Re: uneditable [OT]
Re: uneditable [OT]
- Subject: Re: uneditable [OT]
- From: Axel Luttgens <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:34:26 +0200
Le 2 mai 2013 à 10:26, 2551phill a écrit :
> Thanks Marion.
>
> I was going to say something similar, but shorter. :p
>
> In English, words come into being (and thus are legitimate) through use. Dictionaries record usage; they don't legislate it.
Hello Phil,
This is indeed the case for the french language too: many new words are added each year in, say, the Larousse or the Robert.
On the other hand, especially in France, and to a lesser degree in Belgium, it is true that there is a tendency towards some kind of regulation, through administrative circulars intended for schools, public departments...
Some sustain this is needed for the "défense de la langue française", others feel it allows to be sure people speak the same language under certain circumstances (after all, better a RFC than everyone devising his own interpretation of the SMTP protocol).
Now, going back to Yvan's example, that "app" pseudo-word is indeed problematic.
Not because of some legal prohibition.
Nor because the dictionaries don't want to record it.
It just doesn't sound well:
"Et maintenant, tu déplaces l'icône de ton app sur le bureau."
("And now, you drag your app's icon to the Desktop")
This one sounds better:
"Et maintenant, tu déplaces l'icône de ton appli sur le bureau."
and "appli" indeed tends to be used in the spoken, and even written language, on a broader and broader basis.
In fact, it is a matter of how words tend to be abbreviated in a language.
For example, how about "appli" in English?
Axel,
Even more OT.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden