gerry@geac.UUCP (Gerry Singleton) (12/20/87)
| From: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) | Newsgroups: news.admin | Message-ID: <1034@maynard.BSW.COM> | Date: 15 Dec 87 04:02:34 GMT | References: <8711241022.AA12529@RUTGERS.EDU> <21871@lll-tis.arpa> <3622@hoptoad.uucp> | Reply-To: campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) | Followup-To: poster | Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc. | Lines: 30 | Posted: Mon Dec 14 23:02:34 1987 | | In article <3622@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (Sunny Kirsten) writes: | <>My dictionary shows that superCedes and superSedes are aliases for | <>each other. | | You should get a new dictionary. There is no `c' in supersede. | The word comes from the Latin verb `supersedere', "to sit above", | from `super-' "above" and `sedere' "to sit" (whence also comes | `sedentary'). People who spell supersede with `c' are probably | victims of what is known as "folk etymology" -- confusing the root | for supersede with the root for intercede (which root is `cedere', | "to go"). | | <> Since this is typical of english, it will be typical | <>of those who speak english. In acknowledgment of actual usage, | <>the software ought to accept BOTH spellings. The computer should | <>adapt to the nature of humans. | | If you mean it's typical that English speakers don't know how to spell | their own language, yes, this is true, but it is also unfortunate and | not be encouraged. (Apology to British readers -- I suspect most of the | violence to English is done by Americans.) | | If people are confusing the words `cedere' and `sedere', the proper | solution is not to wish their ignorance out of existence by declaring | that the words are identical -- which would be a lie -- but to point | out the distinction to them, enriching them thereby. | -- | Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. | Internet: campbell@maynard.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 | uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846 Nice try Larry, but if you castigate in public, expect response in public. Vis-a-vis your comment on the quality of Sonny's dictionary. Your dictionary may have a more recent publication date it is certainly inferior to the one Sonny uses. To clarify, I quote from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971) : SUPERSEDE, v, Forms: 5-9 supercede, (6 Sc. ceid, 6-7 -sead, -e, Sc. 6-7 -seid, 7-cid, -seed), 6- supersede . . . SUPERCEDE, v, Var of supersede, (now erron.) Are both there, yes. Do you owe Sonny a public apology, again I think yes. Your words were a tad strong. Because both are considered valid, I must also agree with Sonny that both spellings must be accomodated in the software. I draw this conclusion from reading the tiny print in my OED which indicates that, although SUPERSEDE has replaced SUPERCEDE as the preferred spelling, this change has occurred only in the past twenty years. Therfore, if both are not accomodated, a great number of network users will be placed in an awkward position. After all, software is flexible while people are not. -- G. Roderick Singleton | "ALL animals are created equal, <gerry@syntron.uucp>, | BUT some animals are MORE or <gerry@geac.uucp>, | equal than others." or <gerry@eclectic.uucp> | warning by George Orwell, "1984"
forys@sigi.Colorado.EDU (Jeff Forys) (12/22/87)
In article <3622@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (Sunny Kirsten) writes: > In acknowledgment of actual usage, the software ought to accept BOTH > spellings. The computer should adapt to the nature of humans. In article <1995@geac.UUCP> gerry@geac.UUCP (Gerry Singleton) writes: > Because both are considered valid, I must also agree with Sonny [sic] > that both spellings must be accommodated in the software. The `news software' (this is a pretty vague term) creates headers (e.g. "Supersedes:") as directed by a formal specification. This formal spec chooses 1 way to do a particular thing. It would be very short-sighted to say that there exists only *one* way `supersedes' can be written (or even two, when you consider other languages). My point is, these are formally defined headers; they should *not* be considered "English words", but rather <word>s. Therefore, the `news software' (i.e. inews) should only act on a "Supersedes:" header. Of course, you are free to modify your user interface (rn, readnews, vnews, etc) to convert the "formal spec" to "what you want to see" provided you convert back to the spec when posting an article. With that said, I now return you to the fascinating English debate. :-) --- Jeff Forys @ UC/Boulder Engineering Research Comp Cntr (303-492-4991) forys@boulder.Colorado.EDU -or- ..!{hao|nbires}!boulder!forys
wunder@hpcea.CE.HP.COM (Walter Underwood) (12/22/87)
My point is, these are formally defined headers; they should *not* be considered "English words", but rather <word>s. Therefore, the `news software' (i.e. inews) should only act on a "Supersedes:" header. Correct. Note that "Organization:" is accepted, but "Organisation:" is not. On of HP's divisions in Germany localized a mailer, changing all the English to German. That worked fine for the error messages, but these headers: Zu: wunder@hplabs Absender: wolf@hpxxx did not work! Little wonder that X.400 uses binary headers. wunder