I think it's an improvement. . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
Roger said:
Susan Bugher <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
People who get the PL CD sent to them are not "buying" it.
They are maybe paying a small fee to cover the costs for sending them the
CD. So the word acquire is not relevant in this context.
Click to expand...

<q>
verb: come into the possession of something concrete or abstract
(Example: "They acquired a new pet")
It is so easy to avoid this word so I cannot understand why it has to be
used in this context.
Click to expand...

Roger - You are beating a dead horse. I *already* *agreed* with you.

In a previous post I said: "I'm sure there's a better way to say it - we
can change the language when we review the PL2005 goals."

Susan
 
Roger said:
I wonder if the word "acquisition" is so good.
Wouldn't "distribution" be better?

English is not my first language, so I may be wrong, but the word acquire
has something to do with transferring ownership in many cases where I
have seen it being used.

Even if it is formally a correct word to use it may cause unwanted
associations in the minds of freeware authors.
Click to expand...

The difference, which isn't much, is that 'distribution' would mean that the
people who acquire (or the acquisition of; receiving) the CD would be the
ones distributing or giving it to others.
Maybe another wording can be used to explain it to the global community that
acf is trying/going to reach.
 
»Q« said:
I don't see the negative connotations in the word "acquisition" that
you do, and right now I can't think of another noun to do the job. How
about "the acquisition of copies of freeware programs" rather than just
"the aquisition of freeware programs"? ISTM that would leave no room
for the interpretation that authors' rights are being aquired.
Click to expand...

Definitely a much better expression, but I think the word acquisition
could be avoided altogether, as it can easily be associated with
"buying", "possessions", "I have acquired 7 acres of land in the
Bahamas", I have acquired the rights to this program", etc..

But Susan said that the horse is dead already, so I guess the point is
made.
 
_Susan Bugher_, martedì 14/set/2004:
That's probably the best alternate location. I'd like to leave it where
it is. IMO a link *button* instead of a link would be nice (there and on
all the other pages too).

I'm *trying* to do other things, but I keep deciding to make just a
*few* more changes on that page.

No more changes today. . . maybe. . . ;)
Click to expand...

Hi Susan,
I read that you'd like to have also the Enter link as a button.
Take a look to this bit of CSS inside the <a> tags, if could work for you:

<A HREF="2004/about2004PL.php" style="padding: 0.3%; text-decoration: none; background-color:white; border:white outset 3px; color:navy">Enter</A>

If you prefer to have the word Enter underlined, take away
text-decoration: none;

It looks better if you also take away from your code the <b> tag before it,
and change size="+2" to size="+1".

Ciao :-)
 
People who get the PL CD sent to them are not "buying" it.
Click to expand...

You are labouring under a gross misapprehension. "Acquire" does not
mean "buy". I suspect that very few people would imagine that it
does. Check a dictionary or two. It means "to gain possession of"
and makes no implication about how that was done. It's exactly the
right word to use in this case. There is no near-cognate that serves
the purpose so well, and it is exactly that precision of meaning,
avoiding implying purchase, gift, theft or conquest that its use
provides.

We've had more foolish arguments this year than usual. May I nominate
this one for first prize?
 
You are labouring under a gross misapprehension. "Acquire" does not
mean "buy". I suspect that very few people would imagine that it
does. Check a dictionary or two. It means "to gain possession of"
and makes no implication about how that was done. It's exactly the
right word to use in this case. There is no near-cognate that serves
the purpose so well, and it is exactly that precision of meaning,
avoiding implying purchase, gift, theft or conquest that its use
provides.
Click to expand...

I understand this completely. We have a similar word in swedish actually,
which means "to gain possession of", in any way imaginable. But I talk
about how less educated people than you and Susan see the word. They have
maybe only heard it being used in the meaning of buying. And people who
do not have english as first language have the same, very limited
experience of the word.

I also react to using a word which means "to gain possession of" because
we do not actually "own" a freeware program after downloading and
installing it, we only have been given the right to use it. The slight
difference between "being in the possession of" and "owning" may not be
so clear to less educated people.
We've had more foolish arguments this year than usual. May I nominate
this one for first prize?
Click to expand...

You're welcome, whatever makes you happy. :-)

I just worry about the reaction we might get if we approach freeware
authors with a request "to gain possession of" of their programs. We
could lose the chance to distribute some valuable freeware programs
because of that word.
 
_Semolina Pilchard_, martedì 14/set/2004:
You are labouring under a gross misapprehension. "Acquire" does not
mean "buy". I suspect that very few people would imagine that it
does. Check a dictionary or two. It means "to gain possession of"
and makes no implication about how that was done. It's exactly the
right word to use in this case. There is no near-cognate that serves
the purpose so well, and it is exactly that precision of meaning,
avoiding implying purchase, gift, theft or conquest that its use
provides.
Click to expand...

You're surely right for the true English meaning, consider however that it's
also true what Roger said regarding people not having English as mother
tongue.

In addition, the software Babylon, which maybe is not so good but is widely
used, gives "buy, purchase" as first meaning for "acquire".

Then a good English-Italian vocabulary gives:
acquire,v.tr: acquisire, acquistare
where "acquisire" is more generic, but "acquistare" has strongly the meaning
of getting something with money.

My 2 Euro cents for the prize of this not so foolish argument.
 
MLC said:
You're surely right for the true English meaning, consider however that it's
also true what Roger said regarding people not having English as mother
tongue.
Click to expand...

an example of the reverse problem. . . "latest" and "last". . .

Freeware authors whose native language is not English often call their
most recent release the "last version". That's perfectly correct but. . .

IMO it implies the final version - there will be no more.

The "latest version" does not have that implication and I think would be
more readily understood by *native* English speakers.

English is a funny language. . .

Susan
 
_Susan Bugher_, martedì 14/set/2004:
an example of the reverse problem. . . "latest" and "last". . .

Freeware authors whose native language is not English often call their
most recent release the "last version". That's perfectly correct but. . .

IMO it implies the final version - there will be no more.

The "latest version" does not have that implication and I think would be
more readily understood by *native* English speakers.

English is a funny language. . .
Click to expand...

Very interesting, I never thought about it.
Now I know something new, thank you Susan :-)

P.S. Don't you ever sleep? ;)
 
jo said:
Susan Bugher wrote:

I think you mean 'odd' or 'strange'.

'Funny' implies some measure of risibility.
Click to expand...

Silly wabbit. *Everyone* knows *that* kind of funny is spelled "funny
ha-ha".

Susan
 
You're surely right for the true English meaning, consider however that it's
also true what Roger said regarding people not having English as mother
tongue.

In addition, the software Babylon, which maybe is not so good but is widely
used, gives "buy, purchase" as first meaning for "acquire".
Click to expand...

Okay, let's get out the definin' tools and sharpen 'em up. English is
a perverse and irritating language but it is capable of great
precision. We have such terms as buy, purchase, steal, and so on
which are means of acquisition. The word "acquire" contains the
possibility of all these means - how could it not? - but does not
specify. That's why it has survived and remains unsupplanted by the
more specific terms. That's why it's right in this case.

What's the alternative? Either we use a more inexact word which does
the job less well or we create a circumlocutary form of words to say
the same thing as "acquire". Either we take the chance of using a
"simpler" (heh!) word in the hope of avoiding confusing a small
minority and thereby confuse a great many more, or we use the word the
English language has provided us with for just this situation.
Then a good English-Italian vocabulary gives:
acquire,v.tr: acquisire, acquistare
where "acquisire" is more generic, but "acquistare" has strongly the meaning
of getting something with money.

My 2 Euro cents for the prize of this not so foolish argument.
Click to expand...

My apologies for my levity. I just can't help it. I'm going to take
counselling.
 
Semolina Pilchard <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
I understand this completely. We have a similar word in swedish actually,
which means "to gain possession of", in any way imaginable. But I talk
about how less educated people than you and Susan see the word. They have
maybe only heard it being used in the meaning of buying. And people who
do not have english as first language have the same, very limited
experience of the word.

I also react to using a word which means "to gain possession of" because
we do not actually "own" a freeware program after downloading and
installing it, we only have been given the right to use it. The slight
difference between "being in the possession of" and "owning" may not be
so clear to less educated people.
Click to expand...

I've made an argument from definition in my reply to Maria Luisa,
Roger. It seems to me that you are now sliding from semantics to a
legalistic argument.

Even if I were to accept that there is merit in what you say - and to
a degree I do - it does not alter the fact that the proper use - not
some notional misunderstanding - of "acquire" is exactly what's
required. There isn't a better alternative, only a poorer one.
I just worry about the reaction we might get if we approach freeware
authors with a request "to gain possession of" of their programs. We
could lose the chance to distribute some valuable freeware programs
because of that word.
Click to expand...

If we discard the perfect word for fear that someone may misunderstand
it, we serve neither them, ourselves nor language well. The problem
is theirs, not ours, and the solution is in their own hands. Carry on
down that road and we'll be grunting at each other like apes. In fact
(he said, settling more comfortably into his favourite obsession)
every time I switch on the TV I begin to think it's happened already.
Do you know that bananas are the most commonly sold fruit in
supermarkets? Have you noticed that male pattern baldness is assuming
the same form as that seen in the orang-utan? D'you know why people
wear such strange footwear nowadays? It's because the great toe is
moving rearwards and becoming opposable again, Roger. Have you
noticed how many people you meet have those dully-shining, pebble-like
eyes so common among chimpanzees?

Pick your tree, Roger. They're going to be in great demand. And
difficult to acquire, steal, beg, borrow, buy or conquer.
 
Semolina Pilchard said:
I've made an argument from definition in my reply to Maria Luisa,
Roger. It seems to me that you are now sliding from semantics to a
legalistic argument.

Even if I were to accept that there is merit in what you say - and to
a degree I do - it does not alter the fact that the proper use - not
some notional misunderstanding - of "acquire" is exactly what's
required. There isn't a better alternative, only a poorer one.
Click to expand...

I remember when I started to learn english. I was maybe 10, or so.

On the way to school I practised the funny sounds my mouth had to make,
especially the very strange w-sound. In Sweden we don't have that kind of
gliding between several wowel sounds, "oeoooaaanderful" except in the
southernmost part of the country, which was occupied by the danes for
hundreds of years.

Over the years I have come to realize that english is a language made up
of expressions, so it is no use to translate from swedish by substituting
every word with an english equivalent. Instead I have to search my memory
for sentences I have heard in songs, movies, books and television, when
somebody has said some sentence I can use to convey the meaning and
feeling I want to express.

That is why it takes a lifetime to learn english. It takes a long time to
collect enough expressions to be able to express all kinds of meanings
and ways to approach a certain situation.

There are many ways to say the same thing, and it is a matter of taste
and feeling which expression you choose to use at the moment.

So I dont think you can talk about any certain word as being THE correct
word in any situation. There are hundreds of ways to approach a certain
situation, and thousands of popular expressions to choose from in those
approaches.

The globally known tv show "Spin City" is a good illustration to what I
mean with "hundreds of ways to approach a situation".

When you want something done, or you have to formulate a message, it is
not primarily a question of which word is the correct one.

First you need to decide how to approach the situation. With a big smile
and a hug, or like a lawyer, carefully choosing a wording that will not
get you into trouble, or pretend that its raining, trying to find a dry
place and looking for some human warmth together with other people, or
jumping on other people with a "I know better than you" attitude, or
trying to find a common goal, choosing ways to create sympathy and an
atmosphere of working together on a common basis, or acknowledge, ignore,
deny, change the subject, etc..

Choosing what expressions and what words to use comes after you have
decided on what approach to use.

After you have found suitable expressions and formulated a message it is
time to check the result for expressions and words which could provoke a
reaction you do not intend, and change those expressions and words into
something which cannot create that kind of reaction.
 
So I dont think you can talk about any certain word as being THE correct
word in any situation. There are hundreds of ways to approach a certain
situation, and thousands of popular expressions to choose from in those
approaches.
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of ways to route the plumbing in your house, Roger,
but several of them give you sh*t from the shower. Language is a
tool, one that's capable of precision. There's a precise wording
that's required here, but you seem determined to avoid it. So be it.
First you need to decide how to approach the situation. With a big smile
and a hug, or like a lawyer, carefully choosing a wording that will not
get you into trouble, or pretend that its raining, trying to find a dry
place and looking for some human warmth together with other people, or
jumping on other people with a "I know better than you" attitude, or
trying to find a common goal, choosing ways to create sympathy and an
atmosphere of working together on a common basis, or acknowledge, ignore,
deny, change the subject, etc..
Click to expand...

Goddamn. How have I lived so long without that refined approach, Rog?
Really, I'm not trying to offend you and I'm certainly not decrying
your ability in the English language. Would that I had even a tenth
of your competence in any one of the three languages I can manage to
make myself totally misunderstood in. You and I are fundamentally
different in our approach. I'm direct, often to the point of
appearing rude. You're prepared to take the longer route because it
appears to lead to a better result, you believe. I'm sure we'll both
get things done.

And I'm sorry if I give an "I know better than you" impression. It's
just that in this case I do. This godlike perfection has been a
burden to me all my days. But I'm endearingly humble about it.
 
Semolina Pilchard said:
And I'm sorry if I give an "I know better than you" impression. It's
just that in this case I do. This godlike perfection has been a
burden to me all my days. But I'm endearingly humble about it.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually think about you or anybody else in this thread when I
wrote that among many other examples, I was thinking about usenet and
life in general.

But I realized soon after posting it that you or somebody else could
feel targeted by that example.

Well, that is just another example of the need for checking messages even
more carefully and removing things which could provoke a response I did
not intend.

Unfortunately there is always a limit on the time and effort one can put
into a discussion, and today I prioritized a much more important
discussion in another newsgroup, about the history of religion, and how
to put an end to that history.

4000 years ago God divided the world into heaven and hell, or heaven and
hell, if you like. God created a dualistic world made up of
determination and conviction, secrets and misunderstandings, taboos,
gender roles and a lot of intensive love and violence.

Now I am undoing that and I am welding the world back together again, so
we can all be more easy-going, simple and natural.

Well, it is a complicated story.. But it is the reason why I didn't use
enough time to clean up that message, sorry. ;-)
 
Back
Top