly transparent possible minor timesaver is to omit the /ɛ/ or
/i:/ from variables, if possible ("deef" rather than "dee f", etc.), but
it's not common IME.

Clearly there's room for further concision however.

John Vertical