On 04/12/2018 17:13, Aurélien Larcher wrote:
Does it boil down to a difference between American English and British English?
Not really here, this is more about style and the impression one is trying to convey than dove vs dived. English language does not have an equivalent of the Académie française and there is no right and wrong. There are accepted conversions which allow us to communicate albeit still with frequent ambiguities. I am actually meaning the inferences one draws from the presentation of the information beyond literal definitions, eg, if I get a phone call from someone with a Chinese accent it is probably a scam, Indian then "you are having trouble with windows". I can tell this with a high degree of probability before what is considered factual content is conveyed. This is not a national characterisation and if I did daily business with either place my expectation when my phone rang would be different and equally correct. The same is true of word choice and style. The English language is notable for the multiple ways of expressing what on face value is the same idea, we can even mean the opposite of the words - yeah right I hear you say. We draw on minor tips and context and combine with large amounts of background knowledge to conclude meaning beyond the words. This is why I am better at recognising spam than any spam filter I have used. Be clear there is no certainty but there is a weight of probability. Like it or not, life is full of cues and their corresponding counter actions. If I am not describing your world I suggest you stick to writing machine code. Language is more than just dictionary word definitions. Consider two renditions of the even the same play; actor would not be a job if everyone's reading was equivalent. If you do not want to sound like a second rate corporate sales department nor a candidate for the Apprentice TV show then do not copy their style.
We have here an introductory text of an international project. We should endeavour to avoid unnecessary inferences. This about how someone else might choose to see it not whether your own personal and possibly correct or equally opinionated view is at odds. The text should avoid colloquialisms, analogies, innuendos, politics, offence, ambiguity, humour, sarcasm and jargon. The inferences made should be of the type: this is a well run project that does not make mistakes and one can trust.
_______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
