[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Replace trivial pcase occurrences in the Emacs sources

From: Garreau\, Alexandre
Subject: Re: Replace trivial pcase occurrences in the Emacs sources
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 02:31:26 +0100
User-agent: Gnus (5.13), GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.22.11) of 2017-09-15, modified by Debian

On 2018-10-31 at 21:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> From: Clément Pit-Claudel <address@hidden>
>> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:21:05 -0400
>> But something can also be called "destructuring" if it's used *for*
>> destructuring: a "swimming pool" is not a pool that swims, it's a
>> pool that's used for swimming.  I think of "destructuring" in
>> "destructuring pattern" as a gerund, not a present participle:<we
>> have "shopping lists" and "shaving cream", so why not "destructuring
>> patterns"? :)
> They are a kind of jargon.  Try to explain that to a Martian.  Or even
> to a non-native English speakers.

On 2018-10-31 at 15:31, Clément Pit-Claudel wrote:
> You're talking to one :)

I’d say the non english-alphabet letter in the name was an hint ;)

Jargon are no harm I’d say, from the moment it is logically as well as
straightforwardly formed from other jargon words which are known, and
whose relation is imaginable from further explanation (especially

Me too btw (perhaps from same place):

> I speak a couple of languages other than English, and none of them has
> "swimming pools" and "shopping lists", verbatim.

Esperanto has (“naĝejo” is litteraly “swimming place”: usually
“<verb>ejo” is “place where you <verb>”, very simple to explain to a
Martian (and simple generalization of the afterwards-described
stacking-language feature (afaik it takes it from Russian and other
slavic languages))).  I always interpreted english adjectives not to
mean “being part of” (or even also “being used for”) but “being related
to”: that’s also one key difference between english or esperanto to ido
or french (or italian), and I easily understood that at first, while
being native of both the two later.

For instance, first time I saw it (the stacking-language feature of
esperanto) described (it was formally enough “to be understood by a
Martian” in intent, I believe), it was about “vaporŝipo” (steamship,
notice it’s a direct mapping of meaning with english btw): “it is not a
‘ŝipo’ [ship] made of ‘vaporo’ [steam], it is a ‘ship[…]’ *using*
[steam]”, afair, from original Fundamento.

In french it’s more precise, like you say “Bateau à vapeur” (ship with
(“à” [0] is actually more specific and refer to usage) steam), in
italian (“nave a vapore” (same), “vaporetto” (little steam, really quite
unrelated), “piroscafo” (made from greek, fire+dive, completely
unrelated): these are good languages if you like useless exceptions and
dislike useful generalizations.

It was also a key difference of “Ido” fork of esperanto: instead of
simply stacking related radicals, you use lots of collections of rich
preposition that each indicate how in fact they are related: one for
transformation, one for composition, one for addition, one for state,
one for action [1]…  in the end Ido was almost only used by the
linguists who invented it, unlike esperanto which, unlike what was
claimed by these last, is still used and wasn’t block by some fantasmed
“primordial confusion in front of its exagerated generality”.

> Anyway, I think this argument is futile.  I'm trying to find a better
> terminology that doesn't need explaining; I don't think anyone should
> have a problem with a clearer terminology.

What about a heavier terminology?  lighter (and simpler) terms should
always be welcome too I believe.

Notes and references:
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A0#Preposition_3
Translation [2]:

Composition in Ido obeys stricter rules than in esperanto, especially
names, adectives and verbs formations from a radical of a different
class.  The reversibility principle assume that for each composition
rule (affix addition), decomposition rule (affix remove) is valid.

Henceforth, while in esperanto an adjective (for instance /papera/,
formed on the radical /papero/) can mean an attribute (/papera
enciklopedio/: /paper-made encyclopedia/), and a relation (/papera
fabriko/: /paper-making factory/), ido will distinguish per construction
the attribute /papera/ (“paper” or “of paper” (not “paper-made”
exactely)) from the relation /paperala/ (“paper-making”).

Similarily, /krono/ mean in esperanto and ido “crown”; where esperanto
allow formation of “to crown” by simple /kroni/ (“the fact to crown” is
/kronado/), ido requires an affix so the composition is reversible:
/kronizar/ (“the fact to crown” is /kronizo/).

According Claude Piron, some modifications brought by Ido are in
practice impossible to use and ruin spontaneous expression: “Ido
displays, on linguistical level, other drawbacks which esperanto
suceeded to avoid, but I don’t have at hand documents which would allow
me to more go in detail.  For instance, if I remember correctly, where
esperanto only has the suffix “-igi*”, ido has several: “*-ifar*”,
“*-izar*”, “*-igar*”, which match subtleties which were meant to make
language clearer, but that, in practice, inhibit natural expression.”

[2] Sorry to embed this here, but I’m still trying to recover my
wikipedia account and understand wikicode (and translate it too >< since
it’s localized…) before to add this to wikipedia… anyway maybe it would
be removed anyway, if done incorrectly enough.

[30] http://claudepiron.free.fr/lettresouvertes/ido.htm

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]