X-no-Archive:yes
> I'm sorry, but "blue" is a verb.
Now, THAT'S funny!

It is a verb, as in, what some grandmothers do to their hair. It's also a
fish, and an acronym, <http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=blue>.
But most dictionaries list the adjectival definition as the primary
definition, so I presume the nominal definition is either substantival, or
the same elision as microwave for microwave oven. I suspect that Bruce's
dictionary does list a few other uses before giving the verb form; perhaps
Bruce is now ready to work for the government, having demonstrated a gift
for using the available facts so.

> Unfortunately, there's a trade-off between greater precision and reduced
vocabulary size.
Probably, although not necessarily. But that's not what I mean. The word
"object" is by no means new, and does not swell the vocabulary, but its use
as IT jargon is relatively new, and separates we "poor" "procedural"
programmers from OO programmer, who can just be sent a message to
instantiate, and then you have two of them.

> What irritates *me* is the use of jargon specifically
> for the purpose of obscuring the fact that the speaker or writer hasn't
> the faintest idea what s/he's talking about.
Ah, malice. These know that they do not know what they mean, while having no
clue about what they mean. There, the goal is NOT to communicate.

> but the salespeople
> at the corner computer store frequently run a close second.
Ah, incompetence. These think they know what they mean, while having no
clue, a condition that has much in common with insanity. I suspect that the
goal of sales staff is likewise other than communication, although they
abuse communication in pursuit of their goal.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *