Обсуждение: superlative missuse
Dear List mates,
more optimal plan...
morreoptimal configuration...
we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse
there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
im not native english speaker but i think it still applies.
Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use.
Regards, Angel
--
Este correo no tiene dibujos. Las formas extrañas en la pantalla son letras.
->>-----------------------------------------------
Clist UAH a.k.a Angel
---------------------------------[www.uah.es]-<<--
...being the second biggest search engine in the world is good enough for us. Peter @ Pirate Bay.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <clist@uah.es> wrote: > we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse > > there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing. > > im not native english speaker but i think it still applies. > > Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use. As a native english speaker: You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically incorrect. This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list... -- - David T. Wilson david.t.wilson@gmail.com
clist@uah.es (Angel Alvarez) writes: > more optimal plan... > morreoptimal configuration... > > we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse > > there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing. > > im not native english speaker but i think it still applies. If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I'd say that the word "nearly" is missing. That is, it would be "strictly correct" if one instead said "more nearly optimal." I don't imagine people get too terribly confused by the lack of the word "nearly," so I nearly don't care :-). -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org'; http://linuxfinances.info/info/languages.html "Bureaucracies interpret communication as damage and route around it" -- Jamie Zawinski
Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> clist@uah.es (Angel Alvarez) writes:
>> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
> If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I'd say that the word "nearly" is
> missing.
> That is, it would be "strictly correct" if one instead said "more
> nearly optimal."
This sort of construction is longstanding practice in English anyway.
The most famous example I can think of offhand is in the US
Constitution: "... in order to form a more perfect union ..."
regards, tom lane
El Miércoles, 13 de Mayo de 2009 Tom Lane escribió:
> Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes:
> > clist@uah.es (Angel Alvarez) writes:
> >> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
>
> > If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I'd say that the word "nearly" is
> > missing.
>
> > That is, it would be "strictly correct" if one instead said "more
> > nearly optimal."
>
> This sort of construction is longstanding practice in English anyway.
> The most famous example I can think of offhand is in the US
> Constitution: "... in order to form a more perfect union ..."
Wooa!!
So "Tom lane for President" still applies!! :-)
Thanks all of you.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
No imprima este correo si no es necesario. El medio ambiente está en nuestras manos.
->>--------------------------------------------------
Angel J. Alvarez Miguel, Sección de Sistemas
Area de Explotación, Servicios Informáticos
Edificio Torre de Control, Campus Externo UAH
Alcalá de Henares 28806, Madrid ** ESPAÑA **
RedIRIS Jabber: angel.uah.es@rediris.es
------------------------------------[www.uah.es]-<<--
Tú lo compras, yo lo copio. Todo legal.
--
Agua para todo? No, Agua para Todos.
->>-----------------------------------------------
Clist UAH a.k.a Angel
---------------------------------[www.uah.es]-<<--
No le daría Cocacola Zero, ni a mi peor enemigo. Para eso está el gas Mostaza que es mas piadoso.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote: > I disagree -- it's a glaring error. "More optimized" or "better optimized" > are perfectly good, and correct, phrases. Why not use them? Every time I > read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who is showing his/her > ignorance of the basics of English grammar. If I wrote, "It's more best," > would you find that acceptable? Oh, I agree it's an error- and it's one I personally avoid. But unfortunately, it's remarkably common and has been for some time- as Tom pointed out with the quote from the US Constitution. On the other hand, "more best" is more clearly a mistake because of the presence of "better" as an alternative that is both correct and commonly used. "More optimized" is infrequent enough to slip by a little more easily. > Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one > rebuttal. As is, of course, your certain right. I think that's enough on the list, though I'd be happy to continue off-list if there's any interest. :) -- - David T. Wilson david.t.wilson@gmail.com
David Wilson wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <clist@uah.es> wrote: > >> we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse >> >> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing. >> >> im not native english speaker but i think it still applies. >> >> Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use. > > As a native english speaker: > > You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a > well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is > appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically > incorrect. I disagree -- it's a glaring error. "More optimized" or "better optimized" are perfectly good, and correct, phrases. Whynot use them? Every time I read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who is showing his/her ignorance of thebasics of English grammar. If I wrote, "It's more best," would you find that acceptable? > This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list... Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one rebuttal. Craig