On May 5, 12:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: > Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > > Isn't deprecated like depreciated but not quite to zero yet? > > No. "To deprecate" comes from a Latin verb meaning "to ward off a > disaster by prayer"; when you're saying you deprecate something, you're > saying you're praying for that something to disappear, go away; in a > secular context, you're earnestly imploring people to NOT do it. > > "To depreciate" comes from a Latin verb meaning "to reduce the price"; > when you're saying you depreciate something, you're saying you put on > that something a lower price (and, by extension, a lower value) than it > has (or, more commonly, used to have). You're not necessarily saying > it's worth nothing at all (accountants sometimes deem an asset "fully > depreciated" to mean something close to that, but the adverb "fully" is > crucial to this meaning), just that it's worth "less than before".
Seeing this thread has already deteriorated [another word with Latin ancestry, not to be conflated with "posteriorated"] to the level of a debate about how many angels can stand shoulder-to-shoulder between the quotes surrounding the repr of an empty string, I presume it's OK if I remark that a "fully depreciated" asset is one that has a *book* value of zero [essentially that the whole of its original cost has been written off (i.e. claimed as a tax deduction)] , and that this has absolutely nothing to do with the true worth of the asset. > > The two terms got somewhat entwined, no doubt because their spelling is > so similar (even though etimology and pronunciation are poles apart), > but the "correct" meanings and usage are still well distinct. > > Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
