Too much verbing?
-
Oxford disagrees: favourite verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com[^]. I don't really see much wrong with it. It is shorter, and self-evident in meaning. Brevity often coincides with clarity. (Although Oxford uses the English spelling - 'favourite,' vs the Americanized 'favorite'. It is Oxford, after all.)
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
David O'Neil wrote:
Brevity often coincides with clarity
But when it doesn't...
-
In this case they seem to verb adjectives too as the proper phrase would have been "favorite file". Not sure if English language should be "beautifuled" with these constructs. I know I'm picky but I love this language even if it's an adopted one. :)
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
"favorite file"
Which illustrates the ambiguity: Is your "favorite file" the one you would prefer over other files, or a file of your favorites (e.g. URLs, lovers or whatever)? In this case, you could of course "favorites file" for the second alternative, but even if you can, maybe you don't do that. I have seen lots of such cases where I had to guess from context what the meaning is. The less ambiguity, the better. (Except when the very purpose of the statement is to play with the language!)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
MarkTJohnson wrote:
You have a question not an ask
I've not heard it used in place of 'question' but rather a short version of asking a favor. "Hey, man, I've got a big ask of you. Would you mind < doing some favor >?"
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
- Thomas SowellA day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)That should be a request, not an ask. This IS the hill I will die on.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
English is not my mother tongue but "favorited" sounds like a complete abomination. However Microsoft seems to think otherwise. This is a screen capture from Windows Explorer. How would you vote: to favorite or not to favorite? PS A phrase like "After you marked some files as favourites, we'll show them here", wouldn't have been much longer and for sure would have been more grammatically sound.
Mircea
Some constructed languages, such as Esperanto, have far simpler grammars than most natural grammars. E.g. verbing a noun, or nouning a verb, is certainly not wierding the language - it is the way it is done. Always. Disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto (nor other spoken constructed languages), but people who have tried to make me study it, says that's roughly how Esperanto is. Correct me if I have a wrong understanding. As a programmer, I feel a certain attraction to highly regular, simple grammar languages. Maybe they are not as well suited for, say, poetry - but Esperanto people will say that it certainly is, both for poetry, love stories and everything else. Let's see it from a programmer's point of view: A programming language with a complex grammar and lots of irregularities does not make it more suitable for providing workable software solutions. Yesterday's New Old Thing blog, How to convert between different types of counted-string string types[^] lists 8 (eight) different counted string classes (excluding NUL terminated). It gives me shivers; I look the other way and use the C# string type instead ... (or even 1970 vintage Pascal strings :-)). "Richness" doesn't always correspond to "valuable". If you dislike verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs on principal, language independent grounds, then by implication you reject Esperanto. (Maybe you do for other reasons as well!). For English in particular, overusing it can be used for funny word play, such as the C&H "wierding" example mentioned by another poster. But as lots of fully established verb/noun pairs are related that way, I will never be able to draw a clear line: These verbings are fully acceptable, while those are condemnable, when they are created according to the same pattern.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Must have been created by the same people who have made terms like "Your Spend" and "The Ask". Both of these words are verbs but Marketing people have corrupted and bastardized them into nouns. I rail against them in meetings. You have a question not an ask, asking is what you do with a question.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
That should be a request, not an ask. This IS the hill I will die on.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
David O'Neil wrote:
Brevity often coincides with clarity
But when it doesn't...
Especially as a non-native English speaker, I will say that it often doesn't! I do not get used to it! I learned 50 years ago that in US newspaper headlines, "and" is written as "," (no matter how much empty space there is at the end of the line), but it still gives me chills. In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them. And then you come across those going to the other extreme, not only expanding the abbreviation in a parenthesis, but doing it on every single use of it throughout the article, and also expanding (at every use) abbreviations so familiar to everyone that we no longer think of it as an abbreviation - such as FM, DAB, TV, DVD, USD, UTC, Basic and Fortran. If you think brevity coincides with clarity, you should start programming in APL :-) That is not just a joke: Conciseness may work well in a tribal language (such as the APL programmer tribe), but you should be aware when you move outside the tribe, and know how to handle that. Sticking to your tribal language is rarely the best alternative. Ignoring well known terms in the non-tribal language is not a good alternative, either. Any professional should have a period as an instructor, teaching a non-tribal audience his profession, to discover what is easily understood and what is not. Too many professionals think the solution is to teach the tribal language to the non-tribal society; usually it is not. The solution is for the professional to learn to speak in a non-tribal language. That includes avoiding tribal abbreviations and tribalisms such as verbings and nouning. Yes, that is frequently an element of tribal language. An example: I had a motor that wouldn't work, and mentioned to a friend of mine that I suspected that the fuse was blown. His immediate response: "Ya ohmed it, didn't ya?"
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Isn't "verbing" itself a good example of exactly the same abomination?🙄
-
That should be a request, not an ask. This IS the hill I will die on.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
A request is the second time around. First you go out on a quest. If you fail, then you request (if resources allow). On the serious side: I love to play with language. When I was the dad of a teenager, she picked it up, and we were twisting words around, breaking words into pieces and putting the pieces together in new and surprising ways (like the one above), and using words and grammar rules in new ways. One example: Celery was often referred to as "shop" in our family. (A bakery is where you bake things, a sellery is where you sell things.) We had hundreds of such twists, but most of them are not translatable to English. The girl grew up to become very language conscious, both in terms of vocabulary and grammar. The language play stimulated her, and often, together we dug into the historical background, the etymology, of both terms and grammar. So I am certainly not negative to neither verbing nor nouning - as long as you are aware when you are using it humorously. It will make you realize that both are very common without being used in a humorous way. It will educate you in your language.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Especially as a non-native English speaker, I will say that it often doesn't! I do not get used to it! I learned 50 years ago that in US newspaper headlines, "and" is written as "," (no matter how much empty space there is at the end of the line), but it still gives me chills. In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them. And then you come across those going to the other extreme, not only expanding the abbreviation in a parenthesis, but doing it on every single use of it throughout the article, and also expanding (at every use) abbreviations so familiar to everyone that we no longer think of it as an abbreviation - such as FM, DAB, TV, DVD, USD, UTC, Basic and Fortran. If you think brevity coincides with clarity, you should start programming in APL :-) That is not just a joke: Conciseness may work well in a tribal language (such as the APL programmer tribe), but you should be aware when you move outside the tribe, and know how to handle that. Sticking to your tribal language is rarely the best alternative. Ignoring well known terms in the non-tribal language is not a good alternative, either. Any professional should have a period as an instructor, teaching a non-tribal audience his profession, to discover what is easily understood and what is not. Too many professionals think the solution is to teach the tribal language to the non-tribal society; usually it is not. The solution is for the professional to learn to speak in a non-tribal language. That includes avoiding tribal abbreviations and tribalisms such as verbings and nouning. Yes, that is frequently an element of tribal language. An example: I had a motor that wouldn't work, and mentioned to a friend of mine that I suspected that the fuse was blown. His immediate response: "Ya ohmed it, didn't ya?"
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
What's a "DAB"?
-
A request is the second time around. First you go out on a quest. If you fail, then you request (if resources allow). On the serious side: I love to play with language. When I was the dad of a teenager, she picked it up, and we were twisting words around, breaking words into pieces and putting the pieces together in new and surprising ways (like the one above), and using words and grammar rules in new ways. One example: Celery was often referred to as "shop" in our family. (A bakery is where you bake things, a sellery is where you sell things.) We had hundreds of such twists, but most of them are not translatable to English. The girl grew up to become very language conscious, both in terms of vocabulary and grammar. The language play stimulated her, and often, together we dug into the historical background, the etymology, of both terms and grammar. So I am certainly not negative to neither verbing nor nouning - as long as you are aware when you are using it humorously. It will make you realize that both are very common without being used in a humorous way. It will educate you in your language.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
I do like the "shop" thing. When I was in college for my Computer Science degree, I had one professor who would always come into the room and draw a line on the chalkboard. He would then say, "Now, I can remark." My daughter once noted after something bad had happened several times after we had served chicken for dinner that we must have a "Poultrygeist" in house. When I agree with one of my kids I will text Potassium. Short for K. Which is short for OK. Which is short for okay.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
What's a "DAB"?
You speak like a true USAtian! I guess that you really are joking. In case you are not: Have you heard about HD Radio? That is the US "Certainly Invented Here" attempt to create a US alternative to the international digital radio standard adopted by Europe, Australia, a lot of Asian countries and a few African ones. If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up). In that context, DAB is as fundamental as AM and FM. Asking "What is DAB" is like if you had asked "What is GSM" at the time when four different "Certainly Invented Here" mobile phone standards where fighting to kill each other in the US. They did, and the NIH GSM system took over. US authorities tried to avoid the same to happen with the three (or was it four?) competing digital FM radio replacements. So before they had all killed each other, FCC declared HD Radio as the winner based on battle points. HD Radio did not have enough going for it to make it an overnight success, and from what I have been told (I haven't visited USA for quite a few years), HD Radio can be described as 'marginalized' in the US radio market of today. So maybe you are not much aware of HDR. Even though NIH, DAB was considered in the USA, although reluctantly. However, channels at the outer end of the DAB frequency spectrum was so close to frequencies used by US Armed Forces that there was a theoretical possibility that a badly tuned broadcast transmitter could cause interference with military communication. Of course it would have been possible to declare the DAB band to not go that high (in fact, some European countries do!), sacrificing a small fraction of the total capacity. More important: It was a good excuse for rejecting the international standard, replacing it with something Certainly Invented Here. From a technical point of view, HD Radio is somewhat closer to DRM, rather than DAB. DRM is the primary radio technology in India. If you haven't heard of DAB, I assume that DRM is even more unfamiliar. DRM shares a lot of technological elements with DAB (so making a combined DAB/DRM receiver is quite simple), but some lower layers differ: DAB multiplexes a great number (typically 12-20) of audio channels on a single transmitter, requiring a coordination of the sources or those channels. DRM transmits from a single audio channel up to four, so it is much better suited for an independent 'husband-and-wife'-type radio station. DRM c
-
David O'Neil wrote:
Brevity often coincides with clarity
But when it doesn't...
Concisely! :laugh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
You speak like a true USAtian! I guess that you really are joking. In case you are not: Have you heard about HD Radio? That is the US "Certainly Invented Here" attempt to create a US alternative to the international digital radio standard adopted by Europe, Australia, a lot of Asian countries and a few African ones. If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up). In that context, DAB is as fundamental as AM and FM. Asking "What is DAB" is like if you had asked "What is GSM" at the time when four different "Certainly Invented Here" mobile phone standards where fighting to kill each other in the US. They did, and the NIH GSM system took over. US authorities tried to avoid the same to happen with the three (or was it four?) competing digital FM radio replacements. So before they had all killed each other, FCC declared HD Radio as the winner based on battle points. HD Radio did not have enough going for it to make it an overnight success, and from what I have been told (I haven't visited USA for quite a few years), HD Radio can be described as 'marginalized' in the US radio market of today. So maybe you are not much aware of HDR. Even though NIH, DAB was considered in the USA, although reluctantly. However, channels at the outer end of the DAB frequency spectrum was so close to frequencies used by US Armed Forces that there was a theoretical possibility that a badly tuned broadcast transmitter could cause interference with military communication. Of course it would have been possible to declare the DAB band to not go that high (in fact, some European countries do!), sacrificing a small fraction of the total capacity. More important: It was a good excuse for rejecting the international standard, replacing it with something Certainly Invented Here. From a technical point of view, HD Radio is somewhat closer to DRM, rather than DAB. DRM is the primary radio technology in India. If you haven't heard of DAB, I assume that DRM is even more unfamiliar. DRM shares a lot of technological elements with DAB (so making a combined DAB/DRM receiver is quite simple), but some lower layers differ: DAB multiplexes a great number (typically 12-20) of audio channels on a single transmitter, requiring a coordination of the sources or those channels. DRM transmits from a single audio channel up to four, so it is much better suited for an independent 'husband-and-wife'-type radio station. DRM c
trønderen wrote:
I do not get used to it! ... In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them.
And then you violate your own desire:
trønderen wrote:
If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up).
I, in the USA, have never heard 'DAB' before, and I've heard a lot of acronyms. I'm guessing it means 'Digital Audio Broadcast.' And then you violate your desire a couple more times: 'DRM,' 'NIH' - no clue what those are, although DRM is almost always Digital Rights Management in our news, but obviously not per your usage. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler” - the best expansion of 'brevity's meaning, as I see it.
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Cannot argue with Oxford so, case closed. Maybe someone should send a memo to Merriam-Wesbster that is my go to reference.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
Maybe someone should send a memo to Merriam-Wesbster that is my go to reference.
Agreed - mine too.
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
I do like the "shop" thing. When I was in college for my Computer Science degree, I had one professor who would always come into the room and draw a line on the chalkboard. He would then say, "Now, I can remark." My daughter once noted after something bad had happened several times after we had served chicken for dinner that we must have a "Poultrygeist" in house. When I agree with one of my kids I will text Potassium. Short for K. Which is short for OK. Which is short for okay.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
trønderen wrote:
I do not get used to it! ... In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them.
And then you violate your own desire:
trønderen wrote:
If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up).
I, in the USA, have never heard 'DAB' before, and I've heard a lot of acronyms. I'm guessing it means 'Digital Audio Broadcast.' And then you violate your desire a couple more times: 'DRM,' 'NIH' - no clue what those are, although DRM is almost always Digital Rights Management in our news, but obviously not per your usage. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler” - the best expansion of 'brevity's meaning, as I see it.
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
David O'Neil wrote:
I, in the USA, have never heard 'DAB' before
Have you heard of FM? AM? HDR? If you never had any interest at all in radio, I guess all of those are unfamiliar - as well as DAB. I guess that it is related to
'NIH' - no clue what those are
From inside the US of A, you may not know how the rest of the world view USA self confidence. That any technology "Not Invented Here" has no value, is of no interest to the US of A. I honestly thought that USAtians generally knew the term, and I deliberately used "Certainly Invented Here" as somewhat ironic reminder of the NIH attitude, expecting "Not Invented Here" to be well known. When you prove me wrong, that sort of makes my point even stronger :-) I did use DAB and DRM without de-abbreviation, as I used FM and AM without de-abbreviation. That fits into my line of argument: These are everyday, general concepts. If I mention an LP (if you are old enough to remember those :-)), I need not expand it to "Long Play" to make you ponder "How long?", or the 10" EP discs, "Extended Play", making you ponder in which way they are "extended", or how much. I guess that it Europe, maybe half the population couldn't provide the de-abbreviation of DAB without hesitation, just like only a small fraction in the Western world knows the de-abbreviation of DVD. They are technology names. If you never heard names of the technology, you never heard of the technology. After reading my post, you were certainly not in doubt that DAB and DRM are names of different digital broadcasting technologies. Sure, DRM is also the name of other technologies. If the context doesn't give you a clue, you may look it up in Wikipedia: Currently it lists no less than 23 different de-abbreviations of DRM. My previous post didn't give any hints towards 22 of them, but did suggest a digital radio broadcasting standard named DRM, didn't it? If I had referred to a radio standard named "Charles", would it have made a big difference for your understanding? Would it have been easier or more difficult to accept it as a technology name? OK, I will admit it openly: I deliberately used "DAB" and "DRM" without de-abbreviation to tease the "Not Invented Here" readers. In Europe, Australia and many countries in Asia and Africa, DAB is as well known today as FM is. ("AM" is fading; few Norwegian youth would know what an AM radio is, and might ask me to de-abbreviate and exp
-
Some constructed languages, such as Esperanto, have far simpler grammars than most natural grammars. E.g. verbing a noun, or nouning a verb, is certainly not wierding the language - it is the way it is done. Always. Disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto (nor other spoken constructed languages), but people who have tried to make me study it, says that's roughly how Esperanto is. Correct me if I have a wrong understanding. As a programmer, I feel a certain attraction to highly regular, simple grammar languages. Maybe they are not as well suited for, say, poetry - but Esperanto people will say that it certainly is, both for poetry, love stories and everything else. Let's see it from a programmer's point of view: A programming language with a complex grammar and lots of irregularities does not make it more suitable for providing workable software solutions. Yesterday's New Old Thing blog, How to convert between different types of counted-string string types[^] lists 8 (eight) different counted string classes (excluding NUL terminated). It gives me shivers; I look the other way and use the C# string type instead ... (or even 1970 vintage Pascal strings :-)). "Richness" doesn't always correspond to "valuable". If you dislike verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs on principal, language independent grounds, then by implication you reject Esperanto. (Maybe you do for other reasons as well!). For English in particular, overusing it can be used for funny word play, such as the C&H "wierding" example mentioned by another poster. But as lots of fully established verb/noun pairs are related that way, I will never be able to draw a clear line: These verbings are fully acceptable, while those are condemnable, when they are created according to the same pattern.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
I think this is the beginning of a long answer :) I see languages as vessels for human ideas and sentiments. For that purpose, they need a proper balance between stability and adaptability. If English would have evolved too rapidly we wouldn't be able to appreciate Shakespeare's poetry and playwrights while a frozen language would not be able to capture new concepts and ideas. Live languages do evolve and that is, in itself, a whole field of study in which I'm just a mere dilettante. It's interesting to compare the change from thou to you with the Spanish change from "tu" to "Usted". More recently, I find fascinating that in English, the language with a million words, people would find interest in creating new ones. Look at the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows and the strange words it has created. Anemoia is probably one of my favourites. To summarize, I'm not against creation or adaptation of new words, but in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness. There would have been many ways (my suggestion was just the first thing that popped to mind) to express the same idea without forcing a noun into a verb. However, as @David-ONeil has pointed out, the microsoftian who did it was not the first one and Oxford dictionary has recorded that use. As for programming languages, it's very difficult to compare them with human languages. They are so much in their infancy that it is like comparing animal vocalizations with human speech. Not only the number of "words" in a computer language is ridiculously small compared with the number of words in any natural language, but their expressive power is very, very limited. Don't get me wrong, computer languages are perfectly adequate tools for interacting with a computer but not much more.
Mircea
-
I think this is the beginning of a long answer :) I see languages as vessels for human ideas and sentiments. For that purpose, they need a proper balance between stability and adaptability. If English would have evolved too rapidly we wouldn't be able to appreciate Shakespeare's poetry and playwrights while a frozen language would not be able to capture new concepts and ideas. Live languages do evolve and that is, in itself, a whole field of study in which I'm just a mere dilettante. It's interesting to compare the change from thou to you with the Spanish change from "tu" to "Usted". More recently, I find fascinating that in English, the language with a million words, people would find interest in creating new ones. Look at the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows and the strange words it has created. Anemoia is probably one of my favourites. To summarize, I'm not against creation or adaptation of new words, but in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness. There would have been many ways (my suggestion was just the first thing that popped to mind) to express the same idea without forcing a noun into a verb. However, as @David-ONeil has pointed out, the microsoftian who did it was not the first one and Oxford dictionary has recorded that use. As for programming languages, it's very difficult to compare them with human languages. They are so much in their infancy that it is like comparing animal vocalizations with human speech. Not only the number of "words" in a computer language is ridiculously small compared with the number of words in any natural language, but their expressive power is very, very limited. Don't get me wrong, computer languages are perfectly adequate tools for interacting with a computer but not much more.
Mircea
There is a lot of truth to your post. And the video at the Anemoia link is great! For us non-native English speakers:
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness
We have the additional problem of scientists (and others) not caring to look for the established Norwegian word for some phenomenon, even when there is a well recognized one, based on a hundred years or more of traditional use. They rather try to cast an English word into a Norwegian shape. If you confront them, ask them what is so much better with the English based word, the answer is usually that is is much more "exact", more "well defined". That is because they know the term only from some very limited, specific context, and think that is the only, and well defined, narrow meaning of the word. They do not know it as an everyday, general and often vaguely defined term, but believe (from their limited knowledge of English) that it has a very specific interpretation. Sometimes, the Norwegian term is much more specific, if they would only think of it! I know two major professions of that kind: Computer people, and doctors. I guess that I understand more Latin terms that the majority of patients, but even when I understand it, I frequently stop in my steps, asking the doctor: Does that mean ? I do the same with my coworkers, when there are 'ordinary people' around - I stop them: 'That is , isn't it?'. My coworkers usually nod, but in annoyed way: They don't like their professional talk to be interrupted that way.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
There is a lot of truth to your post. And the video at the Anemoia link is great! For us non-native English speakers:
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness
We have the additional problem of scientists (and others) not caring to look for the established Norwegian word for some phenomenon, even when there is a well recognized one, based on a hundred years or more of traditional use. They rather try to cast an English word into a Norwegian shape. If you confront them, ask them what is so much better with the English based word, the answer is usually that is is much more "exact", more "well defined". That is because they know the term only from some very limited, specific context, and think that is the only, and well defined, narrow meaning of the word. They do not know it as an everyday, general and often vaguely defined term, but believe (from their limited knowledge of English) that it has a very specific interpretation. Sometimes, the Norwegian term is much more specific, if they would only think of it! I know two major professions of that kind: Computer people, and doctors. I guess that I understand more Latin terms that the majority of patients, but even when I understand it, I frequently stop in my steps, asking the doctor: Does that mean ? I do the same with my coworkers, when there are 'ordinary people' around - I stop them: 'That is , isn't it?'. My coworkers usually nod, but in annoyed way: They don't like their professional talk to be interrupted that way.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
trønderen wrote:
not caring to look for the established Norwegian word for some phenomenon
Exactly same thing happening with Romanians. I admit I'm often guilty of the same crime but at least I have the excuse that I lived many years immersed in other languages. It annoys me when I see people that can barely master the English language yet they use English words when Romanian ones would do just fine. Maybe it's a sign we are moving toward a universal language that will be 80% English with other stuff sprinkled in. I'm sure in this language will be at least one Italian word: Ciao! :laugh:
Mircea
