> However, from this does not follow that one individual or a majority
> are allowed to dispense of any rules and do as they please while
> claiming that they are speaking English.
Sure it does. Chaucer, Joyce, Shakespeare. We even have special
grammatical terms for when the author decided to
On 13/10/17 09:30, Duane Whitty wrote:
>> Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified.
>> The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body
>> or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive.
>
> I'd be interested to know what the other possibilities are.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 17-10-13 11:05 AM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> On 12/10/17 17:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a
>>> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact
>>> that it is
El día viernes, octubre 13, 2017 a las 09:05:52a. m. -0500, Mario Castelán
Castro escribió:
> Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. The
> possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body or
> defined by majority usage are not exhaustive.
>
> ...
Could
On 12/10/17 17:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a linguistic
>> construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact that it is
>> incorrect.
>
> It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, where
> there's an actual
> So how do you apply your superior language skills to improving gnupg
> nomenclature and documentation ?
By writing and maintaining the FAQ. With the exception of some light
edits by Werner and about three sentences from A.M. Kuchling, the entire
thing is my work.
> Any chance you could put
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/12/17 22:54, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> ... For someone who touts himself as a "languages geek
>> extraordinaire," I am shocked that you'd claim this.
>
> What, that I'm a linguistic descriptivist? Dude...
So how do you apply your superior
>>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a
>>> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact
>>> that it is incorrect.
>
>> It quite definitely does.
>
> This is silly. I am flabbergasted at this assertion.
Great: you learned something today! Read up on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/12/17 18:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a
>> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact
>> that it is incorrect.
>
> It quite definitely does.
This is silly. I am
> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a linguistic
> construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact that it is
> incorrect.
It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, where
there's an actual institution charged with the development of the
language, the
Despite the bulk of your message, the only attempt at an argument is
“English is an evolving language”. The rest is completely irrelevant.
That English is a changing language is not a justification to misuse
words. The word “Linux” meant a kernel when it was introduced to
informatics and it still
> The bulk of people use "Linux" to mean both terms, in casual and formal
> speech and writing. You may as well try and insist we use "United
> States of America" all the time instead of "America"; context alone
> typically implies the intended meaning.
It's tempting, but unfair, to call these
Hi Mario,
> > You snipped the bit where I said "Linux" has two meanings in the
> > English language depending on context.
>
> In the previous message you said “"Linux" can be the kernel or a
> distro.”.
"Linux" can be the kernel or a distro. Context makes this clear in
the majority of
13 matches
Mail list logo
