Re: [OT] Re: correct English usage
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:39:03 +0200, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> 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<firstname.lastname@example.org> [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
>>> 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!
I've never been living in English speaking countries and that's (→
language immersion) what helps most for having a more "natural" sounding.
In fact, all the English I know has been have learnt from my school
years, that is, an academic (and British) 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".
How about "appropriate"? Or "prepared"? "suited"? "qualified"? I could
have chosen any of those, in my non-English mind they all sound the same
> "Ulterior" is certainly not a synonym for "posterior",
But it was, that's what I meant. It's not a term I would neither use in
my own language but it is still perfectly correct.
> and a Latin Lover is something totally different ;)
Damn. I precisely enclosed "old Latin" in double quotes and used
uppercase "L" to avoid misinterpretations >:-)