Re: Help to improve new package (djmount)
MJ Ray wrote:
> Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to find an authority to tell me what's correct. I'm
>> pointing at primary evidence of current usage. Wikipedia is a text
>> written by people who clearly know what a filesystem is and
>> consistently choose to write it as "file system" (and to make the
>> one-word version redirect to the two-word version). [...]
>
> Wikipedia is written by an infinite number of monkeys, as well as some
> people who know what things are. Do we know the reason for the
> old-fashioned splitting?
Yes. People normally spell things the way they do because that's
how they think people normally spell them. In this case, they've
even helpfully told us that's what they think.
>> I wonder if Apple base their documentation style guide on research
>> about what terms normal users are familiar with? [...]
>
> Again, we don't know Apple's reasons.
Do we know your reasons? Do reasons even matter? I could have a
cute rationalisation for spelling it as phyalcisstom, but people are
still going to find it jarring - not because they disagree with my
reasoning; just because they happen not to be accustomed to that
spelling.
>>>> As with "web server", the problem is that technical specialists are
>>>> always the first to think of these terms as words in their own
>>>> right, while the general public still sees that as obscure and
>>>> intimidating.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced by that: got data?
>>
>> As it happens, I also asked two nearby users; one of them said he
>> would expect "file system" and the other said "file-system", an
>> option I hadn't considered.
>
> An anecdote isn't data.
It's two data points on an otherwise empty chart. But I don't care
whether we settle on one-word or two-word FS, as long as we don't
flip-flop. A change of policy should require a solid justification,
especially when it's a change away from the standard that the
encyclopedias and OS vendors are following.
>> Or are you asking for evidence that unfamiliar jargon is seen as
>> obscure and intimidating?
>
> I'm asking for evidence that "filesystem" is seen by the general
> public as more obscure and intimidating than "file system".
This is a strange thing to be skeptical about. You do at least
recognise that they see it as a jargonism? They can tell that from
the fact they're not familiar with it. And when technical
specialists lard their explanations with unfamiliar usages, people
find it offputting. I mean, I know I do - are you claiming that you
don't?
> [...]
>> When two constructions are both grammatical, and may convey subtly
>> different senses, a taboo against one of the alternatives serves
>> only to restrict your expressive potential. Consider the following
>> two sentences:
>> - She answered the king's question foolishly.
>> - She foolishly answered the king's question.
>
> The second one is ambiguous.
All sentences are ambiguous if you look for ambiguity hard enough.
Nonetheless, both of these have clear default interpretations. I
can give plenty of other examples if you don't like that one - for
instance, what would you do with "she barely answered"?
> But, as I wrote: "all else being equal". Different meanings is not
> all else being equal.
And putting the adverb before or after the verb phrase almost always
has some subtle influence on the meaning that's conveyed. That
includes the case of "automatically", though the difference didn't
amount to anything very much.
> Hope that explains,
Not really. I'd be interested to know where you got this rule
against pre-head modifying adverbs - can you point at a style guide
that mentions it? Is it some sort of generalisation of the old
taboo against split infinitives?
--
JBR
"Yrch!" said Legolas, falling into his own tongue. - JRRT, LotR
Reply to: