OT: FAQ and GNU
Mario Castelán Castro
marioxcc.MT at yandex.com
Fri Oct 13 17:02:40 CEST 2017
On 13/10/17 09:30, Duane Whitty wrote:
>> Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified.
>> The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body
>> or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive.
> I'd be interested to know what the other possibilities are.
I mentioned another possibility in my previous message: “one must apply
well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining words
one will regard as legitimate”. The whole of my previous message is an
elaboration of this.
> I think that if one individual tried […]
You are referring to an hypothetical individual who develops a language
reform. But that is not the case here. Here (the discussion is or was
around the word “Linux”) we simply have a misuse of a word which is not
part of a proposal of a language reform and has no rationale. Since
these cases are very different, the reasoning for one case does not
necessarily applies to the other case.
In the case of misuse of the word “Linux”, I have already given my
arguments. In the very different case of a well-made language reform, I
would immediately regard it a a legitimate variant of English. However,
it would be _inappropriate_ (not _incorrect_) to use it when it would
cause significant confusion or be an obstacle to communication.
> What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If
> I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying
> and its acceptability depends on the audience.
“Popular culture” is not a good source of what is correct, precisely
because of aberrations like this. Many things that are socially
acceptable are factually or morally incorrect. These concepts should not
Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users