Liz. I've responded to your comments collectively in order because inserting responses within quoted text has not worked properly on previous occasions, so please bear with me... - I don't believe every term in English in ambiguous. - There is no verb form of "split" present in the example I gave, although it is true that the wood had split(v) at some time in the past.. - I used "propagate" to mean that the split was forced to grow. - The split itself has gone, only the effects of the split remain in the form of uneven edges to the piece of wood. - It is interesting to note that you think there is just a single split at this stage because GnuCash would interpret it as two! - Sawmills don't make logs by splitting. Logs are cut directly from trees by sawing. Sawmills convert logs and trees into usable timber by sawing; that's why they are called sawmills.
Whilst I do respect everyone's point of view, it is clear that I've wasted far too much valuable time trying to help eradicate confusing terminology from GnuCash. I've clearly failed, but I do know that most of the transactions I enter in GnuCash involve no splits at the user level, so I shall continue to use it for double entry bookkeeping rather than double split bookkeeping. That's all from me on this topic you'll no doubt be relieved to know!. Kind regards, Alan > Thank you to those who have tried to educate me on the use of the > word "split" in GnuCash, but whilst I believe that I understand how > it is being used, the reason for using such an ambiguous term remains > puzzling when better alternatives exist. Every term in English is ambiguous - it's the nature of the language and why jokes involving language are so prominent. > I have a piece of wood that > has a split in it caused by uneven shrinkage. It is one piece of wood > with one split. Split - noun. Don't forget Split - verb > If I choose to propagate that split why did you choose "propagate" rather than "split" > by forcing a > wedge or axe into it, I end up with two pieces of wood and the split > suddenly disappears. No, the split has now enlarged to a point at which you can ignore it. > The split has not magically turned into two splits No, there is no magic. You still have a single split, but instead of it being partial it is a complete split. > and if I plane the edges of the two pieces of wood there will > be no evidence that the split ever existed. Cosmetic only. We all know that it didn't grow like that, it was part of a bigger whole, and that at the sawmill they made multiple splits to make logs. Alan, we are trying to present a number of different points of view, please look at these different points of view. Liz ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
