Re: correct English usage
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: correct English usage
- From: Indulekha <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120403102956.GA22176@radhesyama>
- In-reply-to: <iM90e-4VOfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <iHqEqemail@example.com> <iK0aKfirstname.lastname@example.org> <iK1zP-Wbemail@example.com> <iK3ih-3Ryfirstname.lastname@example.org> <iLy0G-1pGemail@example.com> <iLCQFfirstname.lastname@example.org> <iLJ5M-3gAemail@example.com> <iLXBL-2E8firstname.lastname@example.org> <iM90e-4VOemail@example.com>
In linux.debian.user, you wrote:
> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
> while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>> As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended
>> This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between
>> Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not
>> in English.
>> . .
>> For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time,
>> posterior is the wrong word in English.
>> Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought
>> it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated
>> into Debian documentation.
> I agree that it is important to have a correct English usage, at least in
> the documention, and that I am less qualified than you in that field.
> Still, I am really puzzled by what I found in several dictionnaries.
> I admit that most of the translation tools found on Internet are
> not very reliable, but I thought that it was not the case for dictionnaries.
> Here are some results I got for the "posterior" entry:
> Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
> 1 chiefly Anatomy further back in position . . .
> 2 Medicine . . .
> 3 formal coming after in time or order; later.
> WordReference English Thesaurus © 2012
> Sense: Subsequent, succeeding, next, following
> Sense: Behind, at the rear, dorsal, in back o, back
> 1. situated at the back of or behind something
> 2. coming after or following another in a series
> 3. coming after in time
> Are all these distionnaries wrong?
> Pierre Frenkiel
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: [🔎] alpine.DEB.email@example.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org
There is nothing wrong with your English or those definitions,
they're just obscure and have fallen out of popular usage. I've
frequently observed that people for whom English is a second
language are more literate that the average American.
❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤