[OT] Re: correct English usage

[Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org>]

On 03/04/12 17:41, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:50:07 +0000, Russell L. Harris wrote:
>
> (careful when quoting...)
>
> > * Camaleón<noelamac@gmail.com>  [120403 13:51]:
> > > On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:29:56 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
> > >
> > > > In linux.debian.user, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >    As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the
> > > > > > >    recommended
> >
> > Commonly-used English terms which are apropos to this matter are
> > "precede", "predecessor", "succeed", "successor", "antecedent", and
> > "descendant".  Thus, one could say:
>
> (...)
>
> That's why the documenting guys are perfect for this work as they're
> usually skilled at language. I bet they're the most indicated for finding
> the proper wording.
>
> But the above does not imply that using "posterior" in the above stanza
> is wrong. It can be improved (we are not writers not editors) but not
> incorrect. Those "old Latin" lovers (me included :-P) would even use the
> term "ulterior" for the said meaning.

Use whatever words you like; English is flexible enough (and has low 
entropy anyway) that you'll be understood. Your English is pretty good, 
but it still appears stilted, due to the use of unnatural words in a 
given context, as one would expect from a non-native. That said, I wish 
my attempts at French were as good as your English!

In this post, "indicated for" is probably the wrong term for the 
context. It roughly means "prescribed". It is unclear what you really 
mean, but I would guess "capable of".

"Ulterior" is certainly not a synonym for "posterior", and a Latin Lover 
is something totally different ;)

But, as I said before, it doesn't really matter...
--
Tony van der Hoff  | mailto:tony@vanderhoff.org
Ariège, France     |