http://www.johncompanies.com/collocation/

They offer co-location for $65 a month

40GB Bandwidth
2GB Hard Drive
FreeBSD 4.5

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by roly
http://www.johncompanies.com/collocation/

They offer co-location for $65 a month

40GB Bandwidth
2GB Hard Drive
FreeBSD 4.5

:rolleyes:
Seeing how they can't spell colocation right and I've never heard of them...:disagree:

They spell co-location Collocation

Check this advertisement/thread on kuro5hin.org.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/9/13150/93203

It's not really co-location, by the way, but more of a virtual dedicated server.

Originally posted by mas3000

Seeing how they can't spell colocation right and I've never heard of them...:disagree:

Actually, I have seen both terms used, colocation and collocation. How do you know which one is correct? I myself use "colocation" not because it's the correct/accepted one but because it has one less character.

Anyway, I can't believe that you put down a company because of this.

cheers,
:beer:

Originally posted by roly
http://www.johncompanies.com/collocation/

They offer co-location for $65 a month

40GB Bandwidth
2GB Hard Drive
FreeBSD 4.5

:rolleyes:

colo's storage and OS isn't controlled by the upstream provider, the user chooses it.

Yeah, they might spell it the non-traditional way, however they are still a bit whacked as it doesn't seem to be colo at all. Seems to be just VPS. A bit on the odd side, but...

Originally posted by dektong

Anyway, I can't believe that you put down a company because of this.

cheers,
:beer:
It just came from experience. I once signed up with a cheap host that spelled "reseller" wrong and the service was terrible. My site was always down, and their support took 3 days to answer!

Sorry if I wrongly judged them.:D

dektong wrote:
Actually, I have seen both terms used, colocation and collocation. How do you know which one is correct?
Language is (or at least should be) an ever-growing, ever-evolving thing. Words, phrases and usages which not long ago would have appalled "proper" linguists and grammarians are becoming accepted and acceptable today. The advent of the Internet, and more specifically its worldwide web, has been the occasion for the introduction of all manner of new words (or, more accurately, more varied usages of existing words) into the English language. When that happens, variant spellings are unavoidable. Is it "e-mail" or "email?" Is it "dialup" or "dial-up?" Is it "on-line" or "online?" And, in this case, is it "co-location" or "colocation" or "collocation?"

And the answer, according to The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (http://www.foldoc.org) (edited by Denis Howe), is all three... er... well... sort of.

According to Howe, the hyphenated form (co-location) is the on that is probably most correct when used to describe the condition of having several servers which may or may not all be owned by the same party housed in a single room and sharing common Internet connections. The hyphenated form is the one most commonly seen on the web, and rightly so.

The "colocation" form is the next most commonly seen on the web, and is probably nearly equally correct when used to describe the same thing as stated in the previous paragraph.

The form "collocation" is an old word with a similar meaning, but is usually applied to the organization of words in sentences. The "collocation" form is common in dictionaries and follows the pattern of other Latin-derived words like collect, college, and collate. But the "collocation" form is least common on the web and is probably least correct when used to describe several servers of different ownership in a single room sharing common Internet connections.

The verbal form is "to co-locate" or "to colocate."

Interestingly (and not surprisingly), the long-trusted Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary -- being the traditional, buttoned-down, authoritative resource that it is -- recognizes only the oldest, least-Internet-applicable form "collocation." In fact, it considers variations such as "co-location" and "colocation" to be flat-out misspellings. Obviously, it's time for and update.

Roget's Thesaurus doesn't like the forms "colocation" or "co-location" at all, but has four entries pertaining to 'assemblage,' 'location,' 'arrangement' and 'phrase' for the form "collocation."

The databases of whatis.com (http://www.whatis.com) seem to prefer "colocation," but also recognize "co-location" and "collocation," in that order.

The site TechDictionary.com (http://www.techdictionary.com) likes "colocation" and "collocation," but not "co-location."

Internet.com's PCWebopedia (http://www.pcwebopedia.com) doesn't recognize "collocation" at all, and will send you to its definition for "co-location" (http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/c/co_location.html) if you search for either "co-location" or "colocation."

ComputerUser's High-Tech Dictionary (http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/index.html) doesn't recognize any of the three spellings. Apparently, as far as ComputerUser (http://www.computeruser.com) is concerned, "colocation" is something that one simply cannot do. Nor "co-location" or "collocation." Period.

The folks at Collocation Solutions (http://www.collocationsolutions.com) certainly seem to have had no doubt in their minds about how it should be spelled. In fact I remember being downright bothered by that spelling the first time I ever visited their site.

And I'm quite certain that one could find all manner of other opinions among the many and varied computing terminology and jargon resources (http://yourdictionary.com/diction4.html#computing) that are available out there.

Personally, I like "co-location" first, then "colocation" second. And I would not use the word "collocation" at all -- at least not to describe servers. Words in a sentence, maybe. But not servers. Just my opinion.

dektong wrote:
I myself use "colocation" not because it's the correct/accepted one but because it has one less character.
Based on the above research and varied opinions, that seems to be about as valid a reason as any.

Originally posted by DesElms

Language is (or at least should be) an ever-growing, ever-evolving thing. Words, phrases and usages which not long ago would have appalled "proper" linguists and grammarians are becoming accepted and acceptable today.

So should we make "a lot" one word because so many people misspell it that way?

What about "there," "their," and "they're?" Should we make them synonyms because so many people can't get them straight? Should we do the same for "your," and "you're?"

Should we make "millenium" an accepted variation of "millennium" because nobody can freakin' spell it correctly?

I'm appalled. :mad:

Originally posted by LogicBrendan


colo's storage and OS isn't controlled by the upstream provider, the user chooses it.

Brendan check your PM and email and sort out your email issues. Thx.

Greetings:

Aside from the interesting discussion the correct spelling of co-location, http://www.johncompanies.com/collocation/ describes virtual private / virtual dedicated servers and not co-located equipment ;-)

Originally posted by ToastyX


So should we make "a lot" one word because so many people misspell it that way?

What about "there," "their," and "they're?" Should we make them synonyms because so many people can't get them straight? Should we do the same for "your," and "you're?"

Should we make "millenium" an accepted variation of "millennium" because nobody can freakin' spell it correctly?

I'm appalled. :mad:
Heh, well unfortunately 'we' don't make language. The English language (for example) was derived from various other words from other languages, our own words, and misspellings and mispronounciations of other words. Generally, common usage dermines what words will 'be' -however one person might have some off a ship and mispronounced something they brought back and that word stuck, etc.

I like this little list: http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/mispron.html

It doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, nor this discussion but it is interesting. According to this, I bet many of you mispronounce the word forte...

Wow, nice list. :)

I'm surprised "cache" isn't in that list though.

Originally posted by ToastyX
So should we make "a lot" one word because so many people misspell it that way?

What about "there," "their," and "they're?" Should we make them synonyms because so many people can't get them straight? Should we do the same for "your," and "you're?"

Should we make "millenium" an accepted variation of "millennium" because nobody can freakin' spell it correctly?

I'm appalled. :mad:
Ha! I love this post, ToastyX. Excellent! Thank you.

We are far closer to being of one mind on this subject than I suspect you believe. No one laments the ongoing bastardization of our marvelous language more than I... er... well... with the possible exception of you, perhaps.

Believe me, I understand and share your frustration. I, too, am appalled by the kinds of errors you list... and others. I cringe every evening listening to the news on television or radio and hearing the young reporters making such mistakes as using the word "for" when they should have used "of," just to name one, and noticing that it's happening so often that it's dangerously close to becoming common usage. And I can name many other examples. I dare not continue with the list or we'll be here all day.

I suspect you'd agree with me if I advanced the notion that our English language is highly refined and quite adequate already; capable of providing us with manifold means of communicating complex ideas and minute subtleties extremeley well under nearly any circumstance; and, therefore, the world would be a much better place if everyone would simply learn to correctly use the language we already have rather than trying to create new and unnecessary words, phrases and usages. Weren't we doing just fine, after all, when we stood in line rather than on it?

I would agree with that notion, as well... at least categorically. But history has shown us that, like it or not, the English language is constantly evolving. Given enough time, today's appalling usages come into tomorrow's mainstream. If that weren't true, then we'd never see words like "obsolete" or "archaic" in etymologies.

That having been said, you are absolutely right that the common misuse of words is no occasion for forgiving it to the point of acceptance. Or for fogiving it at all, for that matter. There is only way way to spell millennium. Words like "there," "their" and "they're" are different and there's a time and place for each. The rules are clear and unforgiving, and there's no reason to be tolerant of the breaking of them. It grates on me just as it apparently does on you when I read -- often in these very forums -- the kinds of atrocious errors in spelling and grammar to which you refer. I, too, am appalled.

A <-- space --> lot. ;)

But things change. Words change. Usages change. Language is a living thing. I confess that that has been a difficult notion for me to accept. I have finally been alive long enough to witness our language evolving in ways that bother or even appall those of us who've spent a lifetime getting it more or less right and who wish others had taken it as seriously. Personally, I'm just glad that, when it comes to language, change takes so damned long. I'm actually grateful that I probably won't be alive long enough to be forced to endure the inevitable, evolutionary and commonplace misuse of words and phrases by future generations in ways that flatly appall me now.


Co-location vs Colocation vs Collocation
A New Term is Born

As for the applicability of the form "co-location" (or even "colocation") in this context, I would argue that it might even qualify as a new word altogether. I would argue that the word "collocation" actually has a different intended meaning -- or at least a different intended connotation. Rooted in the Latin "collocatio" or "collocationis," the word "collocation" does appear to mean, in its broadest sense, approximately what we in the computer business mean by "co-location" or "colocation." But if one more closely examines how the Latin roots were used and, more importantly, how the word "collocation" has been used in practice in English, it is really quite different.

There is no question that the single most common area to which the word "collocation" has been applied is linguistics. In practice, collocation -- especially with that spelling based on the aforementioned Latin roots -- is not merely the act of putting two or more words together, but also of ensuring that they are put together in a set pattern and with a certain intended result which is necessary to the definition of the word itself. Elements of liguistic collocation (referred to as "colocates") are firmly bound to one another and combine in a rather fixed way to create meaning. The result is a meaningful cohesiveness of the colocates in semantics and syntax. In fact, some linguists argue that the semantic element is all that matters; that syntactic collocation isn't really collocation at all but, rather, colligation; that if colligation is to be considered then the collocation becomes idiomatic and, therefore, must be less flexible... fixed... even holophrastic.

The meaning that emerges from linguistic collocation (the semantic value of having combined the colocates) is clearly more relevant than the proximity of the colocates (their syntactic value). Simply, linquistic collocates join in fixed-but-flexible ways to produce new meaning. Collocation produces something greater than the sum of its parts.

Co-located servers don't do that. In fact, in that sense, the word "co-location" (or "colocation," if you will) is almost an anti- term used to describe what the servers aren't as much as what they are. In a true co-location, the servers aren't buddies. They aren't joined or combined to produce more processing power. In fact, implicit in the meaning is that the co-located servers usually aren't even owned by the same people. They're strangers to one another. They all just happen to be there because they wish to partake of the same data pipeline to communicate with others outside of the physical location which they all share. At best, they are co-proximate to one another (if that's even a word); co-sharers of the same physical location, and not one thing more.

I would argue, therefore, that the relevant root, here, is not the word collocation's Latin "collatio" (which has a decidedly interdependent connotation) but, rather, the Latin roots of the word "locate," which are "locatus," "locare" and "locus" -- all referring to placement only, and independence beyond that.

In addition, we are prefixing the preferred word "location" with "co-" -- a Middle English variant of the Old Latin prefix "com-", meaning "together" or jointly.

Perhaps our industry chose the wrong term "co-locate" (or "colocate," if you prefer). Perhaps we should have chosen the aforementioned and somewhat less elegant but perhaps more accurate "co-proximate," because, really, that's all we're trying to say when we talk about co-locating a server somewhere. We do not intend for said server to become part of anything larger. We simply intend for it to sit there with other servers like itself, sharing the same air and data pipe but nothing else. There is no emergent new meaning that comes from that co-proximity. They're just there... together... in one place.

Co-located.

But, alas, we chose the term "co-location" -- no doubt because it was used as a verb first, as in "I will locate my server in that data center with all those other people's servers." Once one's server is located, then one has to have a way to describe having located it co-proximate to all those other servers. So, bingo, "co-locate" becomes a word and both a verb (as used above), and an adjective, as in "I co-located my server there." Then, later, when one refers to one's server's "co-location," voila, it's a noun.

Next thing you know, we've made-up a whole new word. It only seems like an old word (collocation), but it isn't really. Or so I would argue. "Co-location" and "colocation" are actually new words, applicable and peculiar to our industry. I posit that their seeming similarity to the word "collocation" is irrelevant -- a homonym, at best.

Now if we could just get Merriam-Webster to buy-in.

Whether or not the darned hyphen belongs in the word is another matter altogether. If we look long and hard at the rules for hyphenating the prefix "co-," we see that the hyphen should probably only be used if the letter following it is a vowel. In the word "co-locate," the letter "l" is certainly not a vowel -- or even an ambiguous consonant... like "y," for example. As I think about it, I'm probably wrong for liking the spelling "co-location" over "colocation."

So, I guess if one buys-in to all I've written above, then the spelling "colocation" would appear to be closest to correct after all.

Hmm. Had I actually bothered to work through this process before today I probably would have settled on "colocation" instead of "co-location" a long time ago. I guess from now on I'm going to use "colocation." And everyone else should do that same.

Or so I would argue.

dektong wrote:
I myself use "colocation" not because it's the correct/accepted one but because it has one less character.
Maybe dektong was onto something bigger than he realized all along.

Originally posted by ToastyX


So should we make "a lot" one word because so many people misspell it that way?

What about "there," "their," and "they're?" Should we make them synonyms because so many people can't get them straight? Should we do the same for "your," and "you're?"

Should we make "millenium" an accepted variation of "millennium" because nobody can freakin' spell it correctly?

I'm appalled. :mad:

I don't know why ... the purpose of language is to allow people to communicate. If changing a spelling to something easier to spell makes it easier to communicate then why not? I can't see there/their/they're becoming synonyms because they mean different things, it would be harder to work our what someone means if we only used one spelling for all three meanings.

Originally posted by padders
...the purpose of language is to allow people to communicate. If changing a spelling to something easier to spell makes it easier to communicate then why not?
I think we need to be careful about too much generalization. On its face your stance on this matter implied by your question seems reasonable. After all, why would anyone not want to be able to communicate more easily? But, sadly, the cost of doing so by means of spelling changes -- especially changes that accomplish little more than make it easier for those who frequently misspell a word to now suddenly be correct -- is often a precipitous and unwanted increase in imprecision. English speakers, I think, take for granted the minute subtleties and precision that they are able to convey if they avail themselves of all this language has to offer. One quickly begins to appreciate that capability when one tries to speak a different and inherently less-precise language.

Additionally, changing the spelling of a word just to make it easier for those who simply can't or won't work a little harder to make sure they spell it correctly may rob the word of clues as to its origin and, therefore, its meaning. We mere mortals cannot possibly remember the spelling and meaning of every word in the English language. And most of us don't carry dictionaries around with us. So we figure out the meaning of many words that we read or hear for the first time by trying to recognize familiar roots and other clues based on our knowledge of other words with similar roots and/or spellings. If we start messing with that just to make it easier for those who think "close" is good enough, we dumb-down the language and denude it of its rich character.

That having been said, there are many words in our language that are either spelled the way they are, or that even exist at all, because of popular pressure.

An example of a word that is spelled (incorrectly, in my opinion) the way it is today largely to appease the masses is the word "encyclopedia" -- but at the expense of a tiny clue as to its origin that might help someone unfamiliar with it determine its meaning. The original (and, in my opinion, the correct) spelling of encyclopedia is the way the Encyclopaedia Britannica spells it -- with "ae" instead of just "e" in the middle. It's a small thing, I realize, but without the "ae" one must technically already know what the word "cyclopedia" (also a misspelling, in my opinion) means in order to intuit the meaning of "encyclopedia." But with the "ae" where it belongs, one may reason through the meaning of both "cyclopaedia" and "enclyclopaedia" if one is familiar with the Greek root "paedi" and its origin and meaning. And persons who know and love this language do tend to know their Latin and Greek roots... at least a little. And actually, truth be known, one could argue that even "encyclopaedia" is not right. If you go back far enough you find that it was once called an "encyclopaedy." But enough minutia about that word.

An example of a word that would not even exist today were it not for popular pressure is the word "normalcy." Not that many years ago "normalcy" was frowned upon heartily and was considered grossly incorrect -- akin to words like "ain't" and "drownd," etc. The correct word then (and still, in my opinion) was "normality."

Then along comes 1920 Republican Presidential Candidate, and then US Senator, Warren G. Harding. By 1920 there was growing debate about which of the previous generation's political agendas was preferable: The nationalistic activistm of Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, or the global idealism of Woodrow Wilson's. Harding spoke -- ne, preached -- on the matter extensively... and, one could argue, exhaustively, as well.

By election night on November 2, 1920 (in which Harding won, incidentally) the means by which Americans heard the speeches of their presidential candidates was not radio or television. Using radio for that purpose was not possible in any practical way until the 1924 campaign. And television hadn't been invented yet. Up to that point, the most common means by which voters heard candidates' speeches was phonograph albums... though the 1920 campaign would be the last which relied upon them. By the 1924 campaign, live radio broadcasts of candidates' speeches were all the rage, and newly-elected President Calvin Coolidge's inaugural address on March 4, 1925 was the first ever broadcast on live radio. But I digress.

During his campaign in 1920, Harding recorded several volumes of speeches on phonograph albums. One of them, recorded in Boston on May 14 of that year, contained his incorrect use of the word "normalcy" when he should have said "normality." The mistake occurred in the very first sentence of the second paragraph of that speech, to wit:

America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality but sustainment in triumphant nationality. It's one thing to battle successfully against the world's domination by a military autocracy because the infinite God never intended such a program; but it's quite another thing to revise human nature and suspend the fundamental laws of life and all of life's requirements.

The album containing that speech -- and the error -- was released to the public and eventually became the most famous recording of it. Some Americans cringed, of course. No doubt ToastyX and I certainly would have. But many others just assumed it was the correct word... or at least that it was just another word that meant the same thing as "normality."

Despite a generation or two of English teachers pointing-out the error and blaming its popularization on Harding, not too many years ago Webster's dictionary finally got tired of telling everyone it was wrong and today it appears there as if it had always been correct. Personally, I hate the word and refuse to use it to this day. But it's now legitimate, and only to appease the masses.

So, padders, your stance on the matter -- howsoever misguided I might consider it to be -- is not without precedent.

As for words (or, more accurately, phrases) like "a lot," I could not disagree more when one says that we should be allowed to misspell it as "alot" just because it's commonplace or, worse, "easier." From Washington State University professor Paul Brian's excellent "Common Errors in English" web site (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/) regarding the phrase "a lot" and its incorrect spelling "alot"...

Perhaps this common spelling error began because there does exist in English a word spelled "allot" which is a verb meaning to apportion or grant. The correct form, with "a" and "lot" separated by a space is perhaps not often encountered in print because formal writers usually use other expressions such as "a great deal," "often," etc. If you can't remember the rule, just remind yourself that just as you wouldn't write "alittle" you shouldn't write "alot."

Words to live by.

And we are so far off topic at this point that I wonder if this thread should be closed. Just a thought.

Why would colocation be spelled collocation? It's a compound word made up of "co" and "location". It doesn't seem 'collocation' would make any sense.:confused:

Hi Gregg,

I just want to thank you for your time writing all this. Although I have not finished reading everything yet, I still have to thank you for the great resource I have at my hand at the expense of your time! Really appreciate what you are doing.

Maybe dektong was onto something bigger than he realized all along.

yes, I must admit so ... I just dislike any word with two consonants one next to the other :)

OK, back to reading your posts again! Superb!

regards,
Dave@FluidHosting.com

Originally posted by mas3000
Why would colocation be spelled collocation? It's a compound word made up of "co" and "location". It doesn't seem 'collocation' would make any sense.:confused:

Err ... make sure you have read the posts made by Gregg ... This was discussed in these great posts (I believe last post on page one particularly).

Originally posted by DesElms


So, padders, your stance on the matter -- howsoever misguided I might consider it to be -- is not without precedent.



Well that would be my point. Sure, those of us that have done latin (me included) might well enjoy discovering the history of words or trying to work out what an unknown word means from its component parts but 99% of people are not going to be a) interested or b) know any Latin. I see language about communication, fine if people want to have academic discussions about its meanings let them but to stop the progress towards something that is easier to use based on academic purity is a non argument in my book.

Originally posted by padders
Well that would be my point. Sure, those of us that have done latin (me included) might well enjoy discovering the history of words or trying to work out what an unknown word means from its component parts
You make it sound like the issue is some sort of word puzzle that purists like to play just for enjoyment or to pass the time. It seems you've missed the point completely. This isn't about the lifelong pursuit of fun with language (though I'm sure there are some out there who love it that much). It's about standardization, so that anyone and everyone can figure things out in a pinch when they most need to.

As a person in the computer industry you, of all people, should understand the importance of standardization. Just imagine what your life would be like if every computer, every copy of Linux, every copy of Apache were ever-so-slightly different; if commands spelled one way in one copy had to be spelled slightly differently or using a different syntax in another. And imagine if there were no standardized reference that explained any of it. Because you care about computers, I dare say standardization in that area matters to you, doesn't it?

Originally posted by padders
but 99% of people are not going to be a) interested or b) know any Latin.
Sadly, your "b)" item is rapidly becoming more true with each passing year. Latin isn't even available in many school systems now -- most, I dare say. It's been a dead language, of course, for many, many years. But not knowing a fair amount of it can, nevertheless, be a downright handicap if one is in such professions as law or medicine. And knowing at least a little of it can be helpful to one's understanding of this language... and others.

But you are so wrong about your "a)" item that I don't even know where to begin. Ninety nine percent aren't interested? I think not. If that were true, there wouldn't be a single English major at any university in this country. In fact, were that true, a fair number of U.S. universities wouldn't even exist. And there would be no need for grade school, middle school and high school to take 12 years. Without English classes, we could easily knock it out in six or eight, couldn't we?

I think what's more likely is that you and those you hang with simply aren't interested. And you are welcome to that viewpoint, of course. But please be careful about projecting it onto all but one percent of the rest of us.

Originally posted by padders
I see language about communication, fine if people want to have academic discussions about its meanings let them but to stop the progress towards something that is easier to use based on academic purity is a non argument in my book.
Spoken (or, more accurately, written) like someone who quite clearly didn't take his academics as seriously as he should have. If the way you constructed the above sentence is any indication of what you have in mind when you advance the notion of allowing people to change things however they wish so it will be "easier" to communicate, then I'll pass, thank you. There is nothing easy about getting through and clearly understanding your sentence (which should, incidentally, be a paragraph), above. Res ipsa loquitur.

You seem to be arguing that it's okay to go ahead and dumb down the language so that people less schooled in it can feel better about themselves. I suspect you'd reply "no, that isn't my argument," and then you'd reiterate your point that becoming tolerant of misspellings (and also, I presume, misusages) is "progress toward something that is easier." But doing it wrong is only "easier" for those who don't bother to learn it, just like anything else in this life.

Knowing how to spell reasonably, and having decent grammar, are not only telling indicators of the level of one's education, but they're also a cogent commentary on the degree to which a person simply gives a damn.

It's your prerogative not to give a damn -- a prerogative I've noted that you're exercising with vigor. But it's also the prerogative of those who read or hear you utter abominably constructed sentences like your last one, above, to sit in silent judgement of you and to allow the conclusions to which they come regarding you to influence how or even if they want to know you, work with you or allow you to work for them. As an employer, I already know the conclusion about you that I've drawn, and how it would influence my hiring decision were your job application in front of me.

If you think how well you speak and write doesn't affect your prospects in this life, think again.

Thank goodness yours is a minority viewpoint.




Padders... I just looked at your DeskPro web site and I note that the English on that page is excellent -- or at least extremely adequate. Nothing like the above. So you do recognize the importance of it when it really matters, don't you?

I got one word for you. " Ain't "

Is this damn word accepted or not ? What conjuntion of words could make up this word?

Originally posted by DesElms

You make it sound like the issue is some sort of word puzzle that purists like to play just for enjoyment or to pass the time. It seems you've missed the point completely. This isn't about the lifelong pursuit of fun with language (though I'm sure there are some out there who love it that much). It's about standardization, so that anyone and everyone can figure things out in a pinch when they most need to.



I agree with this completly. It is about standardization that is the whole point (although notice that I would spell that word differently, as I standardise but then that is the English spelling not the American version - ironic that you accept Americanisations of English?) and this is the point, standards are not fixed - which as someone in the computer industry you, of all people should understand. It is sensible to have standards but sometimes these are going to change and language dosen't jump in leaps like setting a standard in IT might, it evolves over time. I say let it.



But you are so wrong about your "a)" item that I don't even know where to begin. Ninety nine percent aren't interested? I think not. If that were true, there wouldn't be a single English major at any university in this country. In fact, were that true, a fair number of U.S. universities wouldn't even exist. And there would be no need for grade school, middle school and high school to take 12 years. Without English classes, we could easily knock it out in six or eight, couldn't we?



Your counter seems to suggest you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying we should have no formal structure of language and no agreed syntax, of course we should. What I am saying is that in some situations it can and will change and that eventually mispelled words should become the recognised method of spelling them. I think you are arguing against having no formal language structure which is a bit of a straw man argument.


I think what's more likely is that you and those you hang with simply aren't interested. And you are welcome to that viewpoint, of course. But please be careful about projecting it onto all but one percent of the rest of us.

Spoken (or, more accurately, written) like someone who quite clearly didn't take his academics as seriously as he should have. If the way you constructed the above sentence is any indication of what you have in mind when you advance the notion of allowing people to change things however they wish so it will be "easier" to communicate, then I'll pass, thank you. There is nothing easy about getting through and clearly understanding your sentence (which should, incidentally, be a paragraph), above. Res ipsa loquitur.



Well without getting too personal over a differing opinion I believe I took my education seriously enough. You are welcome to ask me about it privatly if you wish but given your assumed opinions of me you might be surprised. Sorry, not sure which sentance you are referring to.



You seem to be arguing that it's okay to go ahead and dumb down the language so that people less schooled in it can feel better about themselves. I suspect you'd reply "no, that isn't my argument," and then you'd reiterate your point that becoming tolerant of misspellings (and also, I presume, misusages) is "progress toward something that is easier." But doing it wrong is only "easier" for those who don't bother to learn it, just like anything else in this life.



To a degree yes. I find it hard to believe you think that our current language set up is somehow perfect and shouldn't be changed. Is that the case? Language has evolved for hundreds of years exactly by people making up words, changing spellings etc until they become generally accepted. Do you suddently want this process to stop?


Knowing how to spell reasonably, and having decent grammar, are not only telling indicators of the level of one's education, but they're also a cogent commentary on the degree to which a person simply gives a damn.


A damn about what exactly? I can think of quite a few better indicators of a decent education. I know a lot of very bright people who can't spell very well. Many scientists will write with worse grammar than far younger english students but less educated? Seems to me you have picked what you think is important, you can have your opinion on it but I can't see how that is anything more than subjective waffle.


It's your prerogative not to give a damn -- a prerogative I've noted that you're exercising with vigor. But it's also the prerogative of those who read or hear you utter abominably constructed sentences like your last one, above, to sit in silent judgement of you and to allow the conclusions to which they come regarding you to influence how or even if they want to know you, work with you or allow you to work for them. As an employer, I already know the conclusion about you that I've drawn, and how it would influence my hiring decision were your job application in front of me.


To be honest I am not sure I would want to work for you, especially if how you form opinions on people is based on their grammer and spelling in forum posts. You also have quite an ability to take things quite personal, but either way my writings here are never going to be perfect. My spelling I freely admit is not brilliant and I am not going to spend time spell checking posts sent to a forum. Perhaps that makes me in your mind a bad person of some sort - sorry about that.


If you think how well you speak and write doesn't affect your prospects in this life, think again.


Who said that? or this another straw man argument?




Padders... I just looked at your DeskPro web site and I note that the English on that page is excellent -- or at least extremely adequate. Nothing like the above. So you do recognize the importance of it when it really matters, don't you?



Well, yes I never said it wastn't important. However it serves as a good example. I would still do business with a company that makes a spelling mistake - it perhaps looks bad but of all the things people can do wrong it would be quite near the bottom in my list of importance.

Nevermind, someone already posted the link http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/9/13150/93203

My face is red :)

Originally posted by padders
It is about standardization that is the whole point (although notice that I would spell that word differently, as I standardise but then that is the English spelling not the American version - ironic that you accept Americanisations of English?)
That's "Americanization" to you, Brit! ;)

Ohgod, now the discussion's branching out into the subject of dialect. Let's not go there, too, or we'll never get outta' here.

Originally posted by padders
and this is the point, standards are not fixed
That statement borders on oxymoron.

Originally posted by padders
which as someone in the computer industry you, of all people should understand.
What I understand is that, according to the dictionary I happen to have at arm's reach at this moment, the number 1 definition for "standard" when used as a noun is "A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated." And the number 1 definition for "standard" when used as an adjective is "Conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind," and the number 3 adjective definition is "Established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence," and the number 4 adjective definition is "(linguistics) conforming to the established language usage of educated native speakers." And, tellingly, the number 5 noun definition is "An upright pole (especially one used as a support)."

All things considered, standards sound fairly fixed to me.

Originally posted by padders
It is sensible to have standards but sometimes these are going to change and language dosen't jump in leaps like setting a standard in IT might, it evolves over time. I say let it.
I'm glad we agree about the sensibleness of having standards. Whew! And, indeed, in practice, standards change --- and usually quite slowly, especially when it comes to language and not especially when it comes to IT. But I'm not sure we should ever just "let it" -- at least not without a fight. And I'm thinking that maybe that's more at the root of our disagreement, here.

Though a standard, in order to even be a standard, should, ideally, be like the aforementioned upright pole, in practice it is true that the constantly pounding waters of time tend to wear down standards -- at first (and usually) only changing their shapes a bit, but eventually (sometimes) wearing them away completely. But those of us who rely on them are usually loathe to change them just on principle... and rightly so. To make any sense of anything we've got to have standards that can be relied upon not to move or change or, perhaps more accurately, to change so slowly that the still feel pretty solid while it's happening. If our "standards" become moving targets then what's the point? Because we have deemed them a standards, we should strongly resist the urge to change them -- to avoid chaos, if nothing else.

Have you ever followed the process of a major dictionary publisher adding a new word, spelling or definition? It's positively excruciating! It can take years... hours and hours and hours of meetings, and scholarly arguments between learned etymologists and linguists and historians and godknows who else. And those publishers and others in the language business hold that process in extremely high regard. They revel in the intransigence. Because to be quick to change linguistic standards diminishes both A) the function of the standard in helping to maintain linguistic precision, accuracy and, most importantly, understanding, as well as, B) the role of the dictionary publisher as a reliable communicator of the standard.

Language evolves slowly over time for good reason. I say resist it.


Originally posted by padders
Your counter
"Your counter?" Ah ha! A debater! I knew there was some reason I like you. Or if you weren't ever on a debate team, you're at least using the vernacular.

Originally posted by padders
seems to suggest you misunderstand what I am saying.
And a diplomat, too. Bravo.

Originally posted by padders
I am not saying we should have no formal structure of language and no agreed syntax, of course we should. What I am saying is that in some situations it can and will change and that eventually mispelled words should become the recognised method of spelling them.
See above.

Originally posted by padders
I think you are arguing against having no formal language structure which is a bit of a straw man argument.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A formal language structure is precisely what I'm advocating. What I'm not proposing is that wonton change to "wrong" ways of doing thing just to make it easier for those who didn't bother to learn the "right" ways be an integral part of it. I agree that language should evolve. In fact I believe that a paraphrase of that sentiment was my thesis statement in this thread. But "evolve" is the operative word, here. Dumbing-down the language to accommodate the uneducated masses is de-evolotion.

Now who's making the straw man argument (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/strawman.html), you debate team alum you.


Continued in next post...

Originally posted by padders
Well without getting too personal over a differing opinion I believe I took my education seriously enough. You are welcome to ask me about it privatly if you wish but given your assumed opinions of me you might be surprised.
I did not intend for my criticism of your sentence (which should have been a paragraph... among other things that were wrong with it) to be a personal attack. I already knew you wrote better than that... witness your web site. That sentence, I suspected (and correctly so, it seems), was the kind of writing you do when you drop your guard and relax and don't care as much about the formal rules. We all do that. I isolated it because it was convenient at that moment. And I chastised it to make the point that one can go too far with that sort of thing. When relaxed, informal writing begins to get in the way of clarity and understanding, then a boundary that shouldn't be crossed is. Or so it is my opinion.

Originally posted by padders
Sorry, not sure which sentance you are referring to.
What part of the phrase "the above sentence," when it appears in a paragraph immediately beneath the sentence in question, was unclear to you?

Originally posted by padders
To a degree yes. I find it hard to believe you think that our current language set up is somehow perfect and shouldn't be changed. Is that the case? Language has evolved for hundreds of years exactly by people making up words, changing spellings etc until they become generally accepted. Do you suddently want this process to stop?
Of course not, as any reasonable person reading my earlier writing in this thread may clearly see. And my reasons for resisting linquistic change are spelled out above.

And where's ToastyX on this one, by the way? This is, after all, where it all started. Chime-in, man... chime-in!

Originally posted by padders
A damn about what exactly?
Gimme a break. (Who did you say the straw man was, again?)

A damn about the quality of one's spoken and written word...

...as if you didn't know.

Originally posted by padders
I can think of quite a few better indicators of a decent education.
I can't... at least not if one defines "education" with the kind of broadness and diversity that should be its very hallmark.

Originally posted by padders
I know a lot of very bright people who can't spell very well. Many scientists will write with worse grammar than far younger english students but less educated? Seems to me you have picked what you think is important, you can have your opinion on it but I can't see how that is anything more than subjective waffle.
What planet have you been living on? Society -- British more than American, I dare say -- has long considered good spelling and grammar to be telltale indicators of the quality of (or at least the seriousness with which one took) one's education. This is so, in part, because those pursuits, unlike mathematics or science, are such basic components of every young student's core education, whether they later go to college or not. Every student is expected to know the basics. To have further refined it in observable ways turns out to be an excellent indicator of the degree to which one gives a damn... about the quality of one's spoken and written word.

Originally posted by padders
To be honest I am not sure I would want to work for you,
Stand in line. ;)

Originally posted by padders
especially if how you form opinions on people is based on their grammer and spelling in forum posts.
Now, here you make an excellent point, I confess. As I alluded to earlier, in places like this, one's writing -- and rightly so -- tends to become informal and relaxed. And that's fine. But as I also stated, there are, in my opinion, lines which should not be crossed no matter how relaxed one's writing becomes...

...at least not if clarity and ease of understanding are considerations.

Originally posted by padders
You also have quite an ability to take things quite personal, but either way my writings here are never going to be perfect. My spelling I freely admit is not brilliant and I am not going to spend time spell checking posts sent to a forum. Perhaps that makes me in your mind a bad person of some sort - sorry about that.
No, it does not make you a bad person and I'm terribly sorry that I offended you. It's obvious that I have, and I apologize. Relaxed, informal writing is commonplace in places like this. And that's as it should be. But given the subject matter at the time, and the fact that in that sentence you provided me with an excellent example of the very thing we were discussing, I used the commonest of debating tactics and turned it back on you. But I did so knowing that you were a better writer than that. I was commenting on the act, not the actor.

Originally posted by padders
Who said that? or this another straw man argument?
Explicitly, you mean? Certainly not you. But as any freshman level speech class teaches, we are equally accountable for our implications -- at least when they're inescapable.

Originally posted by padders
Well, yes I never said it wastn't important. However it serves as a good example. I would still do business with a company that makes a spelling mistake - it perhaps looks bad but of all the things people can do wrong it would be quite near the bottom in my list of importance.
And mine as well, believe it or not... at least in that context.

Originally posted by DesElms

That's "Americani[b]zation" to you, Brit! ;)

Ohgod, now the discussion's branching out into the subject of dialect. Let's not go there, too, or we'll never get outta' here.



Perhaps, but you accept these changes in the language. Should your country have resisted them? They clearly broke the agreed upon standards of the English langauge, and still do, yet you continue to use them. I would think that as you want complete standardisation, dialects would upset you more than a little bit.



That statement borders on oxymoron.



Perhaps, standards are designed to resist change, not be immune from revision.



What I understand is that, according to the dictionary I happen to have at arm's reach at this moment, the number 1 definition for "standard" when used as a noun is "A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated." And the number 1 definition for "standard" when used as an adjective is "Conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind," and the number 3 adjective definition is "Established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence," and the number 4 adjective definition is "(linguistics) conforming to the established language usage of educated native speakers." And, tellingly, the number 5 noun definition is "An upright pole (especially one used as a support)."

All things considered, standards sound fairly fixed to me.



See above, but this is partly the whole point and the disanalogy between IT and language. If we want to organise a new standard on Wireless LANs we get some people together who know about it and they pump out a spec. Sometimes this system breaks down (DVD recording being a prime example) and the standard takes a few years to be "picked". Language dosen't work that way. Whatever the dictionary says is a reflection on what people use, the people who make dictionaries are not, or I don't think should be (i agree there is a difference between those two statements) making value judgements about which words they "like" and which they do not like. It is all about common usage. This is a different system to IT where the "authority" makes the standards. Dictionaries just reflect on the standards. The dictonary people never make up a new word and then say, now people lets use this new word to mean x. It works the other way round.



Nothing could be further from the truth. A formal language structure is precisely what I'm advocating. What I'm not proposing is that wonton change to "wrong" ways of doing thing just to make it easier for those who didn't bother to learn the "right" ways be an integral part of it. I agree that language should evolve. In fact I believe that a paraphrase of that sentiment was my thesis statement in this thread. But "evolve" is the operative word, here. Dumbing-down the language to accommodate the uneducated masses is de-evolotion.



What I meant was you seemed to be suggesting I was arguing for no formal language syntax, which I was not. I was not suggesting that is what you are arguing for :)

And I don't think this is either a) dumming down language or b) appeasing uneducated masses. I don't even know what dumming down a language means to be honest, it seems to suggest that somehow one langauge is superior, intellectually speaking, than another. I don't understand that notion really; as I have said language is for communication - intellectual discussions abouts it origings, evolution, syntax etc might be interesting but are not relevant to the usefulness of a language. If "dumming down" makes it more useful, do it.

Reference to your 2nd post, firstly i was not so much offended (takes a little more than that :) ) but more surprised by references to assumptions about my education etc. in your post. It did seem rather personal but I can manage :)

There is not much to comment on apart from I guess what you take as a standard of education. I just know a lot of people who spell better than me, and a lot of people who spell worse than me. Ranking them in that order as an indicator of a level of intelligence would be a gross injustice to many of them.

I am glad you did explain what you meant by "giving a damn". In a way that is part of it. I don't personally give a huge damn about my spelling/grammar especially in this medium. I would care more in a published article, a company website etc. but in 95% of the writting/speaking I do it is really not my biggest concern. Getting it right on those important occasions is important and I imagine for my software manual I am having to write I will pay someone to proof read it because I know they could do a better job than I can. Generally, however, I have more important concerns, content being the major one :)

All I can say is...

...thankgod for editors.

Get back on topic, please? :)

Originally posted by Revelation
Get back on topic, please? :)
Agreed.