Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:04:38 -0500 From: Derek Young <bleach@orcacom.net> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml Message-ID: <200305071004.38878.bleach@orcacom.net> In-Reply-To: <xzp8ytiq06q.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <200305051936.h45JaAc4099544@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030506224205.J5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <xzp8ytiq06q.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Which basically proves that finding someone who knows English in a room full of programmers is like finding a coder chick under 150 pounds. They are out there, and should be appreciated. I always joke with my friends that English is my 4th language, C, asm, java, and perl come first. Derek On Wednesday 07 May 2003 09:51 am, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > What's the purpose of this change? The words are basically synonyms, and > > either is appropriate in context. > > "moot" has several meanings, and the "irrelevant" meaning is far down > the list. Closer to the top you find meanings such as (noun) > "meeting" and (verb) "to raise an issue" and (adj) "currently being > discussed" which are antonymous to "irrelevant". Etymologically a > moot is a formal meeting, the anglosaxon counterpart of the Norse > Thing (viz. Tolkien's use of "Entmoot" for a meeting of Ent leaders) > and the adjective form means "subject to discussion at a moot". > Webster's 7th gives "open to question" and "subjected to discussion" > as the primary meanings of the adjective "moot", and "deprived of > practical significance" only as a secondary meaning. The fact that > you consider "moot" a synonym of "irrelevant" is simply a product of > your cultural background, and other people with different cultural > backgrounds will not understand what is meant. > > DES
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305071004.38878.bleach>