Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
> 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 say "to hell with it". English is a strict subject-verb-object (SVO) language: screw that up and you sound like Yoda... or Shakespeare. "Bloody thou art; bloody will be thy end." (_Richard III_) Inverting word order is called hyperbaton. Sentence fragments are bad, right? Meet anapodoton. Repetition is bad. Well, except if you're Churchill, in which case epizeuxis is your friend. "Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." English is chock full of special rules that tells speakers how we ought break the rules. It's beautiful. :) > Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of English and use > common sense in determining which words one will regard as > legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to the ad > populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding the > words “u”, “gotta” and “wanna” as valid synonyms of “you”, “got to” > and “want to”. Perfectly valid depending on the community and the dialect. When I go visit my Southern relatives I don't talk about dragonflies, I talk about snake doctors. I don't say "the sun went down," I say "the sun's gone done." It's called code-switching, the ability to shift between different dialects, vocabularies, and grammatical rules. I get that you're a linguistic prescriptivist. But English -- especially American English -- isn't. > In the case of the word “Linux”, my argument is that this word was > introduced (at least in informatics) for a specific use: To refer to > a kernel. Sure. And "cheater" was originally introduced to refer to an employee of the Crown charged with administering real estate. But that's not what it means any more, and that's not what Linux means any more, either. > Thus it is not necessity, but plain sloppiness what explains it use > as something else. Sure. English is a sloppy language; that's what makes it so awesome. Embrace the mutability. Set yourself free. :) > In short: Your argument "_many_ people use “Linux” to refer to any > Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English” is a > big mistake. I continue to be amused by your tendency to think the English language has to respect the fragility of your linguistic beliefs. :) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
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 mentioned another possibility in my previous message: “one must apply well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining words one will regard as legitimate”. The whole of my previous message is an elaboration of this. > I think that if one individual tried […] You are referring to an hypothetical individual who develops a language reform. But that is not the case here. Here (the discussion is or was around the word “Linux”) we simply have a misuse of a word which is not part of a proposal of a language reform and has no rationale. Since these cases are very different, the reasoning for one case does not necessarily applies to the other case. In the case of misuse of the word “Linux”, I have already given my arguments. In the very different case of a well-made language reform, I would immediately regard it a a legitimate variant of English. However, it would be _inappropriate_ (not _incorrect_) to use it when it would cause significant confusion or be an obstacle to communication. > What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If > I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying > and its acceptability depends on the audience. “Popular culture” is not a good source of what is correct, precisely because of aberrations like this. Many things that are socially acceptable are factually or morally incorrect. These concepts should not be conflated. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
-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 incorrect. >> >> It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, >> where there's an actual institution charged with the development >> of the language, the *only* definition of correctness in English >> is found in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the >> community in question. > > 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. > Since you are talking about the definition of the English language, > and noticed that there is no official definition, then I contend > that there is no _definition_ of the English language at all. > 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. I think that if one individual tried they would initially meet with resistance. But over time language rules, both grammar and vocabulary, change. Even in a time as short as 30 years many changes have occurred in the English language. It is a dynamic language. "Resistance is futile" :-) Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of > English and use common sense in determining which words one will > regard as legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to > the ad populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding > the words “u”, “gotta” and “wanna” as valid synonyms of “you”, “got > to” and “want to”. > What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying and its acceptability depends on the audience. > > In short: Your argument "_many_ people use “Linux” to refer to any > Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English” is a > big mistake. > I think it depends on the audience :-) > > > ___ Gnupg-users mailing > list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty du...@nofroth.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ4M4OAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkIesIAI2+EwHt+dXPF34ed6WZXO+S J3j5tWxC/Fy/TvHg9bQKzlcXH0uEJ1DjoCTNw3WhdgdiCHGWmP6Y/LZ+DYIq0AW5 X4BL+5jeMW/8vX+AyRSWqDIgME6rCF5L21xE6Byz0Sj8fdgxnwFslYb9Gs6cH14h qHyWxyNYKUe3eWH6JEuUgkduJqAAZX0jtAwMoNBRML7ameCwsELlbNc4bMGwqFL3 NGGBCJBxvxYsIhDO5Vk1ifBGgKB0EqURHruRykWrFEZFaOOUpD5RX8toZla/yllM uhtfTfsrdL4s6Cf7XOfM3MnSCPM98WwfKuWtU2Fc74D+bLxBup1upyZWcqVNJgo= =B/ek -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
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 you please discuss this off-list. Thanks. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ✉ g...@unixarea.de, ⌂ http://www.unixarea.de/ ☎ +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub 8. Mai 1945: Wer nicht feiert hat den Krieg verloren. 8 de mayo de 1945: Quien no festeja perdió la Guerra. May 8, 1945: Who does not celebrate lost the War. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
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 institution charged with the development of the > language, the *only* definition of correctness in English is found in > whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. 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. Since you are talking about the definition of the English language, and noticed that there is no official definition, then I contend that there is no _definition_ of the English language at all. 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. Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining which words one will regard as legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to the ad populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding the words “u”, “gotta” and “wanna” as valid synonyms of “you”, “got to” and “want to”. In the case of the word “Linux”, my argument is that this word was introduced (at least in informatics) for a specific use: To refer to a kernel. For an operating system based on Linux, the phrase “Linux-based OS” is already accurate and unambiguous, and for one that includes GNU, “GNU/Linux” is. Thus it is not necessity, but plain sloppiness what explains it use as something else. Hence that I hold that any other use should be rejected as illegitimate, in analogy with the sloppiness behind the aforementioned aberrations (“u” for “you”, et cetera). As a point of contrast: in the case of mathematics, it is necessary to either coin entirely new words or use a pre-existing words with new meanings. However, in this case it is justified because coining a new words for each concept would require possible hundreds of words specific to mathematics. The consequences are bad on all sides: First this abundance of words would be hard to remember. Second, mathematicians would hardly agree on a single new word for each concept leading to diverging terminology. Third, the abundance of strange words would contribute to the perception of mathematics by the general public as an intimidating and incomprehensible subject. In short: Your argument "_many_ people use “Linux” to refer to any Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English” is a big mistake. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
> 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 those in EPUB and other formats? I'm not the manual maintainer; perhaps ask that person first. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
-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 language skills to improving gnupg nomenclature and documentation ? re: https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals.html Any chance you could put those in EPUB and other formats? http://idpf.org/epub Thanks, Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEL24Nw4XiXsDaAz9b8lGJOKg+e0kFAlngjRAACgkQ8lGJOKg+ e0k01Qf+ImdKDKGdDatJ0qIHLPOYU4AbdIr434GfHwLHdg/oZiIz+7+r1RN+lupZ Yrj369m1wD8zLmZQobcRsMBiK/GKUGAKfLjqWl7re8GfuXVLrK9f5IBQgE0e3JmG 3Ypj9zt+dmD6YfCzC7WP5YIe09L9yfR+EKn/ryoZpmUnZ54ujaWhNAWW9+8zNiBB 0v0L42cZfLgDBFxHIdgqAF691BwzyTSgsyQR7jJrm+TG3pTHPesUt1CP3+gGNBPO 51F4b0EYwoqBkznbFj2IVPDlpY6HUeYnhk6Y07dt8NEKPyiXiBsu1q+Oo/xh1oU4 NTSr/ocq3HbxqzO9/dPGdvN667ZdUw== =foNu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
>>> 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 linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism; you'll find it rewarding. Style guides, dictionaries, and grammatical references are useful tools in that they write down the tacit and informal agreements the world has made about how to use language. However, they're always behind the times because the language is in constant flux. To understand English, one must look at how it is actually spoken. > 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, I also use words like "cromulent"[1], enjoy a good split infinitive[2], use "they" as a singular epicene[3], and when I'm really feeling naughty I'll drink wine straight from the bottle and read James Joyce[4]. ... And why, yes, my mother *is* an English teacher, and I *do* have a liberal arts degree. :) [1] Recently added to dictionaries, despite it being an utterly made-up word, due to how often it was being used in language [2] "To boldly go where no one has gone before!" [3] ... along with the Brontë sisters, Thackeray, and Shakespeare [4] "I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
-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 flabbergasted at this assertion. > ... the *only* definition of correctness in English is found> in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. For someone who touts himself as a "languages geek extraordinaire," I am shocked that you'd claim this. I don't expect Germans to communicate in anything other than German. I appreciate that the main developer communicates in this forum in English, but I certainly don't feel he owes it to anyone. Servus, Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEL24Nw4XiXsDaAz9b8lGJOKg+e0kFAlngBsAACgkQ8lGJOKg+ e0mlCAf9F9HSRx1Foz8kWNPA0B7hu3Zkt4yOtTy8q5l8h+VrBWsqcx7S9sMgGUj0 wXpWpAs048oTtOTo08lMt38XtmnB7JpAAVZjCD+EvsJXxoqSxaEmZzOT2t5ikF5g sPGAPozZQ+xO7k5ySl+v4BHMe6iZtgEQ/50G9k1Iyqid/sV69udJqaYUvQf9sZj9 C4xd9DCAqvZQ4ayOHuRoGe3D43Re+eH4eMwhs4usuaedqP3D4CmS8EoRpjaVRen0 SGB+RSICW7u7Bh9VphINmTDjRUwLj7UUtjIunQgAQmlkmmXrTMkt6vOH9fjFB9Tl 0F1vLzbUyDdcZJV/jYw9eLOqtO2z0A== =ulnO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
> 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 *only* definition of correctness in English is found in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. You can insist all you want that a cheater is someone appointed by the Crown to look after royal escheats, but (a) nobody cares that's what the word originally meant and (b) you'll be using the language incorrectly. (How did cheater get associated with dishonest people? Let's say the Crown's cheaters had a certain reputation...) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
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 does. 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. Other examples: “try and” (when it should be “try to”), “wanna”, “gotta”, “electric current flows” (current may flow; but most of the time this is erroneous and the phrase should be “charge flows”). If you reply with another iteration of the same fallacy or irrelevant comments, I will ignore your message. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
> 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 people a bunch of ideologues. Most of us on this mailing list are ideologues, after all. Human rights, privacy, software freedom -- these are all pretty good ideas, and I think we're right to be motivated by them. They seem to be logologues instead: it isn't enough to have the right ideas and be working to put them into action, but we need to only use the right language about it, as if the words were more important than the deeds. One of my closest friends is a staunch atheist, the kind who thinks Richard Dawkins is too conciliatory towards people of faith. Recently he suffered a stroke. At the first sign he told one of his friends, "I'm stroking out: help me." He then sat there, cool as a cucumber with a Zen smile on his face, as everyone jumped into action around him. It unnerved the paramedics, who thought his utter calm was a sign he didn't understand what was happening. Quite the opposite: as he explained to the doctors, he understood what was happening perfectly well and that's why he was so calm. What was happening was he'd asked his friends to save him, and so he was going to get saved: why should he worry? Whenever he tells that story I laugh. A man who claims to have no faith demonstrates the power of it. The way he *lives* faith, keeping cheerful in the face of imminent death just on the strength of his conviction that his friends would save him, is awe-inspiring. I have better sense than to tell him this, though: he'd get grouchy and accuse me of being really annoying -- and he'd be right. We can both enjoy the benefits of faith in our lives, even if only one of us believes in God. Ideologues: good. Logologues: really annoying. I will leave any application of this to the GNU/Linux-vs-Linux, or Free Software-vs-Open Source, arguments to the reader. I will, however, ask that we remember we're ideologues of deeply compatible stripes. :) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: OT: FAQ and GNU
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 cases. Appending `kernel' or `distribution' in the odd remaining case is sufficient. > But this is outright incorrect (Linux is not a distribution). You cut the important part. > Thus I elided this part according to my practice of omitting > irrelevant text in a reply to keep the messages to a readable size. Or that contradicts your argument. > The name “Linux” was invented for the kernel for which Linus Torvalds > is known. Later, lazy people incorrecting began using the same word to > refer to basically any software bundle that include this kernel. No, not lazy people. English-speaking people. The language is constantly evolving, taking on foreign words, allowing its rules to adjust over time, assimilating... That's why it's on course to be the world's language, if it's not already. 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. > > Given your admirable, though misplaced, zeal, I doubt there's a > > considered argument to be had here. I should take my own advice! > Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan `Duck to go' is an unfortunate choice. :-) -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
