I think you're being obtuse Dave. And that's your right to do so. You're right from an idealistic perspective. I'll give you that. My position comes from the practical world, not the theoretical one. You meet with a CEO and use truthiness in a presentation you'll look like a fool. You use a world like flustrate for instance, and though people will understand what you mean, they'll make an assumption about your intelligence. Same as mixing up there/their/they're. Certainly people will understand you. However that doesn't make it effective communication. Effective communication isn't simply understand the meaning behind the message, but also respecting the message.
That's my two cents anyway. Flame on Garth. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Dave Watts <dwa...@figleaf.com> wrote: > > > True Dave. However the fact that at some far off point in the future > > incorrect usage of words may become correct shouldn't be justification > for > > using them incorrectly now, should it? > > If I recall correctly, this tangent to the thread came up with your > objection to the word "truthiness", which wasn't used incorrectly, and > has a clear meaning to the people who use it (and most everyone else). > Your objection revolved around the fact that it wasn't listed in a > "reputable" dictionary, whatever that is. Again, though, this is > simply not a valid linguistic argument. If people use a specific > sequence of sounds and/or letters, and enough other people understand > what that sequence means, it's a word. You seem to think that these > sequences are not-words until some authority - the "reputable > dictionary" - recognizes them as words. That is simply not how > language works. > > > Words have specific meanings. That might change in the future, sure. > However > > when you're trying to communicate in the here and now using words > > incorrectly, or words not recognized as words, undermines your ability to > > communicate effectively and is likely to give people justification to not > > take you seriously > > Clearly, that was Shakespeare's problem. He couldn't communicate > effectively, which is why no one takes him seriously. > > > Here. Let's try a paragraph that may, in the future, make perfect sense: > > > > Conflarg a doffle erf flustrate the truthiness of the forgenfluff? > Hahaha. > > Indeed. Kefondulor. Kefondulor. > > I think you may want to reread what I mentioned previously about consensus. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > http://training.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on > GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:348124 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
