Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary

In message <e8h9t2$fbl$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes


Richard Herring wrote:

Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes


I am surprised to see that my use of the term "Chinese
ideographs" has generated a lot of follow-up stuffs and
even a harsh critique on a well-known dictionary. Let
me point out that, no matter what opinions one may have,
from standpoint of linguistic theory or what not, about
that term, that term is simply currently in "common use"
and that fact alone, I believe, legitimates my use of it
in previous posts of this thread.
So it's a _common_ error.
Let's see.
You make a posting in a technical forum. People whose knowledge of the subject is considerably greater than yours (and I'm not referring myself here) point out that you've made a common error. You have a choice: (a) gracefully accept the correction and continue with the substantive discussion, or (b) post a series of irrelevant arguments attempting to justify an untenable position.
What kind of person chooses (b)?
One might guess from your name that you know written Chinese. If so, surely you must be aware of how the characters that you write are composed. If not, why are you arguing with people who do?

I don't understand the "implication" of your term "technical
forum" above in the present context. Do you imply

(1) Since this is a forum on a special scientific topic,
one should use, where possible, special scientific
vocabularies pertinent to the objects being discussed,
i.e. substituting (avoiding) the vocabulary used by
common people in everyday life. There exist (readily
available) special dictionaries covering the objects
I wanted to talk about in previous posts.

or

(2) The particular English dictionary I cited is not good
enough in quality, hence it gives a wrong/misleading
explanation for the term I employed,

or

(3) "ideograph" is not a "technically acceptable" term for
use to refer to the "Chinese characters", especicially
for use in a technical/scientific paper or the like?

I'll wait for your comments to the above before attempting
to further argue with you. Thanks.

None of the above. (why the "or"s? do they have to be alternatives?)

What I _imply_ by "technical forum" is that there are people in it who know far more about this subject than you do.

I'd agree with (2) and (3).

As for (1), "don't misuse technical terms" would be a more accurate statement of my position than anything you wrote above. And you're more likely to find these terms adequately defined in textbooks than any kind of dictionary.

--
Richard Herring
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
    ... Richard Herring wrote: ... available) special dictionaries covering the objects ... I wanted to talk about in previous posts. ... What I _imply_ by "technical forum" is that there are people in it who know far more about this subject than you do. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • REPOST: Office X 10.1.5 No Spelling Functionality
    ... I have followed all advice in previous posts. ... Spelling identified all my problems. ... Problems with Spell in Word persist, but who knows what ASpell did to my ... "English " for all the other dictionaries. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • Re: Word count of minimum vocabulary
    ... So it's a _common_ error. ... You make a posting in a technical forum. ... available) special dictionaries covering the objects ... I wanted to talk about in previous posts. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Okay so its a test
    ... more dictionaries" opens Firefox and takes you to the dictionary selection page. ... When you select UK English dictionary, it downloads and installs the extension into _Firefox_. ... Not a whole lot of use to Thunderbird, why can't they share the same dictionary anyway? ... Also, while I'm on this OT thread, anyone know why my posts aren't wrapping at 72 chars when I view them in Thunderbird? ...
    (uk.games.video.misc)
Loading