On 20.09.2016 10:04, mray wrote: > On 20.09.2016 02:25, David Thomas wrote: >> What about dropping "fund"? "Crowdmatching for public goods" > > What about dropping "for"? > > "Crowdmatching for public goods" > "Crowdmatching public goods" > > You could say we ultimately crowdmatch for everybody, not for public > goods. Omitting "for" also makes Crowdfunding more of verb than a noun, > which is a good thing; more active and less static. > > Michael rightly notes that "fund" clarifies what we mean without > depending on new words. Mike rightly notes that it implies some sort of > funding.
Ooops, I meant to say "Mike rightly notes that it (CROWDMATCHING) implies some sort of funding" > I think when we introduce a new word we also need to let it do > some lifting, otherwise we shouldn't introduce it. Redundancy in a > slogan is bad. Short is good. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
