On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:42:21 +0200
tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:23:02PM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> > 
> > Snarf is a dumb name. It isn't well named.
> 
> This is because you are probably an english native speaker searching
> sensibility behind sounds or "pictures" (written text) that seem
> familiar to you. For the others---like me---the computer language
> is something that has not much to do with a lingua and could be
> almost arbitrary.

That's an interesting perspective but as a native English speaker I
would disagree about the root of the problem. "Snarf" bothered my
idiotic sense of propriety at first but I didn't have to consciously
dissect it to get the meaning. I can make myself understood with slang
and somewhat made-up words to most native English speakers whether
they're English or American. 

There are two groups who don't get my "natural" pattern of speech. One
is those who have taken "proper" English and believed all their
lessons, whether they are natives with a social need to be proper or
(more commonly) foreigners who have received a proper education in the
language. This "proper" English is not the language of the English
people, and I find it remarkable that there is so much so-called
improperness in common between Britain and the US after 200 years of
separation and 100 years of compulsory schooling. 

Even "English" slang has percolated down from the top, from the upper
classes I guess, or at least those divorced from their linguistic
heritage and subjected to a strict edumacation in ... okay, I won't
rant, I really wont, but the old lower-class English used slang a lot
like the US. That class of people had almost died out before US slang
started filtering back in any substantial way. The other group who
don't get it is those who take their slang from Spanish I think, but
I'm much less clear on this point.

uh.. I just noticed "snarf" wasn't picked up by my spell checker and
isn't in its personal dictionary. Take that as you will.

-- 
This is obviously some strange usage of the 
word "simple" that I was previously unaware of.

Reply via email to