On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, JTK wrote:
>
> jesus X wrote:
>>
>> No, Netscape released 6.0 because they NEEDED to get a new version
>> out before the year ended. Their choice was rushed by their
>> marketing department, and had nothing to do with Mozilla.
>
> Right there: Netscape has nothing to do with Mozilla. Your words,
> not mine.
Ok, I think now would be a good time for elementary English classes.
Let us first learn something called "context".
The sentence "No, Netscape released 6.0 because they NEEDED to get a
new version out before the year ended" establishes several contexts.
Most importantly, it establishes "they" as "Netscape".
The next sentence in the paragraph you were replying to uses the
context set by the first sentence for the meaning of the pronoun
"Their": "Their choice was rushed by their marketing department, and
had nothing to do with Mozilla.".
By substitution of context, that sentence is equivalent to:
"[Netscape's] choice was rushed by [Netscape's] marketing department,
and had nothing to do with Mozilla.".
Second, we shall introduce a term known as "scope". As a self-
proclaimed programmer, you are bound to be very familiar with this
concept. In the sentence being studied here, it allows us to split the
sentence into two at the conjunction, the first sentence being
"[Netscape's] choice was rushed by [Netscape's] marketing department"
and the second sentence being "[Netscape's choice] had nothing to do
with Mozilla.".
The second constructed sentence is equivalent to the meaning of the
second phrase of the second sentence of the paragraph you were
replying to. And yet, you immediately stated that jesus X's words
were: "Netscape has nothing to do with Mozilla.".
Let us compare these two sentences:
[Netscape's choice] had nothing to do with Mozilla.
Netscape has nothing to do with Mozilla.
Are they equivalent? Well, first we notice that the first is in the
present tense, and the second is in the past tense. This was probably
a typo on your part, and easy mistake for you to make I am sure.
Let us assume this is indeed the case. This brings the two sentences
closer to being the same:
[Netscape's choice] had nothing to do with Mozilla.
Netscape had nothing to do with Mozilla.
Next, let us replace the phrase "nothing to do with Mozilla" with a
placeholder "o" (standing for object) whenever this phrase appears:
[Netscape's choice] had /o/.
Netscape had /o/.
Similarly, let us replace the verb "had" with "v", and let us align
the sentences carefully so that their difference is most visible:
[Netscape's choice] /v/ /o/.
Netscape /v/ /o/.
If we borrow a concept from algebra, we can substract the "v" and "o"
parts, which will provide us with the remaining important parts of the
two sentences in question:
[Netscape's choice]
Netscape
Now is "Netscape's choice" (an action) the same as "Netscape" (a
company division)? If we once again borrow from the programming world,
we see that we have a type mismatch here. "action" is not the same
type as "company division".
Ergo: Your statement is wrong. Indeed, your statement is probably
grounds for a lawsuit, since you are insinuating that jesus X said
something which he did not.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
