On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:19:05PM +0700, Lie Ryan wrote: > But until the dictionary is rewritten, it is incorrect usage.
That's complete nonsense, much like the rest of your argument. People use words all the time that aren't even IN a dictionary. Their absence from any dictionary makes them no less capable of conveying meaning. The dictionary does not define language; humans do, through their every-day use of words. Dictionaries record how words are commonly used, and are written by stubborn, pedantic old men with nothing better to do than sit around their oak desks debating the meaning of words... meanwhile the rest of the just USE words to communicate our ideas. Dictionaries are like technical documentation: written with the best of intentions, and mostly accurate at the time of writing, but out of date by the time they are published. [No offense meant to dictionary writers... I mostly fit that description myself, excepting that I am not quite yet an "old" man.] > FOR DECADES, people used the term PC for all sorts of things, I never said they didn't. That also is completely irrelevant. It's still the case that "PC" is commonly (these days MOST commonly, by far, at least in the US where all this technology was invented and named) used to refer to Intel-compatible hardware running a Microsoft OS. That fact, by itself, justifies the use in this case and any other. This is the very nature of language. > Apple's personal computer is NOT a PC? Aren't you contradicting > yourself? No, of course I'm not. > Just like what Apple, you have just said: "I'm Apple, I'm a > personal computer, but I'm not a personal computer." Completely > nonsense. Yes, I agree: what you wrote is complete nonsense. Only that isn't what I said at all. I said Apple isn't a PC. The term "PC" and the term "personal computer" are separate and distinct. One has only 2 letters, the other has 16 letters in two words. The latter ONLY means a (non-specific) computer designed for personal use. The former can mean that, though that usage is far less common than the one I was using: an Intel compatible personal computer on which Microsoft operating systems run. The software industry has been marketing titles as "For PC" since the creation of the IBM PC, and did not stop doing so when other PC-compatibles arrived on the scene, nor even when IBM stopped making them. So what did they mean by "PC" after IBM stopped making them? They meant, very clearly, that their software was intended for Intel-compatible hardware running a Microsoft OS. Does that mean that PC hardware running Linux is not a PC? Of course not -- except when the term is used in a context where it does mean exactly that. ;-) > Last, probably my strongest argument: "If the folder has been called > WinBuild/WindowsBuild, there is no need for arguments. PC as Windows is > an arguable usage, Windows as Windows is not arguable." There is no need for arguments now! The only reason there are arguments now is because a few stubborn people irrationally refuse to accept the term "PC" as it is most commonly used in modern English, as has been the case for most of my lifetime. Finally, the person who named the build can call it whatever they want... that's one of the perks of creating something: you get to name it. They could have called it "VanillaIceCreamBuild" or "Vinny'sSkankyHoBuild" -- it's their choice what to call it. The name of a thing need not reflect its purpose, orientation, meaning, or any other concrete or abstract property of the thing. It's just a name. Look, I've already said I don't like the term, and in fact I think that eventually, as PC hardware (and the software that runs on it) continues to evolve, it's going to become problematic. Except that it won't: when it becomes a problem, English-speaking humans will invent a new word to describe the class of computers they're discussing. That is how language works. But in the mean time, we have no other word to refer to the class of hardware that is based on Intel chipsets and is designed specifically to be compatible with Microsoft Windows (or indeed running said Windows). We need a word to distinguish this class of machines from Apple computers (which ironically now also use Intel, but are still clearly distinct from PCs, partially because they mainly run Windows), Sun computers, SGI computers, etc. The term "PC" has been relegated to that role, and the fact is that the vast majority of those computers run Windows today. It's also a fact that the overwhelming majority of English-speaking humans commonly use the term "PC" to mean what I've said (and also other similar things). Your complaints and arguments about alternate meanings of "PC" are irrelevant, pointless, and futile. Even if the maintainers are convinced to change the name, it does not change the fact that the term will continue to be used that way by millions of humans, nor that they are not wrong for doing so, since it is a well-established term in the computer industry as well as the common population, and has been since long before Apple started using it that way. And it does not change the fact that you (and others like you) are being stubborn by refusing to accept that simple truth. If you're unable to see that by now, I don't imagine there's anything I can do to help you, so I give up trying to convince you. [...and there was much rejoicing.] -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
pgpjvVEriGABi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
