[Kooler] Typo (was: POP/IMAP mail clients)

[Lan Barnes]

Stewart Stremler wrote:
> 
> oakman at localhost.localdomain feverishly banged on the keyboard to produce:
> >
> > I have to attest to John's ability to communicate valuable information while
> > using e. e. cummings' system of capitalization. I also understand that "no
> > caps" is an accepted shorthand for internet usage.
> 
> s/internet/irc/
> 
> As with most things, "it depends".
> 
> >                                                     Hmmm. English usage
> > usually grows to reflect what is actually practiced, so who knows? It may not
> > be long until Strunk and White no longer require caps.
> 
> That'll be a sad day. The TV will have triumphed, and the illiterate idiots
> will win by default.
> 
> >                                                         And grammar
> > definitely follows usage eventually.
> 
> More or less.
> 
> Words change faster than grammar.
> 
> >                                       The current use of "they" and "their"
> > where "he" and "his" for the genderless general population used to be the
> > norm. That one still feels awkward to me, as it mismatches subject number and
> > verb number.  Everyone does things "their" own way.
> 
> Um, apparently "they/their" is actually English-standard, it just fell out
> of favor for awhile. I wish I could remember a reference for that assertion...
> 
> But that's not the problem.
> 
> Things like "affect/effect", "lose/loose", "your/you're", and "too/two/to/2"
> are under attack, and it's so widespread that it's starting to get some
> acceptance from the "common usage == correctness".
> 
> But there's a difference between evolution and devolution of a language.
> 
> (As you can no doubt, I'm not one who automatically follows a group.)
> 

Well, ok . . . mostly I'm agreeing with Stewart St. And I, too,
have been fighting a rear-guard action with the forces of the
vulgate.

I think I'd like to mention two pressures on language, neither
good or bad, but both evolutionary. The first is logic. Grammar
that is logically consistent has a better chance of being
understood and of being either retained or adopted. The second is
simplification. That which is easier to learn/say/understand will
eventually triumph.

I suspect what SS is railing at (and I _am_ speaking for me here,
too) is that third, always evil force -- laziness.

-- 
Lan Barnes                lan.barnes at tenngroup.com
TennGroup, Inc            858-273-6677