In defense|defence of IBM's use of 'actionable' Timothy Sipples has used recognition by a Merriam-Webster dictionary of the sense 'capable of being acted upon'.
The single example he cites is semantically contaminated by its law-enforcement/legal context, but for his purposes this is not perhaps a fatal defect. We must all choose our own authorities, and he has every right to choose his. I, however, prefer the OED because it includes quotations over long periods of time that permit me to judge the contexts in which a word has been used and its connotations in those contexts. There 'actionable' in his/IBM's sense has no respectable antecedents. I am prepared to concede that IBM evolves. Some of this evolution is admirable, some not; but it is important to remember that not corporations buy people write text. Some write English or another language well, and some do not. Merriam-Webster takes the view that usage is all, that current usage is a fortiori legitimate usage. My view is different. I can perhaps best summarize it by borrowing an example from E. B. White, who observed that while those who use the English-language verb 'to personalize' should be free to do so, they should not perhaps be equally free to teach English to others. Finally, of course, we are dealing here with matters of taste. In his post Mr Sipples wrote "True, definition #2 is not as old as definition #1." in conformity with much current usage, where the canons of standard English dictate, and I should have written, True, definition #2 is not so old as definition #1. He is certainly free to do this. Again, as he has repeatedly, he is free to use data as a singular noun. Equally, I am free to judge his use of such constructs, favorably or adversely. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
