Re: Help to improve new package (djmount)
Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
> [...] 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.
As mentioned before, encyclopedias aren't reliable sources on this.
Most dictionaries don't list either.
OS vendors aren't unified on this. Apple, Sun and Microsoft all seem
to use both forms (you noted Apple's split-word use, but there's also
plenty of pages with one-word use like
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=ServerAdmin/10.5/en/c5xg8.html
or even
http://support.apple.com/downloads/Xsan_2_1_1_FileSystem_Update which
has both in one page)
Was the original standardisation's justification of following
a 1997 FOLDOC entry solid enough? That lists both as alternatives.
> [MJ Ray wrote:]
> > 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? [...]
Yes, but the jargonicity is independent of spelling.
> >> 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"?
Express it differently because the ambguity in that one is too amusing
to concentrate!
> > 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?
It's not a rule. It's a preference because it's easier to understand
a phrase if you see the verb before the adverb that modifies it.
As adverbs are technically syntactically free, it occasionally pops
up in simplistic grammar guides, but no style guides that I recall.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: