Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:57:20 +0200 From: Greg Byshenk <gbyshenk@byshenk.net> To: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20030509165720.GA73384@core.byshenk.net> In-Reply-To: <20030509162839.GG54693@survey.codeburst.net> References: <XFMail.20030507130410.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200305071859.44725.wes@softweyr.com> <20030508082239.GC64674@core.byshenk.net> <20030509162839.GG54693@survey.codeburst.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 05:28:39PM +0100, Paul Richards wrote: > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 10:22:39AM +0200, Greg Byshenk wrote: > > Colorful neologisms need not be a large problem. Should a reader > > encouter such a thing as "automagical" with which s/he is not > > familiar, it should not be terribly difficult to recognize it as > > a neologism and discover or deduce the appropriate meaning. > Assuming that is, that you're a native English speaker. For people > who have English as a second language or perhaps can just about > get by in it, spotting neologisms is not as obvious as it might > appear. Naturally, specific values of "not terribly difficult" will vary with one's knowledge of the language. And as someone who is in the process of learning to function in a second language, I think that I am aware of some of the problems. That said, I stand by my point that neologisms are a different matter than ambiguity. Someone coming across a neologism (whether s/he is or is not a native speaker) should be able to recognize that such is a new and unfamiliar word (at least to the reader). And this is an immediate cue to discover or deduce the meaning of this unfamilar word. (I believe that anyone who is not fluent in the language being used will be familiar with this process.) Ambiguity, on the other hand, is dangerous because it can mislead the reader into thinking that s/he understands, when in fact such is not the case. > If you spend any time with a professional copy editor you'll find > they have very strong views about this sort of thing. I've met some who are hell-bent on eliminating any trace of humour or originality from the written word. IMO, though documentation should remain well this side of James Joyce, there is room for at least of bit of orignality. And sufficiently common terms as 'automagical' and 'kludge' seem not to cross the line. -- greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>; <http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html>;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030509165720.GA73384>