[Ffmpeg-cvslog] CVS: ffmpeg/libavcodec avcodec.h, 1.393, 1.394ffv1.c, 1.32, 1.33 g726.c, 1.5, 1.6 h263.c, 1.279, 1.280 huffyuv.c, 1.61, 1.62 mpeg12.c, 1.235, 1.236 mpegvideo.c, 1.480, 1.481 snow.c, 1.60, 1.61

The Wanderer inverseparadox
Mon May 9 23:18:09 CEST 2005

M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

> The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net> writes:
>> Phew. That got a little long.
>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:

>>> What gives you the authority to say whether or not something is a
>>> word?
>> ...that opens up an entire completely separate semi-philosophical
>> discussion, which you almost certainly did not mean to address, and
>>  which definitely does not belong on this list. Rather than embark
>> on that tangent, I'll limit my response to three points.
>> One, as indicated by the use of the phrase "I don't think", the
>> above is represents my own experience and - to the extent relevant
>> - opinion; if I'd intended it as an absolute decree that "'X' is
>> not a word", I'd have phrased it that way.
> There's really not much point in discussing opinions on whether or
> not some particular combination of letters forms a word.  Either it
> is, or it isn't, and any debate on the subject would have to be based
> around verifiable facts backing the arguments brought forth.

True; that is why I listed "opinion" as potentially irrelevant. As a
datapoint, however, as well as a potential indicator of what would and
would not be viewed as valid by the reading audience, my experience may
well have some bearing; this was roughly the intended thrust of the
above sentence.

>> Two, unlike many (though certainly not all) posting members of
>> these lists, I am a native speaker of English;
> As am I, at least to some extent, despite my name.

Okay; I based the presumption that you weren't on the TLD from which you
post, though now that I look at it more closely I actually have no idea
what language(s) is (are) spoken there. Apologies.

>> this does not necessarily trump dictionaries (though see below),
>> but it does give me a certain limited authority (excuse me) on the
>> subject.
> I'd tend to agree.
> [discussion on dictionary philosophy]
> I totally agree.

Good to hear; many people (some reasonable, some not) have differed with
me on the issue, so it's nice to find someone reasonable who doesn't.

>>> If you have never seen a word, which is listed in common
>>> dictionaries, it would seem more indicative of limited reading on
>>> you part, than of the dictionary being flawed.
>> Okay, I intended to put the above Point-Three "dictionaries" stuff
>> here, but it came out of the metaphorical pen right where it is;
>> see above.
>> Also, I've been reading pretty much daily - primarily fiction, some
>> nonfiction, quite a bit of various periodical publications, and
>> ample online text - since I was five years old; this is not
>> necessarily comprehensive and certainly not conclusive, but I think
>> it would be a little hard (although not necessarily impossible) to
>> justify describing my reading as "limited".
> I did not intend that to be directed at you personally.

You were speaking in general, then? Acknowledged. It's a little bit
difficult to tell these things online, sometimes.

>>> Anyway, I did some dictionary reading.  Websters's Dictionary,
>>> 1913 edition (copyright expired), lists only inofficial as a
>>> separate entry, but allows for un- to be prefixed to any
>>> adjective.
>>> The same dictionary, under the entry for un-, says this:
>>>   In- is prefixed mostly to words of Latin origin, or else to words
>>>   formed by Latin suffixes; un- is of much wider application, and is
>>>   attached at will to almost any adjective, or participle used
>>>   adjectively, or adverb, from which it may be desired to form a
>>>   corresponding negative adjective or adverb, and is also, but less
>>>   freely, prefixed to nouns.
>>> It also happens that the word "official" is of Latin origin, so
>>> in- and un- would seem equally correct.
>> Hmm. That does counter part of my argument, apparently, not least
>> the rush-to-keep-ahead aspect as pertains to Webster's - although I
>> might argue, in a reversal of one aspect of my rant above, that
>> (bias-based assumption alert!) because "inofficial" is not in
>> common usage "unofficial" ought to be the preferred construct.
> It is evident that "unofficial" is by far the more common form. 
> However, seeing that "inofficial" is listed as a separate entry in
> the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary, one could make the
> conclusion that "unofficial" has, since the publication of said
> dictionary, risen in popularity, and come to virtually replace
> "inofficial", possibly in a manner contrary to your prescriptivist
> dictionary view.  I do not, however, have any evidence to back such a
> theory.

Yes, some of the same things occurred to me, which is why I didn't press
harder in response to your final citation. I'm not wholly immune to
refutation by external evidence, except when I specifically decide to
be. ^_^

> Now let's get back to coding instead.  There it is so much easier to
> say what is right and what is not.

...which, since it doesn't get anything changed, conveniently leaves the
side you were arguing for as 'winning' by default... but okay, I'll drop
the subject, for at least the time being.

       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.

More information about the ffmpeg-cvslog mailing list