Re: I have an opinion!
|From:||Padraic Brown <pbrown@...>|
|Date:||Monday, April 2, 2001, 20:57|
OK. Then why did you chop up, dice or otherwise condense 10 words in
this message? Are not all the little words, the grammatical words,
that make up the very glue of our language worthy of happiness as
well? Here are the words you have made unhappy via chopping up: "e.g."
- this should be "exempli gratia"; "etc" - this should be "et cetera";
"you'll" - this should be "you will"; "e-mails" - this should be
"electronic mails"; "I've" - this should be "I have"; "it's" - this
should be "it is" or "it was"; "they're" - this should be "they are";
"don't" - this should be "do not". You may well cry foul, since most
of the words in my list are _commonly accepted_ grammatical shortcuts;
but you _did_ write "e-mail", which is precisely the sort of
condensation you are so vociferously complaining about!
Most of these are common abbreviations which are intended to
streamline communications. While I too rarely use acronyms in these
lists; I really could not care less whether others use them or not.
Best advice is: deal with it. That IMNSHO. Oh, sorry: that in my not
so humble opinion.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, David Peterson wrote:
> I must admit, I really, really, really, really, really, really HATE the
>shortening of words and phrases, e.g.: conlang, auxlang, AFAIK, etc. It
>drives me crazy. If you'll notice, I've never used any such shortenings in
>any of my e-mails. But it's not just confined to this list. I hate it when
>people say cogsci when the mean cognitive science; see ess when they mean
>computer science; polisci when they mean political science; bio when they
>mean biology; addy when they mean address; peep when they mean people, etc.,
>etc. It drives me nuts. I like the words as they are. They're happy words.
> They don't like to be chopped in half or diced up or condensed. Anyway,
>that is the end of the segment: I HAVE AN OPINION!
>(This message originally went only to one person--glitch, or something. I