[sclug] TopPosting Was: Helping others into FOSS/Linux

[JRKnight]

Good points (I was stirring, really) and point(s) taken. I wasn't
complaining about change, but about enforced evolution (and
the fact of being forced to employ extra processor effort in my
brain to decode an unclear message merely because the writer
was too lazy or sloppy or inept to express himself clearly and
accurately.
 We distinguish between 'discrete' and 'discreet' because, as
in other word-pairs, the meanings and usage are quite different.
Often, but not always, context [language redundancy?] provides
the necessary clues. I never suggested that language rules are
invariable or  fixed, but your counter implies that there are no
rules at all - which rather defeats the purpose of language for
communication, and also smacks of the sort of moral relativism
that has, ultimately, helped to make the streets of Reading so
'exciting' late at night, for example. (No, I am not a Daily Mail
reader). Als ik zal zum Beispiel me sert des mots van een
fremde lingua at will et toujours parliamo comme ceci wanneer
ich mich feel like it, dann hablar nyet ons zusammen. If you let
this sort of self-indulgence be your measure, the message
becomes mere gabble [see - Modern Art]  - perhaps this is
what IT is destined for, a sort of 'heat death' of information.


> "unnecessary cultural changes"?
> Damn those Victorians and their chimney sweeps...

The key word is 'unnecessary' - I never said all change is such.

> The world was perfectly happy ...

Are, the enduring myth of Merrie England... (I never bought into it, me

> for those who view the language as a communication tool ...

A tool is not much use if not used properly.

> How often do you use words like maximise or minimise? Would you prefer....

I wasn't objection to additions, but to perversion of language.

> Quite the contrary; to drop detail judged by the speaker/writer to be
> unnecessary is the essence

...is the essence of self-indulgence or thoughtlessness. The language
should surely be tailored to the audience, or the message gets lost?

> I don't believe that a nett narrowing is occuring, quite the reverse in fact.

That's not how I hear it on the bus or TV.

Fortunately (most) human beings don't behave much like computer
programs(programmes? :-)).

Last historical note: the American spelling 'program' was
adopted for its computer context over 20 years ago, precisely
to differentiate it from a 'programme' of events etc. - a rare
instance of the language being enriched by addition rather than
simply losing, stealing, or re-defining existing words.
Thanks for dialogue,
JR