Sparx Systems Forum
Enterprise Architect => Suggestions and Requests => Topic started by: Paolo F Cantoni on May 09, 2017, 09:52:07 am
-
Can we get the width of the "Recent" section of the Start Page? Quite a few of our descriptive file names are larger than the visible width.
In these days of large screens, there's no need to be so parsimonious.
Reported,
Paolo
-
parsimonious
A new day a new addition to my vocabulary :)
Geert
-
parsimonious
A new day a new addition to my vocabulary :)
Geert
Because we have an onto-terminological model in our repository, I do try to use the right word in the right place at the right time.
Paolo
-
Because we have an onto-terminological model in our repository, I do try to use the right word in the right place at the right time.
I was accused of being needlessly pedantic last night when I pointed out that the designer of the new game we were playing didn't understand that the word "each" can't replace the words "every" and "any" in every circumstance. Until we reached a significant incident where it was of vital importance to understand what was going to happen next. The point was conceded that I'm precise and accurate, not pedantic.
-
Originally, 'pedantic' meant 'like a pedant', and a pedant was a male schoolteacher. So being pedantic was teaching someone the correct and accurate facts and procedures. Websters Dictionary still suggests 'precise' and 'accurate' as synonyms of 'pedantic'. Sadly, with the decline and fall of the English language, 'pedantic' is now used simply to define someone as unnecessarily critical about the meaning and use of terms.
What do you call someone who is pedantic about the use and meaning of 'pedantic'??
-
What do you call someone who is pedantic about the use and meaning of 'pedantic'??
I guess that would be a meta-pedantic ;D
Geert
-
What do you call someone who is pedantic about the use and meaning of 'pedantic'??
I guess that would be a meta-pedantic ;D
Geert
meta-pedant at least! ;D
But, actually, they are just a pedant. ;)
Otherwise, we end up in simplistic merely being an "upmarket" form of simple :o - which as we pedants know is NOT the case.
Let's hear it for PEDANTRY!
Paolo
-
In which case, open the floodgates!
Never ever use the term 'agreeance', which is a strange construction gaining favour as a totally unnecessary replacement for 'agreement'.
And we Aussies seem to be using the word 'less' to cover both situations where 'less' is appropriate and situations where the term should be 'fewer'. Very roughly, if you measure it, it is 'less', and if you count it, it is 'fewer'.
Let me go home and work up a lengthy monologue on this!
-
Less/Fewer becoming synonymous is an issue in the UK as well.
And then we have the negative influence from American English. One example that particularly annoys me, and is similar to the horrible "agreeance" mentioned by Roy, is "learnings", as in "we need to review the learnings from that project", meaning "lessons learnt". Learning, as we pedants know, has a completely different meaning and does not have a plural.
-
The best ever email sig I have seen read
--
I am not the most pedantic person you have ever met. I am the third most pedantic.
-
The best ever email sig I have seen read
--
I am not the most pedantic person you have ever met. I am the third most pedantic.
Love it!
Paolo
-
And we Aussies seem to be using the word 'less' to cover both situations where 'less' is appropriate and situations where the term should be 'fewer'. Very roughly, if you measure it, it is 'less', and if you count it, it is 'fewer'.
Far fewer Australians will know how to use "get\got" correctly than know the difference between less and few. 8)
-
A looooonnnnnggg time ago when I was 9 years old, my Primary teacher was a fearsome, raw-boned lady from Belfast, who had an intense dislike of the words 'got' and 'then'. I still cannot see either word without hearing her voice dripping with scorn, issuing from a mouth like a knife-cut across her face. "Aend don't ever use 'gawt' or 'the-an' in your woork, or Gawd help you."
She had an intense dislike of a lot of things. Including me.
-
A looooonnnnnggg time ago when I was 9 years old, my Primary teacher was a fearsome, raw-boned lady from Belfast, who had an intense dislike of the words 'got' and 'then'. I still cannot see either word without hearing her voice dripping with scorn, issuing from a mouth like a knife-cut across her face. "Aend don't ever use 'gawt' or 'the-an' in your woork, or Gawd help you."
She had an intense dislike of a lot of things. Including me.
When I was 9 (probably longer ago) and was in school in London, UK, I, too, had such a teacher (although she was a local Londoner). She was, what one might describe as, a harridan. Miss Rodley struck fear into the hearts of us all... I guess I was one of her targets. Ah... those were the days!
Paolo
-
Less/Fewer becoming synonymous is an issue in the UK as well.
And then we have the negative influence from American English. One example that particularly annoys me, and is similar to the horrible "agreeance" mentioned by Roy, is "learnings", as in "we need to review the learnings from that project", meaning "lessons learnt". Learning, as we pedants know, has a completely different meaning and does not have a plural.
Graham, I'm not so sure on this. This may genuinely be a case of language evolving (as opposed to the usual devolving). Using a word incorrectly is NOT "evolution", it's wrong! (as in agreeance!)
It might be interesting to work through this (and it even has a direct involvement with modelling - since many of us are building ontologically related models).
Can you give your definition of "Learning" (and, preferably, its source) and why you believe the usage you described is incorrect?
We (currently) have 2 definitions for "Learning" in our Onto-Terminological model. One is the verbal form, one the nounal. The usage that annoys you could be a specialization of our nounal definition.
Paolo
-
A looooonnnnnggg time ago when I was 9 years old, my Primary teacher was a fearsome, raw-boned lady from Belfast, who had an intense dislike of the words 'got' and 'then'. I still cannot see either word without hearing her voice dripping with scorn, issuing from a mouth like a knife-cut across her face. "Aend don't ever use 'gawt' or 'the-an' in your woork, or Gawd help you."
She had an intense dislike of a lot of things. Including me.
When I was 9 (probably longer ago) and was in school in London, UK, I, too, had such a teacher (although she was a local Londoner). She was, what one might describe as, a harridan. Miss Rodley struck fear into the hearts of us all... I guess I was one of her targets. Ah... those were the days!
Paolo
That explains a lot. Childhood trauma's can be hard to process :'(
Lots of courage to you both ;)
Geert
-
Less/Fewer becoming synonymous is an issue in the UK as well.
And then we have the negative influence from American English. One example that particularly annoys me, and is similar to the horrible "agreeance" mentioned by Roy, is "learnings", as in "we need to review the learnings from that project", meaning "lessons learnt". Learning, as we pedants know, has a completely different meaning and does not have a plural.
Graham, I'm not so sure on this. This may genuinely be a case of language evolving (as opposed to the usual devolving). Using a word incorrectly is NOT "evolution", it's wrong! (as in agreeance!)
It might be interesting to work through this (and it even has a direct involvement with modelling - since many of us are building ontologically related models).
Can you give your definition of "Learning" (and, preferably, its source) and why you believe the usage you described is incorrect?
We (currently) have 2 definitions for "Learning" in our Onto-Terminological model. One is the verbal form, one the nounal. The usage that annoys you could be a specialization of our nounal definition.
Paolo
Hi Paolo, you are may well be right about the evolution of language, although I lean towards the noun "learning" being used incorrectly. A quick double check with a dictionary confirms it doesn't have a plural and means some form of body of knowledge rather than being a synonym for lesson.
-
[SNIP]
Hi Paolo, you are may well be right about the evolution of language, although I lean towards the noun "learning" being used incorrectly. A quick double check with a dictionary confirms it doesn't have a plural and means some form of body of knowledge rather than being a synonym for lesson.
I work in an educational institution so "Learning" is an important concept. The nounal form is (as you suggest) is "Knowledge or skill acquired by systematic study in any field of scholarly application." The implication there is that the amount of knowledge is indeterminate. Consequently, we can allow the acquisition of a specific item of knowledge ("Don't run with scissors") as a learning. Certainly, our academics seem to use it in that way. When dealing with a collection of such (specific) learnings - the plural can be used (without loss of generality), but when dealing with the indeterminate quantity the singular is used.
How does that sound as an evolving use?
Paolo
-
It sounds like you're invoking the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because they are academics isn't a guarantee they're not abusing the language.
-
It sounds like you're invoking the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because they are academics isn't a guarantee they're not abusing the language.
There's evolution and there's genetic engineering ;)
-
It sounds like you're invoking the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because they are academics isn't a guarantee they're not abusing the language.
I wasn't quoting them as authorities! (To paraphrase Mick "Crocodile " Dundee)," They're not authorities, I'm the authority!" ;D I was using them as examples of the usage.
One of the reasons I like working here is that the definitions HAVE to be "Academic proof"! ;)
(It IS Friday)
Paolo
-
It sounds like you're invoking the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because they are academics isn't a guarantee they're not abusing the language.
There's evolution and there's genetic engineering ;)
"Madame, we've agreed what you are. Now we're just arguing the price"
Evolution is just genetic engineering done by nature. :D
Paolo
-
Evolution is just genetic engineering done by nature. :D
As we're being precise. You're conflating evolution and natural selection. Genetic engineering and natural selection are both processes by which evolution happens.
mic drop
-
Evolution is just genetic engineering done by nature. :D
As we're being precise. You're conflating evolution and natural selection. Genetic engineering and natural selection are both processes by which evolution happens.
mic drop
As we're being precise, natural selection surely is a two part process, random genetic mutation (engineering) and "survival of the fittest". Therefore, not worthy of a mic drop. ;)
Paolo
-
As we're being precise, natural selection surely is a two part process, random genetic mutation (engineering) and "survival of the fittest". Therefore, not worthy of a mic drop. ;)
Well, there's a bunch of things around the genetics. Not only do you have actual code change (mutation or bacterial recombination) but you can also have changes to the way code is expressed (barrier proteins and other voodoo). But the survival of the fittest is not necessarily about change to the genome. The change can be environmental; from climate to competition to predation. So no it's not really a two step process. :-)
-
There is only thing I know.
Verbing weirds nouns.
:o