Re: correct English usage (for every occasion?)
On Thursday 05 April 2012 03:20:50 Scott Ferguson wrote: layout style (lots of white space, short paragraphs) also plays a large part in accessibility and allowing comprehension. That is very helpful for the partially sighted too, in addition to those who might find the comprehension difficult otherwise. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204072210.25217.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Thursday 05 April 2012 01:04:36 Cybe R. Wizard wrote: On-list or off, your method is as he has described it. If your wish is to not engage in either argument or discussion then.. don't engage. Yes, I did allow him to provoke me. And yes, I should not have done so. Indeed, it seems that you use the same or similar method here as you have not before mentioned any off-list messages to you, even in your response to him. As he says, there were several emails off-list before he chose to put the whole of it on-list. I had and have no wish to quarrel on-list. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204050956.42665.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: (...) Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. Maybe, but you wouldn't pass for a native speaker, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? If I'm wrong about that, then all bets are off; use whatever word takes your fancy! (...) Well, I somehow disagree with that. I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here. No need for all that work. You can get the big picture here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/04/threads.html#00193 You aren´t still discussing some wording in Releasenotes or other documentation, aren´t you? You read and you'll find out. I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. This thread was (properly) tagged as OT and thus can be easily ignored/ filtered/avoided by anyone. Move on. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jljtuj$mrm$3...@dough.gmane.org
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:55:47 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: (...) Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. Maybe, but you wouldn't pass for a native speaker, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? If I'm wrong about that, then all bets are off; use whatever word takes your fancy! (...) Well, I somehow disagree with that. I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here. No need for all that work. You can get the big picture here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/04/threads.html#00193 Thats only a subthread of the complete thread. I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. This thread was (properly) tagged as OT and thus can be easily ignored/ filtered/avoided by anyone. Move on. And I may perfectly express my astonishment about the size and the amount of off topic content in that thread. I think it is important to have a balance. I did not force you in any way to stop it, I just wanted to raise awareness on what you are doing here. And everyone still gets each mail. I also replied to the thread OTOH. But I think its good to settle it now / soon. Happy easter,, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204051328.27888.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:28:27 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: (...) I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here. No need for all that work. You can get the big picture here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/04/threads.html#00193 Thats only a subthread of the complete thread. IIRC, I did not participate in the other branch. I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. This thread was (properly) tagged as OT and thus can be easily ignored/ filtered/avoided by anyone. Move on. And I may perfectly express my astonishment about the size and the amount of off topic content in that thread. Of course you can. By doing so you're not going to disturb my sleep :-) I think it is important to have a balance. I did not force you in any way to stop it, I just wanted to raise awareness on what you are doing here. If you are a usual reader of these mailing list you shouldn't be surprised at all to see long threads like this. And everyone still gets each mail. I also replied to the thread OTOH. But I think its good to settle it now / soon. You can stop from posting when you wish, specially if you're not going to contribute to the matter or you find it's a waste of time. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jlk5nb$mrm$7...@dough.gmane.org
Re: correct English usage
On 2012-04-05, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: civil conversation. You obviously have much experience, and I find that weathering your insults is worth the knowledge that I gain from interacting with you. That is an underhanded compliment, by the way. Underhanded or left-handed? (Don't answer that; let it be rhetorical so that the thread can die a peaceful death and not resuscitate upon the ambiguity of your finely-tuned epitaph). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjnrj0k.2pn.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: correct English usage
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 01:53:37 consultores wrote: On 04/03/2012 02:38 PM, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:04:24 consultores wrote: When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Here, i only can ask, what side of the dichotomy could be considered as an undoubted true? I'm sorry, I don't understand you, or I would answer. You are indicating the problem. Words used in unusual ways are less comprehensible. (And yes, I am sure that many others will have understood you. But sadly, I have not.) Lisi Lisi i tried saying that correct/incorrect, the dichotomy, does not have any meaning by itself, it needs to be appended by for, or who/what is involve. I was quoting exam regulations, for which I was not responsible. You can see that I have put correct in quotation marks precisely because it needs more definition. But I would imagine that they meant correct according to the grammar books. And I did say who/what is involve: those in Paris who were responsible for the exam rules for the Baccalauréat. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204040839.44187.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:14:55 -0700, John Jason Jordan wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:41:20 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com dijo: But the above does not imply that using posterior in the above stanza is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not incorrect. Those old Latin lovers (me included :-P) would even use the term ulterior for the said meaning. (OT) Latin POST, SUPRA and ULTRA meant 'after, following,' 'above, over,' and 'beyond. All came into English as prefixes. And English borrowed so many thousands of Latin words which already contained them as prefixes that, over time, English speakers just reanalyzed them as English prefixes. The interesting part is that Latin applied endings to words in order to form the comparative and superlative (like English -er and -est). Thus, POSTERIOR, SUPERIOR and ULTERIOR meant 'more after, more following,' 'more above, more over,' and 'more beyond. Languages do funny things, especially when borrowing from another language. Instead of becoming the comparative forms they became non-prefix adjectives, and lost the comparative meaning. Yes, and it's the same in Spanish. We now use the same word as an adjective for expressing distance (either physical or time based) in a more poetical form. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jlhied$j6s$3...@dough.gmane.org
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: (...) Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. Maybe, but you wouldn't pass for a native speaker, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? If I'm wrong about that, then all bets are off; use whatever word takes your fancy! (...) Well, I somehow disagree with that. What a plain/normal/joe native English/Spanish/whatever speaker user will consider as native depends on the readers' language education degree which usually tends to be at an average level. If I use the term ulterior (in Spanish) while speaking to my mother: 1/ She will understand what I said 2/ She won't think I'm not a Spanish native speaker :-) 3/ She can think I'm making a kind of joke and thus using a poetic word My mother is a retired school teacher and her knowledge of the Spanish language can be considered higher than the average. Now, if I use the same term with another person, what it probably happens is that: 1/ He/she won't understand what I said 2/ As he/she didn't understand the full phrase, he/she can think I used a nonexistent word so he/she will think I'm not a Spanish native speaker because I made a mistake :-) 3/ Still, he/she can think I'm making a kind of joke by using funny wordings Hope this simple example helps to illustrate what I try to highlight. Anyway, what we were discussing here was the correctness of a term. While I agree that using posterior or ulterior in the said technical context is not the best choice, neither of those words are incorrect, it is simply that there are better options. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jlhk44$j6s$4...@dough.gmane.org
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:09:15 Dotan Cohen wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 16:21, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 20:36:07 consultores wrote: The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! But in many, if not most, cases, has also been educated in it. I respectfully disagree. The native speakers of Hebrew and English that I know are the least educated in the usage of those languages. It is the immigrants who really study the language. That said, the Russians do seems to be very well learned of their language. Any question I have on Russian language the average Russian can explain. Just because an immigrant has really studied the language (for how long?) doesn't mean that he is more knowledgeable than an even moderately educated native speaker who has grown up in that environment. I work with many highly educated scientists from other countries, some of whom have been in the USA for decades. Most of them have excellent English language skills, but almost all still make grammatical and/or usage errors. And native speakers are much more likely to be au fait with current usage. With this part I agree. If you want the fine manual to read like the current slang or hip hop song, then a native speaker is far preferable to a learned immigrant. Or, if you want your scholarly work to read like proper and current usage, have an educated native speaker check it over. FWIW, the usage that started this thread was posterior used in the sense of later in time. While this may be in some dictionaries, I have never heard it used that way in conversation, or seen it in any printed format. It is truly an archaic usage. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. | | Research Scientist III | | NYS Dept. of Health j...@wadsworth.org | | Wadsworth Center - ESP | | P. O. Box 509518 486-7829 | | Albany, NY 12201-0509 | IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Camaleón: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:20:10 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: (...) Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. Maybe, but you wouldn't pass for a native speaker, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? If I'm wrong about that, then all bets are off; use whatever word takes your fancy! (...) Well, I somehow disagree with that. I am certainly tempted to make a screenshot of the view of this thread here in KMail, upload it somewhere and put a link here. You aren´t still discussing some wording in Releasenotes or other documentation, aren´t you? I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204041955.47298.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: correct English usage
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:21, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 04 April 2012 14:41:48 you wrote: Colloquial English is liberal to change, but software manuals should not be written in colloquial English. There is a more professional language that should be used in manuals. You are being deliberately perverse. Am I? I just bothered to look up the names of English writing styles. I do not claim to be an English language expert, but I can identify problems when they are obvious enough. There exists a writing style called technical and if a manual writer cannot manage that, then he should err on the side of formal, not casual, in my opinion. That said, many FOSS manuals and UI elements are written in the casual or even in street vernacular. O.K., let's just accept that you are right because you always are, and you know more about English than educated native English speakers. A personal attack! I love that, as Thatcher had observed obviously you cannot refute my logic so you try to discredit my person. I did not even realize that this was an argument, rather I thought it was a discussion. I won't participate in an online argument. If you would like to discuss, then I value your opinion. If your English were as good as you claim, you would understand what I am talking about. I am not talking about colloquial English. The onus is on me to decipher your hints and allusions? Furthermore, I recall no claims of my own to any level of English proficiency. I don't want either slang or hip-hop used in manuals (and was it really necessary to swear?), but I do want the manual to be comprehensible; which it is unlikely to be if it contains obsolete or very rare words, and weird, obsolete, never used, or just plain wrong grammatical constructions. I agree that obscure meanings should be avoided just as slang should be. But the real problem is grammar. No, it's not. Grammar changes as words do. I still use the present subjunctive when talking English. I am putting effort into trying to stop because the present subjunctive is obsolete, and was almost so when I was young. The imperfect subjunctive is showing signs of disappearing now. Thank you for the big scary words. I happen to actually understand them, but as they are an attempt to subvert and filibuster the discussion (or was it an argument) I'll ignore them. Although I do agree that a passive tense is preferable to an imperative tense in regard to technical writing, the specifics of it might as well be at the author's discretion so long as the writing style does not digress to casual. There is no point in arguing with you. You are so convinced of your own perfection that you do not even bother to read what other people are saying. Another personal attack, putting words in my mouth (I never said that I was perfect) and then refuting them. I believe that there is a term for that. Like your ad hominem attack above, that is a sign of one who is loosing an argument. I suggest that you keep this a conversation, not an argument, since despite your impressive knowledge of English tenses you seem to have ignored the finer points of arguing. If you ever get to the stage of considering the possibility that you just might be wrong, you might like to consider that your English is far from perfect, and it is wrong in the wrong ways. If I thought that I was right, I would not participate in this discussion. I happen to enjoy learning. You probably have something to teach me, but you prefer to insult and attack me. I wonder why that is. By the way, where did I swear? I'm not repeating it. It is unpleasant and unnecessary. Your English is, after all, perfect. Why do you need me to tell you what you have said? I see. Another red herring. I should have recognized it. You are insufferable, Dotan. I think you are the most self-opinionated person I have ever come across. You are talking nonsense where English is concerned. Go and vent your omniscience on someone else. Will do. I wish to you a peaceful life. Should you ever feel to be civil towards me, I will happily reengage discussion with you. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cakdxfkmyecsb69kzapw6fzu1epdqyywnv-xq+kyaxza4iya...@mail.gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:07:35 -0400 Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: Another personal attack, putting words in my mouth (I never said that I was perfect) and then refuting them. I believe that there is a term for that. Like your ad hominem attack above, that is a sign of one who is loosing an argument. +1 Cybe R. Wizard -- Strength through Unity. Unity through faith. Adam Sutler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120404153639.022f487f@wizardstower
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:55:47 Martin Steigerwald wrote: I might try whether KMail handles ignoring this thread. It sometimes seems to work at other times mails in the thread are still marked as new. You are a human being with freedom of action. If you want not to read this thread, don't read it. If you want it deleted, delete it. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204042345.37560.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
Dotan - this was sent to you off-list when you wrote to me off-list, to try and preempt one of your interminable off-list bullying threads. If you don't remember doing that to me, then you have a very short memory. On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:07:35 Dotan Cohen wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:21, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 04 April 2012 14:41:48 you wrote: Colloquial English is liberal to change, but software manuals should not be written in colloquial English. There is a more professional language that should be used in manuals. You are being deliberately perverse. Am I? I just bothered to look up the names of English writing styles. I do not claim to be an English language expert, but I can identify problems when they are obvious enough. There exists a writing style called technical and if a manual writer cannot manage that, then he should err on the side of formal, not casual, in my opinion. That said, many FOSS manuals and UI elements are written in the casual or even in street vernacular. O.K., let's just accept that you are right because you always are, and you know more about English than educated native English speakers. A personal attack! I love that, as Thatcher had observed obviously you cannot refute my logic so you try to discredit my person. I did not even realize that this was an argument, rather I thought it was a discussion. I won't participate in an online argument. If you would like to discuss, then I value your opinion. If your English were as good as you claim, you would understand what I am talking about. I am not talking about colloquial English. The onus is on me to decipher your hints and allusions? Furthermore, I recall no claims of my own to any level of English proficiency. I don't want either slang or hip-hop used in manuals (and was it really necessary to swear?), but I do want the manual to be comprehensible; which it is unlikely to be if it contains obsolete or very rare words, and weird, obsolete, never used, or just plain wrong grammatical constructions. I agree that obscure meanings should be avoided just as slang should be. But the real problem is grammar. No, it's not. Grammar changes as words do. I still use the present subjunctive when talking English. I am putting effort into trying to stop because the present subjunctive is obsolete, and was almost so when I was young. The imperfect subjunctive is showing signs of disappearing now. Thank you for the big scary words. I happen to actually understand them, but as they are an attempt to subvert and filibuster the discussion (or was it an argument) I'll ignore them. Nonsense. They are entirely germain to an argument in which you are talking about grammar. And yes, whne oyu flatky contradict soemone taht is an argument not a discussion. Although I do agree that a passive tense is preferable to an imperative tense in regard to technical writing, the specifics of it might as well be at the author's discretion so long as the writing style does not digress to casual. There is no point in arguing with you. You are so convinced of your own perfection that you do not even bother to read what other people are saying. Another personal attack, putting words in my mouth (I never said that I was perfect) and then refuting them. I believe that there is a term for that. Like your ad hominem attack above, that is a sign of one who is loosing an argument. I suggest that you keep this a conversation, not an argument, since despite your impressive knowledge of English tenses you seem to have ignored the finer points of arguing. If you ever get to the stage of considering the possibility that you just might be wrong, you might like to consider that your English is far from perfect, and it is wrong in the wrong ways. If I thought that I was right, I would not participate in this discussion. I happen to enjoy learning. You probably have something to teach me, but you prefer to insult and attack me. I wonder why that is. By the way, where did I swear? I'm not repeating it. It is unpleasant and unnecessary. Your English is, after all, perfect. Why do you need me to tell you what you have said? I see. Another red herring. I should have recognized it. You are insufferable, Dotan. I think you are the most self-opinionated person I have ever come across. You are talking nonsense where English is concerned. Go and vent your omniscience on someone else. Will do. I wish to you a peaceful life. Should you ever feel to be civil towards me, I will happily reengage discussion with you. In the past, you have only bullied me. Why would I expect you to change now? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:
Re: correct English usage
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:36:39 Cybe R. Wizard wrote: Another personal attack, putting words in my mouth (I never said that I was perfect) and then refuting them. I believe that there is a term for that. Like your ad hominem attack above, that is a sign of one who is loosing an argument. +1 No, it is a sign that I did not want to debate with Dotan off-list. He tries to win by steam-rollering me and I have no desire to repeat the experience. Hopefully, he will now leave me alone. But I though that off-list post on this list was not supposed to be published on-list without the express agreement of the sender? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120405.02755.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 18:56, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: Dotan - this was sent to you off-list when you wrote to me off-list, to try and preempt one of your interminable off-list bullying threads. I had noticed that at some point some of the messages had gone off-list, so I put them back on list when I noticed. The Gmail reply function sometimes replies on-list and sometimes off. I should have taken better notice. Going through the tread, I see that the first off-list message was in fact by you to me, with this message-id: Message-Id: 201204040830.08912.lisi.re...@gmail.com If you don't remember doing that to me, then you have a very short memory. Going through my archives, I see that you did message me off list in May 2010. You accused me of being insensitive, then we reconciled when it became obvious that we both have experience with the matter at hand (disability). And you are right, I did forget about that. I happily dismiss any altercations. I will not participate in an off-list argument. I have no drive to prove myself right, nor any desire to trade insults. If there is any content from which I can learn in a message, then that message is best in a public forum where all might learn. I should end this message with a reminder of the times in which we had civil conversation. You obviously have much experience, and I find that weathering your insults is worth the knowledge that I gain from interacting with you. That is an underhanded compliment, by the way. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKDXFkOURVUZg7RG-ShpM0hohLJjX_rpe=D8+0+ka=imdo5...@mail.gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:00:02 +0100 Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 04 April 2012 21:36:39 Cybe R. Wizard wrote: Another personal attack, putting words in my mouth (I never said that I was perfect) and then refuting them. I believe that there is a term for that. Like your ad hominem attack above, that is a sign of one who is loosing an argument. +1 No, it is a sign that I did not want to debate with Dotan off-list. He tries to win by steam-rollering me and I have no desire to repeat the experience. Hopefully, he will now leave me alone. But I though that off-list post on this list was not supposed to be published on-list without the express agreement of the sender? Lisi On-list or off, your method is as he has described it. If your wish is to not engage in either argument or discussion then..don't engage. Indeed, it seems that you use the same or similar method here as you have not before mentioned any off-list messages to you, even in your response to him. Cybe R. Wizard -- “disingenuous at best and outrageous at worst.” Marc Racicot -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120404190436.3f284976@wizardstower
Re: correct English usage (for every occasion?)
On 05/04/12 06:07, Dotan Cohen wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:21, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 04 April 2012 14:41:48 you wrote: Colloquial English is liberal to change, Yes. I understand what you mean. And that's a classic example of something written by some for whom English is not their first language. I asked natives with different literacy levels what they thought of that statement. I've only reproduced the more entertaining ones for this colloquial discussion, the last two would be the audience for a FAQ. Huh? [too embarrassed to admit not knowing what colloquial means, possibly suspects the Liberal party is involved] left school at 14 and attended the University of Life, doesn't/can't read, eats at restaurants that have pictures on the menu. Derr, and water is wet. [if colloquial didn't change according to local custom, it wouldn't be colloquial, and, sounds like someone ate the dictionary, thought the statement was pretentious.] Undergraduate arts degree, reads only when necessary, preferably graphic novels. W*nker (colloquialism for you're not from around here are you? + and element of derrr) [not a fan of Australia's immigration policy ie. picked the statement as made by a non-native] Masters degree in Science, multi language skills, reads a lot. So two comprehended the statement correctly. But both added meaning you didn't intend. Tricky stuff indeed, and that should not be read to imply your English is not good (above average). but software manuals should not be written in colloquial English. Generally, yes. The intention and audience is the determining factor. Sometimes the line between advertising and instruction is blurred, the targeted audience may have a problem with vowels. My general rule is to write first for the lowest common denominator. So the first things found should be the simplest - either drill down to footnotes or appendixes for more detail. Psychology is a large part of both getting people to read, and getting to understand what you say. Of course everyone knows this, which is why we are all master communicators, and Steven King ekes out a living hauling garbage. :-) There is a more professional language that should be used in manuals. Again, generally, yes. A manual implies reading. To be able to read requires a level of literacy that not everyone possesses. Therefore a manual that is useful requires a level of literacy lower than that of the intended audience. The very successful Dummies Guide to range of books recognises this. Know you audience, then split-test. Sorry, I've no recommendations on how to do this in the instance being discussed. snipped I just bothered to look up the names of English writing styles. There's a dangerous precedent ;-p snipped There exists a writing style called technical and if a manual writer cannot manage that, then he should err on the side of formal, not casual, in my opinion. It's a FAQ, not a manual. A FAQ style is point form distillations of complex threads and multiple posts. Jargon, a feature of technical documentation should be avoided in all types of quick access documentation. A FAQ is a form of quick access[*1] documentation. My opinion and experience, as a documentation writer, is that technical writing is used for technical documentation. In this instance we're talking about a FAQ - for which the preferred style is plain english[*2] written at an appropriate level[*3]. Some colloquialisms are acceptable in plain english. Subject to the general rule that any document should speak in a voice best heard by the audience. ie. I wouldn't generally write would not in a software FAQ, but I would use it in a user guide. Dear Dotan, there is a Formal style of business communication, as I hope you and I can agree. It is generally referred to as formal business style. When used inappropriately it's referred to as a stilted style. :-) Casual style sounds like a dress code, I've never seen the term used in documentation specifications. I suspect you looked up Aunt Betty's guide to letter writing for young adults :-D Advertising copywriters and journalists will have different writing styles again. [*1]I just made that term up. [*2]AKA clear english. [*3]see Flesch, Gunning, Kincaid and others. That said, many FOSS manuals and UI elements are written in the casual or even in street vernacular. Many Software manuals and UI elements are written by amateurs and illiterates ;-p So I'm not sure what your point is there. The determining factors should be:- ;whether it's easily readable (or it won't get read) ;whether the documentation accurately conveys the correct meaning to the reader (or reading, and writing it, is a waste of time). Convention and popular opinion are irrelevant unless they conform with those factors. Amongst the many good/proper writing factors *not* discussed so far is context. ie.the style should be consistent throughout the document. Voice, tone, and syntax
Re: correct English usage
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. . . For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in the documention, and that I am less qualified than you in that field. Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionnaries. I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionnaries. Here are some results I got for the posterior entry: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . . 2 Medicine . . . 3 formal coming after in time or order; later. WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 Sense: Subsequent, succeeding, next, following Sense: Behind, at the rear, dorsal, in back o, back Collinsdictionary.com 1. situated at the back of or behind something 2. coming after or following another in a series 3. coming after in time Are all these distionnaries wrong? -- Pierre Frenkiel
Re: correct English usage
In linux.debian.user, you wrote: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1463809023-1608600801-1333448123=:30347 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. . . For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in the documention, and that I am less qualified than you in that field. Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionnaries. I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionnaries. Here are some results I got for the posterior entry: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . . 2 Medicine . . . 3 formal coming after in time or order; later. WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 Sense: Subsequent, succeeding, next, following Sense: Behind, at the rear, dorsal, in back o, back Collinsdictionary.com 1. situated at the back of or behind something 2. coming after or following another in a series 3. coming after in time Are all these distionnaries wrong? -- Pierre Frenkiel ---1463809023-1608600801-1333448123=:30347-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204031153500.30...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. -- ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ Indulekha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403102956.GA22176@radhesyama
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 03:15, Pierre Frenkiel pierre.frenk...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. . . For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in the documentation, and that I am less qualified than you in that field. Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionaries. I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionaries. Here are some results I got for the posterior entry: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . . 2 Medicine . . . 3 formal coming after in time or order; later. WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 Sense: Subsequent, succeeding, next, following Sense: Behind, at the rear, dorsal, in back o, back Collinsdictionary.com 1. situated at the back of or behind something 2. coming after or following another in a series 3. coming after in time Are all these dictionaries wrong? They are not wrong per say, but only the first definition you mention (anatomy) is in widespread use these days (which is why it said chiefly). If you say posterior people's first thought will be ass. That happens all the time with dictionary-based translations, by the way. It can be very hard to tell if a definition is really used much in practice. In general there is a tendency in modern American English to use rather simple words or descriptive phrases made of simple words rather than a single very precise but less well known word. In conversation at least, people will virtually always say, Squeeze came after Lenny. Written work pushes back against that to some extent, and going overboard can make a text seem aimed at children or the very uneducated... Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFoWM�v+dyjxwx_tskprtn-_71mhr-mcbj_e2eox1mmt6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: In linux.debian.user, you wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. . . For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in the documention, and that I am less qualified than you in that field. Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionnaries. I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionnaries. Here are some results I got for the posterior entry: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . . 2 Medicine . . . 3 formal coming after in time or order; later. (...) Are all these distionnaries wrong? There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. +5 But this also happens in any language mainly because non-native speakers are doing what native-speakers usually don't: study and learn the proper usage of their own language :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jleuje$8qv$3...@dough.gmane.org
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Kelly Clowers wrote: They are not wrong per say, but only the first definition you mention (anatomy) is in widespread use these days (which is why it said chiefly). Is that specific to American English, or is it also true for British English, Canadian English, ...? Paul's statement was much more stronger: this is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. If you say posterior people's first thought will be ass. but in the given sentence, posterior is clearly an adjective? That happens all the time with dictionary-based translations, by the way. It can be very hard to tell if a definition is really used much in practice. Then, for people whose native language is not English, in some cases the only way to find the right word seems to be try and error. Note that the WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 gave the most common meaning for posterior in second place, and that it was nowhere mentioned that the time related meaning was deprecated. Is there a dictionnary where this kind of information would be available? In general there is a tendency in modern American English to use rather simple words or descriptive phrases made of simple words rather than a single very precise but less well known word. Again, is that specific to American English? -- Pierre Frenkiel
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 15:09:50 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Kelly Clowers wrote: They are not wrong per say, but only the first definition you mention (anatomy) is in widespread use these days (which is why it said chiefly). Is that specific to American English, or is it also true for British English, Canadian English, ...? It is certainly true for English English. It would simply not be used in teh way that you used it. Paul's statement was much more stronger: this is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. I agree with Paul. It is simply not acceptable in practice. If you say posterior people's first thought will be ass. but in the given sentence, posterior is clearly an adjective? Which yet again, is not a correct usage in modern idiom of that word. That happens all the time with dictionary-based translations, by the way. It can be very hard to tell if a definition is really used much in practice. Then, for people whose native language is not English, in some cases the only way to find the right word seems to be try and error. Or accept the word of educated native speakers. Note that the WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 gave the most common meaning for posterior in second place, and that it was nowhere mentioned that the time related meaning was deprecated. It isn't deprecated because no-one would use it in the first place. Is there a dictionnary where this kind of information would be available? In general there is a tendency in modern American English to use rather simple words or descriptive phrases made of simple words rather than a single very precise but less well known word. Again, is that specific to American English? No. Though the English are a bit prone to being pretentious. I was taught at school that where an Anglo-Saxon word applied, it should be used in preference to a Latin one. (In Latin I am including French.) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204031538.03889.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On 04/03/2012 05:38 PM, Lisi wrote: Then, for people whose native language is not English, in some cases the only way to find the right word seems to be try and error. Or accept the word of educated native speakers. [I'm non native english] It's hard to convince someone with Shut up I'm right you're wrong nowadays. -- RMA. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b0c45.9080...@rktmb.org
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 11:29:56 Indulekha wrote: I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. Yes, but their English is noy as good. Words that have fallen out of use cannot just be used in their obsolete meanings willy nilly. For example, if I talk about you preventing me, I mean obstructing me, not going in front of me, leading me. If you doubt the correctness of this, stand in any British High Street late on a Friday night, pick a particularly drunk, macho looking ,man with his arms round a girl, and tell him loudly that he is gay. I recommend then running off as fast as you can manage, and hoping that he is not an athlete. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204031548.16072.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
* Camaleón noela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: In linux.debian.user, you wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are precede, predecessor, succeed, successor, antecedent, and descendant. Thus, one could say: Lenny preceded Squeeze. or Squeeze succeeds Lenny. or Lenny is the predecessor of Squeeze. or Squeeze is the successor of Lenny. or Lenny is the antecedent of Squeeze. or Squeeze is the descendant of Lenny. %%% Perhaps the most fundamental rule or concept of communication is that the meaning of a word is determined by the context in which the word is used. Accordingly, it is the author of a document -- and not the lexicographer (that is, the compiler of a dictionary) -- who determines the meaning of the words within the document. The lexicographer merely searches through documents of all sort, and compiles the meanings which, over the years, various authors have assigned to those words. Accordingly, while a given dictionary or lexicon may be said to be more COMPREHENSIVE than another, it hardly is correct to say that one dictionary is more AUTHORITATIVE than another. Again, the lexicon is but a catalogue of usage. However, communication in general is facilitated when an author assigns to a given word the same meaning as other authors assign to that word. And this is why an author generally ought keep close at hand a dictionary while he writes. RLH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403145007.GB3699@cromwell.tmiaf
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 07:09, Pierre Frenkiel pierre.frenk...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Kelly Clowers wrote: They are not wrong per say, but only the first definition you mention (anatomy) is in widespread use these days (which is why it said chiefly). Is that specific to American English, or is it also true for British English, Canadian English, ...? Paul's statement was much more stronger: this is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. If you say posterior people's first thought will be ass. but in the given sentence, posterior is clearly an adjective? Yeah, but that will not change their first thought (at least it didn't change mine, and I know my parts of speech, and pay a fair amount of attention to language in general. Maybe I am just weird, though). That happens all the time with dictionary-based translations, by the way. It can be very hard to tell if a definition is really used much in practice. Then, for people whose native language is not English, in some cases the only way to find the right word seems to be try and error. Likely. It is that same going from English to other languages AFAIK. Note that the WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 gave the most common meaning for posterior in second place, and that it was nowhere mentioned that the time related meaning was deprecated. Is there a dictionary where this kind of information would be available? I am not aware of one, though that doesn't mean it does not exist. One might be able to use google search for that... searching posterior does shows mostly dictionary sites and anatomy-related things In general there is a tendency in modern American English to use rather simple words or descriptive phrases made of simple words rather than a single very precise but less well known word. Again, is that specific to American English? Good question, I am not sure if the British and others are picking up this bad (IMO) habit. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFoWM=9jv768uhzk7q63wbentpk3p++m6vbfm7lzqu1gqdd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500 Indulekha indule...@theunworthy.com wrote: Are all these distionnaries wrong? -- Pierre Frenkiel ---1463809023-1608600801-1333448123=:30347-- There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. There IS something wrong with his English, and several have tried to explain it -- he's using a word contrary to its established common meaning. If he's more interested in impressing dictionary editors than in conveying his idea, more power to him. Otherwise, he should accept the explanation offered by native speakers. It's pretty arrogant to suggest that native speakers of another language are less literate than you, because your own understanding differs from theirs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403100641.1be9ded9@sirius
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote: (careful when quoting...) * Camaleón noela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: In linux.debian.user, you wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are precede, predecessor, succeed, successor, antecedent, and descendant. Thus, one could say: (...) That's why the documenting guys are perfect for this work as they're usually skilled at language. I bet they're the most indicated for finding the proper wording. But the above does not imply that using posterior in the above stanza is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not incorrect. Those old Latin lovers (me included :-P) would even use the term ulterior for the said meaning. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jlf5n0$8qv$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: correct English usage
you wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500 Indulekha indule...@theunworthy.com wrote: Are all these distionnaries wrong? There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. There IS something wrong with his English, and several have tried to explain it -- he's using a word contrary to its established common meaning. If he's more interested in impressing dictionary editors than in conveying his idea, more power to him. Otherwise, he should accept the explanation offered by native speakers. It's pretty arrogant to suggest that native speakers of another language are less literate than you, because your own understanding differs from theirs. Well, my understanding is that of an English-speaking American. So, shall I fetch a stepladder so you can get down from that high horse? :D Having known many people from many countries over the decades, I am quite confident that what I said is true. -- ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ Indulekha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403160522.GA27441@radhesyama
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 15:42:13 Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: On 04/03/2012 05:38 PM, Lisi wrote: Then, for people whose native language is not English, in some cases the only way to find the right word seems to be try and error. Or accept the word of educated native speakers. [I'm non native english] It's hard to convince someone with Shut up I'm right you're wrong nowadays. It always has been. But an argument can go on just too long, and if a non-native speaker is convinced that he/she knows better there is no point in carrying on the discussion. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204031756.35128.lisi.re...@gmail.com
[OT] Re: correct English usage
On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote: (careful when quoting...) * Camaleónnoela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: In linux.debian.user, you wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are precede, predecessor, succeed, successor, antecedent, and descendant. Thus, one could say: (...) That's why the documenting guys are perfect for this work as they're usually skilled at language. I bet they're the most indicated for finding the proper wording. But the above does not imply that using posterior in the above stanza is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not incorrect. Those old Latin lovers (me included :-P) would even use the term ulterior for the said meaning. Use whatever words you like; English is flexible enough (and has low entropy anyway) that you'll be understood. Your English is pretty good, but it still appears stilted, due to the use of unnatural words in a given context, as one would expect from a non-native. That said, I wish my attempts at French were as good as your English! In this post, indicated for is probably the wrong term for the context. It roughly means prescribed. It is unclear what you really mean, but I would guess capable of. Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, and a Latin Lover is something totally different ;) But, as I said before, it doesn't really matter... -- Tony van der Hoff | mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org Ariège, France | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b27a7.1050...@vanderhoff.org
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 15:58:45 Kelly Clowers wrote: In general there is a tendency in modern American English to use rather simple words or descriptive phrases made of simple words rather than a single very precise but less well known word. Again, is that specific to American English? Good question, I am not sure if the British and others are picking up this bad (IMO) habit. My English teacher strogly advocated it!! Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204031758.05475.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +, Russell L. Harris wrote: (careful when quoting...) * Camaleónnoela...@gmail.com [120403 13:51]: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote: In linux.debian.user, you wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are precede, predecessor, succeed, successor, antecedent, and descendant. Thus, one could say: (...) That's why the documenting guys are perfect for this work as they're usually skilled at language. I bet they're the most indicated for finding the proper wording. But the above does not imply that using posterior in the above stanza is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not incorrect. Those old Latin lovers (me included :-P) would even use the term ulterior for the said meaning. Use whatever words you like; English is flexible enough (and has low entropy anyway) that you'll be understood. Your English is pretty good, but it still appears stilted, due to the use of unnatural words in a given context, as one would expect from a non-native. That said, I wish my attempts at French were as good as your English! Hey, thanks! I've never been living in English speaking countries and that's (→ language immersion) what helps most for having a more natural sounding. In fact, all the English I know has been have learnt from my school years, that is, an academic (and British) English :-) In this post, indicated for is probably the wrong term for the context. It roughly means prescribed. It is unclear what you really mean, but I would guess capable of. Mmm... yes. How about appropriate? Or prepared? suited? qualified? I could have chosen any of those, in my non-English mind they all sound the same good :-P Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. and a Latin Lover is something totally different ;) (...) Damn. I precisely enclosed old Latin in double quotes and used uppercase L to avoid misinterpretations :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jlfbj4$8qv$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:41:20 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com dijo: But the above does not imply that using posterior in the above stanza is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not incorrect. Those old Latin lovers (me included :-P) would even use the term ulterior for the said meaning. (OT) Latin POST, SUPRA and ULTRA meant 'after, following,' 'above, over,' and 'beyond. All came into English as prefixes. And English borrowed so many thousands of Latin words which already contained them as prefixes that, over time, English speakers just reanalyzed them as English prefixes. The interesting part is that Latin applied endings to words in order to form the comparative and superlative (like English -er and -est). Thus, POSTERIOR, SUPERIOR and ULTERIOR meant 'more after, more following,' 'more above, more over,' and 'more beyond. Languages do funny things, especially when borrowing from another language. Instead of becoming the comparative forms they became non-prefix adjectives, and lost the comparative meaning. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403111455.0b3cd...@mailhost.pdx.edu
Re: correct English usage
On 04/03/2012 09:05 AM, Indulekha wrote: you wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500 Indulekhaindule...@theunworthy.com wrote: Are all these distionnaries wrong? There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. There IS something wrong with his English, and several have tried to explain it -- he's using a word contrary to its established common meaning. If he's more interested in impressing dictionary editors than in conveying his idea, more power to him. Otherwise, he should accept the explanation offered by native speakers. It's pretty arrogant to suggest that native speakers of another language are less literate than you, because your own understanding differs from theirs. Well, my understanding is that of an English-speaking American. So, shall I fetch a stepladder so you can get down from that high horse? :D Having known many people from many countries over the decades, I am quite confident that what I said is true. I have lost this thread, but please, remember that in US, Belize, Canada, and English Guyana; the spoken language is a dialect of English; and easily can be confirmed, because of the use of expressions as American English (only 4 different dialects in America), American (USian); in America the predominant language is a mixture of Spanish dialects! The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b5127.70...@gmx.us
Re: correct English usage
On 03/04/12 21:36, consultores wrote: On 04/03/2012 09:05 AM, Indulekha wrote: you wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500 Indulekhaindule...@theunworthy.com wrote: Are all these distionnaries wrong? There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions, they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've frequently observed that people for whom English is a second language are more literate that the average American. There IS something wrong with his English, and several have tried to explain it -- he's using a word contrary to its established common meaning. If he's more interested in impressing dictionary editors than in conveying his idea, more power to him. Otherwise, he should accept the explanation offered by native speakers. It's pretty arrogant to suggest that native speakers of another language are less literate than you, because your own understanding differs from theirs. Well, my understanding is that of an English-speaking American. So, shall I fetch a stepladder so you can get down from that high horse? :D Having known many people from many countries over the decades, I am quite confident that what I said is true. I have lost this thread, but please, remember that in US, Belize, Canada, and English Guyana; the spoken language is a dialect of English; and easily can be confirmed, because of the use of expressions as American English (only 4 different dialects in America), American (USian); in America the predominant language is a mixture of Spanish dialects! The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! +1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b5a30.5020...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 20:36:07 consultores wrote: The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! But in many, if not most, cases, has also been educated in it. And native speakers are much more likely to be au fait with current usage. When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204032121.44960.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On 04/03/2012 04:21 PM, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 20:36:07 consultores wrote: The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! But in many, if not most, cases, has also been educated in it. And native speakers are much more likely to be au fait with current usage. When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Lisi +1 ! -- Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b5d7e.4080...@optonline.net
Re: correct English usage
On 04/03/2012 01:28 PM, Doug wrote: On 04/03/2012 04:21 PM, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 20:36:07 consultores wrote: The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! But in many, if not most, cases, has also been educated in it. And native speakers are much more likely to be au fait with current usage. Hello Lisi Yes, but please remember that, Old English + Latin, built the Middle English, and Modern English came from a mixture with other languages. It is clearly reflected when English words are substituted by Latin root words. At this time the meaning is different. I think that might in any other language, there are colloquial and Academic Language. I suppose that in this list, we could use an understandable language, because it is more convenient for the users. When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Here, i only can ask, what side of the dichotomy could be considered as an undoubted true? Lisi +1 ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b65d8.7080...@gmx.us
Re: correct English usage
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:04:24 consultores wrote: When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Here, i only can ask, what side of the dichotomy could be considered as an undoubted true? I'm sorry, I don't understand you, or I would answer. You are indicating the problem. Words used in unusual ways are less comprehensible. (And yes, I am sure that many others will have understood you. But sadly, I have not.) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204032238.55814.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On 03/04/12 19:21, Camaleón wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote: In this post, indicated for is probably the wrong term for the context. It roughly means prescribed. It is unclear what you really mean, but I would guess capable of. Mmm... yes. How about appropriate? Or prepared? suited? qualified? I could have chosen any of those, in my non-English mind they all sound the same good :-P I like Suited. Qualified contains an element of academicity, which may be appropriate. Prepared signifies a willingness; maybe OK here. Appropriate would generally be used to indicate correctness. Use any of them, but apart from suited, it may sound artificial. Ulterior is certainly not a synonym for posterior, But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in my own language but it is still perfectly correct. Maybe, but you wouldn't pass for a native speaker, and that's what this is all about, isn't it? If I'm wrong about that, then all bets are off; use whatever word takes your fancy! Neither is OK, but in the wrong place in this context. You may have better expressed it as Neither is it a term that I would use and a Latin Lover is something totally different ;) Damn. I precisely enclosed old Latin in double quotes and used uppercase L to avoid misinterpretations:-) Yes, I know. I was trying to introduce some levity. Hence the winkie! -- Tony van der Hoff | mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org Ariège, France | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b698a.40...@vanderhoff.org
Re: correct English usage
On 04/03/2012 02:38 PM, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:04:24 consultores wrote: When I took the French Bac., the criterion laid down for the aural English exam was that marks would be awarded for speaking as would a native speaker, explicitly in preference to the correct usage. Here, i only can ask, what side of the dichotomy could be considered as an undoubted true? I'm sorry, I don't understand you, or I would answer. You are indicating the problem. Words used in unusual ways are less comprehensible. (And yes, I am sure that many others will have understood you. But sadly, I have not.) Lisi Lisi i tried saying that correct/incorrect, the dichotomy, does not have any meaning by itself, it needs to be appended by for, or who/what is involve. thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b9b91.5060...@gmx.us
Re: correct English usage
Pierre Frenkiel pierre.frenk...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. . . For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in the documention, and that I am less qualified than you in that field. Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionnaries. I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionnaries. Here are some results I got for the posterior entry: Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press: 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . . 2 Medicine . . . 3 formal coming after in time or order; later. WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012 Sense: Subsequent, succeeding, next, following Sense: Behind, at the rear, dorsal, in back o, back Collinsdictionary.com 1. situated at the back of or behind something 2. coming after or following another in a series 3. coming after in time Are all these distionnaries wrong? I am a native speaker, and the after in time usage is one I can't remember ever seeing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1bobr8e2sl@pfeifferfamily.net
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:50, Russell L. Harris rlhar...@broadcaster.org Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are precede, predecessor, succeed, successor, antecedent, and descendant. Thus, one could say: Lenny preceded Squeeze. or Squeeze succeeds Lenny. or Lenny is the predecessor of Squeeze. or Squeeze is the successor of Lenny. or Lenny is the antecedent of Squeeze. or Squeeze is the descendant of Lenny. Wow, that's confusing! How about instead using nonsense alliterating adjective / animal name combinations, arranged alphabetically? -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cakdxfkp16apv7ir2pxyt54rf9popoxw8_in4--z5gp0qtep...@mail.gmail.com
Re: correct English usage
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 16:21, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 20:36:07 consultores wrote: The other point, is that native speaker, does not mean excellence; it only mean that this person just speaks one dialect/language from the begining of his life! But in many, if not most, cases, has also been educated in it. I respectfully disagree. The native speakers of Hebrew and English that I know are the least educated in the usage of those languages. It is the immigrants who really study the language. That said, the Russians do seems to be very well learned of their language. Any question I have on Russian language the average Russian can explain. And native speakers are much more likely to be au fait with current usage. With this part I agree. If you want the fine manual to read like the current slang or hip hop song, then a native speaker is far preferable to a learned immigrant. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKDXFkO=o4xxnap3dn1nt2j4xvnwfg5w4tb5k5wywxcp+qj...@mail.gmail.com
