Apology: so much text for a one word usage gripe. Not too good, but I
do pay attention to the results, in hopes of somehow streamlining the
process down to... one sentence would be ideal, made up of well defined
and generally agreed on terms.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:14:21 +0200
Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Incorporate" may be uncommon in English...
True. And there's nothing illogical about the underlying idea as
applied to email, except that it's an un-English usage. An Asian
example, from a package of imported wasabi coated dried peas:
"A happy present from the earth."
Totally un-English pidgin, charming, grammatically correct, and its
meaning is fairly clear. But as English it's wrong, (and not merely
"different"), though I know of no specific or succinct terms to
describe exactly how and why it's wrong. Clearly there's more to
meaning than dictionaries, grammar and logic; there must be various
orderly connections between words we're currently unable to easily
articulate or distinguish, but native speakers "instinctively" seem to
know them. Like a bloodhound knows a strong scent, the dog can't talk
about it, only bark, but he sure knows that scent!
(If you're wondering, I'm from Massachusetts. America has nothing like
an Academie Francaise, but produces a wealth {or is it a plague?} of
amateur quibblers.)
> ...but not circumlocutious, it's just a different word for the same
> idea, and it's a single word.
It is one word, but alas "incorporate" is also a virtual pidgin
Anglo-latin sentence/simile, approximately:
incorporare
In (adverb = {into, upon, towards...})
Corpus, Latin for "body"
suffix '-are' = Anlgo '-ate' (past tense: to be or become so)
There's several grammatical permutations in there, which, as it were,
take the long road.
The Oxford English Dictionary cites, under "Incorporate" (verb) 2b:
To include as a part or parts of itself (especially of
literary material) 1824.
OED says "incorporate" was first borrowed from Latin circa 1480, but it
apparently wasn't used to describe actions involving _text_ until 1824.
In 21st Century English, "incorporate" is mostly a legal term, for the
other usages we'd now say "embody", "absorb", "include", "envelop",
"assimilate", or more commonly use basic English like "pull in", "rope
in", "draw in", "eat up", etc.
BTW, is 'incorpor-' applied to text more common in Spain?
> ...I don't think using different words in tooltips for
> describing actions which buttons do (which BTW is already labeled
> "Get" IIRC) is a bug.
This premise that tooltips are for verb synonyms lacks support --
generally tooltips exist to specify implied subjects, objects, and
qualifiers. That is, a button might have a verb, (transitive or
intransitive), like "get", and if the user wonders "get what?" the
tooltip explains "get new mail".
> I'd rather say it's better than repeating the
> same word: a user who waits for a tooltip in a button labeled "Get"
> deserves a better explanation/definition for "Get" than "Get ..."
> again.
Suppose users preferred not seeing the same verb twice:
Sylpheed button Tooltip
get incorporate new mail (different verb)
send send queued messages (same)
compose compose new messages (same)
Therefore two new bugs should be opened instead for 'send' and
'compose'? No no no no.
HTH, and if not, then for the record...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
