On 09/20/2016 01:04 AM, 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. 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. >
I find "crowdmatching" as a noun is a little easier to parse when it has no context (i.e. isn't in a clear sentence). Also "crowdmatching for public goods" works if you parse it as a verb or a noun, whereas "crowdmatching public goods" makes anyone who starts parsing as a noun do the mental work of shifting it to a verb. The main reason I'm hesitant about (but not totally opposed to) "crowdmatching public goods" is that the matching isn't matching of public goods to one another, but it could read that way. It's patrons who match each other. If we were to do without a preposition, we could use: "public goods crowdmatching" To me, that's a nice effect but feels more dense and jargony. Of all the options proposed "Crowdmatching for public goods" feels like the least mental work to read and parse. The preposition helps me chunk it into two clauses. It's a noun (or maybe a verb) with a preposition clause. That's easier to process than parsing one jargony, heavy verb clause.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss