Home » Coding » Python » Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #13646] |
Fri, 28 September 2007 19:27  |
 Damien Kick
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -0000, nebulous99@gmail.com wrote:
>> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use
>> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
>> isn't really free, is it?
>
> Please do not confuse the term 'free' in 'free software' with 'gratis'.
>
> 'Gratis', i.e. 'lacking a monetary price tag' is something *very*
> different from the meaning of 'free' in 'free software'.
If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would
agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase
meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it or
not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the most
common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker.
Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I just
asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related to
programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the
disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have an
interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After
getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase, the
first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You can
stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on this
point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you anyway.
Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the lectures of
sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to "correct" them from
the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to be the normal meaning
of that phrase.
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #13679 is a reply to message #13646 ] |
Sat, 29 September 2007 03:40  |
Ken Tilton
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Damien Kick wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -0000, nebulous99@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use
>>> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
>>> isn't really free, is it?
>>
>>
>> Please do not confuse the term 'free' in 'free software' with 'gratis'.
>>
>> 'Gratis', i.e. 'lacking a monetary price tag' is something *very*
>> different from the meaning of 'free' in 'free software'.
Sure, but where does the infection thing come in? Suppose RMS publishes
a new library call add-42, whose api is add-42, inputs n, outputs n+42,
source left as an exercise, and Kenny decides he can use it, it is
great. Now if Kenny uses it in his commercial software, add-42 does not
somehow become less free to ride 'neath the starry skies above, don't
fence me in. But RMS wants Kenny's hide. Nothing Kenny wrote derived
from add-42, but RMS wants it all. Kenny happened to solve the traveling
salesman problem and protein-folding and passed the fricking Turing test
by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added to a number, and RMS wants
credit and ownership and control of it all. He and his license shall
now dictate access and use of all that code. The handcuffs are on, and
they are inscribed "free".
No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere. Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that
add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab
that is GPL. The GPL is a gratuitous reach only fancifully justified by
wanting to ensure that open source remain open. So this has nothing to
do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a
political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.
kzo
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #13700 is a reply to message #13646 ] |
Sat, 29 September 2007 06:54 |
Frank Goenninger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 2007-09-29 01:27:04 +0200, Damien Kick <dkixk@earthlink.net> said:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -0000, nebulous99@gmail.com wrote:
>>> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use
>>> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
>>> isn't really free, is it?
>>
>> Please do not confuse the term 'free' in 'free software' with 'gratis'.
>>
>> 'Gratis', i.e. 'lacking a monetary price tag' is something *very*
>> different from the meaning of 'free' in 'free software'.
>
> If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would
> agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase
> meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it or
> not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the
> most common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker.
> Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I just
> asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related to
> programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the
> disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have
> an interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After
> getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase, the
> first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You can
> stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on this
> point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you anyway.
> Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the lectures of
> sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to "correct" them
> from the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to be the normal
> meaning of that phrase.
Fully true for non-native English speakers as well. Just did the "wife
test" also - she is a pure software user - and yes, free is "no money,
do what you want" and that's it.
I *never* use the term "free" if I don't want to imply "free beer"
(which is a Good Thing and as such highly valuated - ask any Bavarian).
Using "free" as by FSF or any other lawyer-style 6 pixel font printed
phrasing is pure perfidiousness.
Frank
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)goenninger(dot)net
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #13708 is a reply to message #13679 ] |
Sat, 29 September 2007 08:24 |
David Golden
Messages: 1
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Ken Tilton wrote:
> No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere.
Bwaahahahaha. Keep smokin' that crack, there.
> Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that
> add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab
> that is GPL.
You (and probably KMP) are presuming the validity of copyright monopoly
law think. Others do not do that. Whenever you claim a copyright
monopoly, and enforce that monopoly, you're abridging others freedom.
It might currently be legal to do so, but "legal" and "right" are
different things.
So your beef is not _really_ with the GPL - it derives all its power
from copyright law. The GPL is really only valid while copyright law
is: If copyright law is reduced in power and reach, the GPL is too. So
if you don't like the GPL, push for weakened copyright law. Heh.
Supporters of copyright monopoly law *really* don't like this
double-bind of the GPL, of course, but that's by design.
Of course, the FSF are a bunch of moderates, these days you can support
your local Pirate Party, more information at
http://www.pp-international.net/
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #13859 is a reply to message #13679 ] |
Sun, 30 September 2007 02:43 |
Klaus Schilling
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Ken Tilton <kennytilton@optonline.net> writes:
>
> Sure, but where does the infection thing come in? Suppose RMS
> publishes a new library call add-42, whose api is add-42, inputs n,
> outputs n+42, source left as an exercise, and Kenny decides he can use
> it, it is great. Now if Kenny uses it in his commercial software,
commercial software can be free as well, such as the GNU Ada compiler.
> add-42 does not somehow become less free to ride 'neath the starry
> skies above, don't fence me in. But RMS wants Kenny's hide. Nothing
> Kenny wrote derived from add-42, but RMS wants it all.
that's because it's immoral not to give it all
> Kenny happened
> to solve the traveling salesman problem and protein-folding and passed
> the fricking Turing test by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added
> to a number, and RMS wants credit and ownership and control of it
> all. He and his license shall now dictate access and use of all that
> code. The handcuffs are on, and they are inscribed "free".
of course they are free
>
> No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere. Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that
> add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab
> that is GPL. The GPL is a gratuitous reach only fancifully justified
> by wanting to ensure that open source remain open.
which is necessary in a moral culture.
Only an immoral culture may accept non-disclosure
> So this has nothing
> to do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a
> political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.
>
private property is unethical
Klaus Schilling
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14199 is a reply to message #13971 ] |
Mon, 01 October 2007 16:21 |
Bruno Desthuilliers
Messages: 277
Registered: July 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Ken Tilton a йcrit :
>
>
> Matthias Benkard wrote:
>
>>> So this has nothing to
>>> do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a
>>> political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.
>>
>> Freedom is inherently political, you know. You're condemning the FSF
>> for being political, although the FSF's stated purpose is a political
>> one.
>
> Oh, I missed that. I just saw something about software should be shared
> and programmers should be content with an hourly wage, not sales.
>
Nothing forces you to use GPL code, isn't it ? If that code was under a
proprietary licence, you would not use it without paying the price,
because then you'd be *stealing* code ? And since you have a deep
respect for intellectual property, copyright laws etc, you would not, by
any mean, *steal* code by not respecting the licence terms ? Do we agree
on this ? Yes ? Fine. Then how dare you complain about the fact that the
GPL don't let you steal code ? Don't you feel something like a
contradiction here ? Too bad that you can't have your cake and eat it too...
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14210 is a reply to message #13700 ] |
Mon, 01 October 2007 17:37 |
Wildemar Wildenburger
Messages: 73
Registered: August 2007 |
Member |
|
|
Frank Goenninger wrote:
> On 2007-09-29 01:27:04 +0200, Damien Kick <dkixk@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would
>> agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase
>> meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it
>> or not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the
>> most common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker.
>> Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I
>> just asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related
>> to programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the
>> disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have
>> an interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After
>> getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase,
>> the first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You
>> can stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on
>> this point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you
>> anyway. Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the
>> lectures of sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to
>> "correct" them from the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to
>> be the normal meaning of that phrase.
>
> Fully true for non-native English speakers as well. Just did the "wife
> test" also - she is a pure software user - and yes, free is "no money,
> do what you want" and that's it.
>
> I *never* use the term "free" if I don't want to imply "free beer"
> (which is a Good Thing and as such highly valuated - ask any Bavarian).
> Using "free" as by FSF or any other lawyer-style 6 pixel font printed
> phrasing is pure perfidiousness.
>
I appearantly missed a lot of that conversation, but what is your point?
While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
what they have to say).
But that aside: The word free with respect to the FSF and GPL have a
perfectly well defined meaning. People may misunderstand that from not
knowing the definition but that doesnt make it any less well defined.
Again, why this discussion?
/W
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14235 is a reply to message #13679 ] |
Mon, 01 October 2007 20:16 |
dan[1]
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Kenny happened to solve the traveling
> salesman problem and protein-folding and passed the fricking Turing test
> by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added to a number, and RMS wants
> credit and ownership and control of it all.
That might be what RMS wants (or not, I've never asked him), but it
doesn't follow from the licence. What follows from the licence is that
you have to distribute the derived work as GPL _or not at all_. I
practice - if not in marketing terms - that's no more a land grab than a
proprietary licence saying "you can't use this to add your own numbers
to 42 at all and if you do we'll eat your brains".
The other consideration is that, and notwitshtanding any text to the
contrary in the GPL, it's not actually up to the copyright holder to
define what "derived work" means: it's for the court to decide that.
Now, I don't want to imply that courts are rational animals that can be
relied on to understand all the issues in technical cases like this (ha,
I slay myself) but really, if there's a reasonable concern that an
implementation of the major advances in computer science you describe
are legally derivative of someone's function that adds 42 to its
argument, your legal system is fucked. Redo from start.
-dan
|
|
| | |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14293 is a reply to message #14235 ] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 01:08 |
George Neuner
Messages: 5
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:16:25 +0100, dan@telent.net wrote:
>Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Kenny happened to solve the traveling
>> salesman problem and protein-folding and passed the fricking Turing test
>> by using add-42 wherever he needed 42 added to a number, and RMS wants
>> credit and ownership and control of it all.
>
>That might be what RMS wants (or not, I've never asked him), but it
>doesn't follow from the licence. What follows from the licence is that
>you have to distribute the derived work as GPL _or not at all_. I
>practice - if not in marketing terms - that's no more a land grab than a
>proprietary licence saying "you can't use this to add your own numbers
>to 42 at all and if you do we'll eat your brains".
>
>The other consideration is that, and notwitshtanding any text to the
>contrary in the GPL, it's not actually up to the copyright holder to
>define what "derived work" means: it's for the court to decide that.
>Now, I don't want to imply that courts are rational animals that can be
>relied on to understand all the issues in technical cases like this (ha,
>I slay myself) but really, if there's a reasonable concern that an
>implementation of the major advances in computer science you describe
>are legally derivative of someone's function that adds 42 to its
>argument, your legal system is fucked. Redo from start.
Our [US] legal system is fucked ... more so with respect to patents,
but copyrights aren't far behind. The US Congress just revisited
patent law to make it less of a land grab - we'll have to wait and see
how the USPTO interprets the new rules - but copyright law has been
trending the other way (more grabbing) for a couple of decades now.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
|
|
| |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14435 is a reply to message #14210 ] |
Tue, 02 October 2007 12:43 |
Frank Goenninger
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 2007-10-01 23:37:28 +0200, Wildemar Wildenburger
<lasses_weil@klapptsowieso.net> said:
> Frank Goenninger wrote:
>> On 2007-09-29 01:27:04 +0200, Damien Kick <dkixk@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>>> If you were referring to the "free" in "free Mumia Abu Jamal", I would
>>> agree with you. I don't think anyone would imagine that this phrase
>>> meant that someone was going to get Mumia Abu Jamal gratis. Like it or
>>> not, "free software" referring to "free as in beer" is probably the
>>> most common interpretation of the phrase for a native English speaker.
>>> Admittedly, I do not have a "scientific" survey handy. However, I just
>>> asked my wife--who has absolutely no interest in anything related to
>>> programming, has never heard of the FSF, Eric Raymond, nor the
>>> disagreement between those two camps, nor probably will she ever have
>>> an interest--what she thinks I mean when I say "free software". After
>>> getting over the "why are you asking such a stupid question" phase, the
>>> first thing that jumped to her mind was "free as in beer". You can
>>> stamp, growl, swagger, spit, curse, and bluster all you want on this
>>> point, but millions of English speakers are going to ignore you anyway.
>>> Lucky for most of them, they do not have to suffer the lectures of
>>> sociopolitically motivated language mavens trying to "correct" them
>>> from the error of mistaking the meaning of a phrase to be the normal
>>> meaning of that phrase.
>>
>> Fully true for non-native English speakers as well. Just did the "wife
>> test" also - she is a pure software user - and yes, free is "no money,
>> do what you want" and that's it.
>>
>> I *never* use the term "free" if I don't want to imply "free beer"
>> (which is a Good Thing and as such highly valuated - ask any Bavarian).
>> Using "free" as by FSF or any other lawyer-style 6 pixel font printed
>> phrasing is pure perfidiousness.
>>
> I appearantly missed a lot of that conversation, but what is your
> point? While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary
> cost" to many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk
> to native americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word
> free, see what they have to say).
>
> But that aside: The word free with respect to the FSF and GPL have a
> perfectly well defined meaning. People may misunderstand that from not
> knowing the definition but that doesnt make it any less well defined.
>
> Again, why this discussion?
> /W
Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
free. It is such a good subject to discuss over and over and over
without ever reaching any conclusion or resolution because neither FSF
nor GNU nor the FREE as in FREE BEER defenders will change their mind.
So, wasting bandwith is the only real effect ... And hey, it's Usenet,
so wasting time and bandwith is part of the game.
Again, why this discussion - ah - I don't really know...
;-)
--
Frank Goenninger
frgo(at)goenninger(dot)net
"Don't ask me! I haven't been reading comp.lang.lisp long enough to
really know ..."
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14612 is a reply to message #14604 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 05:36 |
bcd
Messages: 6
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <85ve9ov971.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> In article <fdtsfu$iq6$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> Frank Goenninger <frgo@goenninger.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
>>>why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
>>>all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
>>>"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
>>>a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
>>>are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
>>>free.
>>
>> "Liberated" is a valid meaning of the word "free".
>
>No. It is a valid meaning of the word "freed".
Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
Free
(...)
"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
of parents, guardian, or master."
The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
"free".
As I do not read gnu.misc.discuss, I reinstated the previous bunch.
Apologies to those who may be annoyed at this.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14721 is a reply to message #14612 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 13:21 |
George Neuner
Messages: 5
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:
>In article <85ve9ov971.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>>
>>> In article <fdtsfu$iq6$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>> Frank Goenninger <frgo@goenninger.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
>>>>why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
>>>>all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
>>>>"well-definedness" is against "common understanding" then I don't give
>>>>a damn about that clever definitions. Because I have to know that there
>>>>are such definitions - always also knowing that free is not really
>>>>free.
>>>
>>> "Liberated" is a valid meaning of the word "free".
>>
>>No. It is a valid meaning of the word "freed".
>
>Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
>then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
>
>Free
>(...)
>"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
>of parents, guardian, or master."
>
>The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
>"free".
I don't think knowing the meaning of a word is being pedantic.
"Freed" is derived from "free" but has a different, though associated,
meaning. Words have meaning despite the many attempts by Generation X
to assert otherwise. Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.
The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
years. People (marketers in particular) routinely coin ridiculous new
words and hope they will catch on. I remember seeing a documentary
(circa 1990?) about changes in the English language. One part of the
program was about the BBC news and one of its editors, whom the staff
called the "protector of language", who checked the pronunciation of
words by the news anchors. The thing that struck me about this story
was the number of BBC newspeople who publicly admitted that they could
hardly wait for this man to retire so they could write and speak the
way they wanted rather than having to be "correct".
Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
word they can find used in print.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14743 is a reply to message #14721 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 14:20 |
bcd
Messages: 6
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <l0h7g3tqsgjs948i5o2pb0u2m87m2hbtf0@4ax.com>,
George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
>Dalager) wrote:
>
>>
>>Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
>>then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
>>
>>Free
>>(...)
>>"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
>>of parents, guardian, or master."
>>
>>The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
>>"free".
>
> (...)
>
>The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
>years.
> (...)
>
>Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
>meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
>colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
>has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
>dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
>word they can find used in print.
Apparantly, you missed the part where I referred to the 1913 edition
of Webster. I have kept it in the quoted text above for your
convenience. I can assure you that 1913 is both more than 30 years ago
/and/ it is before 1980, in case that was in doubt.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
|
|
|
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14749 is a reply to message #14743 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 14:26 |
David Kastrup
Messages: 3
Registered: October 2007 |
Junior Member |
|
|
bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
> In article <l0h7g3tqsgjs948i5o2pb0u2m87m2hbtf0@4ax.com>,
> George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
>>Dalager) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
>>>then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanings,
>>>
>>>Free
>>>(...)
>>>"Liberated, by arriving at a certain age, from the control
>>>of parents, guardian, or master."
>>>
>>>The point presumably being that having been "liberated", you are now
>>>"free".
Not as much "been" liberated, but "turned" liberated.
>>Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
>>meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
>>colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the
>>dictionary has become little more than evidence of popularity as the
>>major dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider
>>any word they can find used in print.
>
> Apparantly, you missed the part where I referred to the 1913 edition
> of Webster. I have kept it in the quoted text above for your
> convenience. I can assure you that 1913 is both more than 30 years
> ago /and/ it is before 1980, in case that was in doubt.
But picking just a single word from a whole explanation of _one_
naming and declaring it as equivalent is not really being careful with
language at all.
And even when using a Thesaurus, it should be clear that the offered
alternatives are not supposed to or capable of capturing all nuances
of the keyword.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
|
|
| | | |
| Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding [message #14776 is a reply to message #14743 ] |
Wed, 03 October 2007 15:28 |
Steve Holden
Messages: 353
Registered: July 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
David Kastrup wrote:
> bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> In article <85sl4sqckf.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>>>
>>> Not as much "been" liberated, but "turned" liberated.
>> I expect that either way you split this hair, using "free" in the
>> sense of "possessing liberty" is still going to be quite reasonable.
>>
>>> But picking just a single word from a whole explanation of _one_
>>> naming and declaring it as equivalent is not really being careful with
>>> language at all.
>> I have never claimed equivalence. What I have made claims about are
>> the properties of one of the meanings of a word. Specifically, my
>> claim is that "free" is a reasonable description of some one or some
>> thing that has been "liberated".
>
> But it suggests that the natural state would be the unfree state.
>
Which for Africans in colonial America it was. They arrived unfree and
many of them liver their entire lives in slavery. After liberation they
were. nevertheless, often referred to as "freed", because someone (thier
owner) had freed them. As freed men they were, of course, /free/ to do
what they chose (as long as someone "white" didn't object).
Please stop splitting hairs and get down to some useful discussion. This
is boring (and has nothing to do with either Python or the subject line
except in the most inconsequential way).
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden
Sorry, the dog ate my .sigline
|
|
| | | | | | |
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
