From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-03-22T03:48:38+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby tutorial download

> > I've always been a fan of rich vocabulary, instead of the
> > monosylabic content that seems to permeate popular media.
> 
> You suggest that monosyllabic words cannot have a deep?

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I said that I am a fan of rich 
vocabulary, which I am.

> 'mankind' and 'before' are written as one word but they are in fact
> two words each (man + kind) and (be + fore) so the following is made
> up of monosyllabic words only:

The fact that you can trace to origin to polysylabic words to monosylabic 
roots does not make them monosylabic.  "man kind" does not make sense.  
However, "mankind" is a fair word.

It is also incorrect of you to stretch my comment to a ridiculous extreme.  
I said that I am a fan of rich vocabulary.  You have claimed that I said 
that a deep thought must contain polysylabic words.

> Naming something can be a real problem. Once there was a car
> manifacturer who decided to call a car 'MR2'. They soon realized that
> the car didn't sell very good in all french-speaking countries. After
> some research the problem became obvious: 'M eR Deux' sounds very
> similar to 'merde' the French word for 'shit'. They soon did decide
> on another name :-|

What does this have to do with my affinity of rich vocabulary?

-- 
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant.  Math Dept.
University of Maryland.  (301) 405-5137