Tony, Just wondering if you really meant what you said here. Doesn't really make that much sense.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Tony B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What a wacky idea. Cite Wikipedia as an authority on word usage! Just > try that stunt in school. For all we know you might have made those > entries yourself! Are we in school, or in real life? Sure, there are plenty of teachers who are technophobes. What does that prove? And it is pretty easy to check to see that you didn't make those entries yourself, as you undoubtedly know. > > I gave you a link to 20 different modern dictionaries, most of which > either support the interchangeability of the words or don't mention > it. If you'd rather go off in your own fantasy-language land where the > public contributors to Wikipedia define the language, go for it. Just > don't expect anyone to have any idea what you're talking about. Don't expect anyone to know what you are talking about, either. Making up all kinds of stuff that doesn't make sense in the real world. Dictionaries are *never* intended to be guidance. Do some research. They are intended to capture relatively current usage. That's why you will soon see "loose" and "lose" cited as interchangeable. The trick is to determine whether you want to be technically correct or go along with modern usage. If the latter, knowing that dictionaries can't really keep up, go with the dictionary. > > > Oh, and BTW, the dictionary version of Wikipedia is Wiktionary. And > guess what? Right at the top it defines 'disk' as an alternative > spelling for 'disc' (though it mentions the usage note). That is why one would want to cite a source that at least tries to capture what is correct. Wikipedia is at least trying to capture accurate and correct information. Wiktionary is trying to be a dictionary, not an accurate source of technical information. Please try a bit harder to reason in your replies. It becomes too embarrassing to read, otherwise. > > Oddly, since it was mentioned, I too now think I tend to use 'disk' > differently than 'disc'. But I doubt I've written 'disc' 10 times in > my life, preferring abbreviations like CD or DVD. > Probably because you have retained some technical knowledge along the way. The only reason that the last D in CD and DVD stands for "disc" is because the technical people in the industry decided to use "disc" for optical media. A technical usage. Again, if you had simply argued that non-technical people don't care, your citing dictionaries would have proved your case. Good luck. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
