[LMB] OT: English language

Paula Lieberman paal at filker.org
Fri Sep 18 23:52:55 BST 2015


Tech speak also tries for more precision and accuracy.

And then jerk journaists foul it up by saying "codec" which technically was 
supposed to be [en]CO[der-]DEC[oder] and be -bidirectional- and be -general- 
to designation "sofware expansion algorithm because they were/are too 
[expletive deleted] 
stupid/ignorant/lacking-in-interest-in-looking-anything-up/technical-arrogant=jerk-ignoramuses 
to notice prior use of terms and instead moronically a) used it for 
"decompression" being TFS to even care about the difference between 
compression-decompression and compression only--no to mention, 
compressor-expander capabilities are COMPANDERS, and expansion-only, are 
COMPANDERS.   Expletive-deleted information-destroying MORONS.  Ivan is a Da 
Vinci with Great Achievement and huge ambition, in comparison....

--Paula Lieberman
-----Original Message----- 
From: Howard Brazee
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:09 AM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: English language


> On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Jim Parish <jparish at siue.edu> wrote:
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> I know that it’s just language, but when people use jargon that makes 
>> understanding an “in” thing, I get irritated. Rhyming slang is designed 
>> to obfuscate for those who are on the outside.
>
> Of course it is; that's the whole point. But don't be too quick to assume 
> that a technical jargon is intended to serve the same purpose; in my 
> experience, it's usually developed to make communication (in the relevant 
> area) more efficient.


Certainly that is the norm.   With exceptions. 



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list