From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@...>
Date: 2002-09-05T03:35:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@z.glue.umd.edu> writes:

> Yap, exactly.  The first time I saw the methods with names "indexes" and
> "indices", I thought there must be something wrong with my english.  In
> all the math books, I encountered only "indices".  Therefore, when
> "indexes" is one of the method names, I thought probably english has
> become even more flexible.
>
> Bill

Indeed it has.  Modern English dictionaries (at least American English)
now allow -exes as the plurals for many -ex words.  And in many cases,
the -exes plural is now even considered to be the *preferred* version.

Actually, to be precise, English isn't any more flexible than it ever
was.  English has traditionally been fairly flexible, and very tolerant
of change, neologisms, etc.  Unlike a number of other modern languages,
there is no government body controlling the English language.  And
there's a cultural bent towards looking positively on new words and new
usages in English.


> ============================================================================
> Hal E. Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
>>> because it accomodates different language backgrounds.  I prefer "map" and
>>> "indices"; were it not for aliases, I'd probably have to conform to
>> "collect"
>>> (what the hell does *that* mean? ;) and "indexes" (a bastard of a word if
>> ever
>>> I saw one).
>
>> :) :) :)
>
>> OT: When I was reading the proofed copy of _The Ruby Way_ (a long and
>> arduous
>> task), I found that someone had changed every instance of "vertices" to
>> (get ready to wince) "vertexes." I told them that of all the books in math,
>> geometry, and computer science I had ever seen in my life, I had *never*
>> seen the word "vertexes."
>
>> Hal
>
>
>

-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz@asfast.com