David Wilson wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <cl...@uah.es> wrote:
we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse
there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
im not native english speaker but i think it still applies.
Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use.
As a native english speaker:
You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a
well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is
appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically
incorrect.
I disagree -- it's a glaring error. "More optimized" or "better optimized" are perfectly good, and
correct, phrases. Why not use them? Every time I read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who
is showing his/her ignorance of the basics of English grammar. If I wrote, "It's more best," would you find
that acceptable?
This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list...
Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one
rebuttal.
Craig
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
