Conference thebay::joyoflex

    An "in-word"? My use of "canonical" -- meaning "orthodox, accepted, or
    standard" or "of admitted authority, excellence, or authority" -- is
    listed in the OED as dating from 1553. Can a usage half a millennium
    old really be considered an "in-word" or "jargon"? 
    
    Also, if you re-read what I wrote, I said, "Canonical Anglo-Saxon
    F-word." I used this phrase as a euphemism for "fuck" (which *is* the
    canonical swear word). 
    
    A thousand pardons, Roy -- next time I'll just say "fuck" instead of
    pussy-footing around. 
    
    	Jon

    Re .1:
    
    >A thousand pardons, Roy -- next time I'll just say "fuck" instead of
    >pussy-footing around. 
     
    The world is full of subtle punsters. :-D
    
    Actually, "canonical" is probably overkill; "F-word" is usually
    sufficient.
    
    But then, the world is full of critics....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Thank you, Steve. One of the marvelous things about this conference
    is that dry humor is appreciated. :-)
    
    	Jon

    Please...I think you've missed my point.  I was not questioning
    the context of the word "canonical" nor its legitimacy.  And as I
    said before, I was not picking on Jon.  I am fully aware of its
    existence because, frankly, I have had recent occasion to look it
    up in my dictionary to determine whether or not it was being used correctly
    (it was not) in another context.  It seems that the word has suddenly
    cropped up and because it sounds like it might be an impressive word
    to use, others are using in their speach and writing; not for what
    it means, but in order to create an impression.
    
    As for the particular context cited "Canonical Anglo-Saxon F-Word",
    I find a certain irony in the statement.  Canonical at least has its 
    derivation, if not its primary interpretation, as referencing _church_
    law and authority.  I cannot believe that your "F-word" has the
    same heritage.
    
    My whole issue is with the use of _any_ such word which is picked
    up from past usage or one which is newly coined and then popularized
    to the point that certain people start to use it as a sign of
    membership in a select circle.
    
    I don't wish to belabor the point, nor do I believe that current
    news media are any sort of language authority, but if the word
    "canonical" appeared in your local newspaper, how many of its readers
    would have a reasonable idea of its meaning?  I doubt that many
    copy editors would even let it get in...they'd replace the word
    with a synonym that would be much more understandable to their
    readership.
    
    As I said in my original note, it's a personal pet peave.  Let's
    not get too upset by it.
    
    Roy
    

I've often felt the same about other words that seem to get increased
usage because they have become part of the "in" way to speak. Right now
I can't think of any good examples other than the word proactive (sp?).  I don't
know if this is because this word is part of DECspeak, but in the last
several years I have seen this word overused and abused.

-Dave

    One of the tendencies that people seem to have is to red pencil� other
    people's work. I could make disparaging psychological comments and call
    this a "need" or a "desire," but that wouldn't be fair. We all have it,
    we just should restrain it. 

    The soul of wit may be brevity, but its body is innovation. Peculiar
    usages, mixed metaphors, and ricochet formations are just a few of the
    tools of being witty. For example, the reason why the style guides tell
    you not to mix your metaphors is that they're witty. If you're trying
    to be serious, then being funny might detract from what you're saying.
    Personally, I try to avoid being serious, especially when I'm being
    earnest (like now), but that's part of my style. Not everyone likes it,
    but I'm not trying to please everyone. 

    When I used "canonical," I carefully chose that word. I did it
    precisely for the irony Roy saw in it. I chose it for the same reasons
    and with the same care that I chose "pussy-footing" in .1. In the
    immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son, a joke." 

    Another case in point is Andrew's "C'est la gare." When I read that, I
    knew that it was intentional. Okay, I take that back. I didn't *know*,
    I figured -- assumed. It was either intentional or a typo and either
    way it was witty. Another is Ian Smith a few notes back who is waiting
    with "baited keyboard." His delightfully amusing note certainly *is*
    bait for us to come up with other mottoes, but some wag is apt to point
    out that it knows the usual phrase is "bated." 

    If you assume that when someone says something out of the ordinary that
    they did because they didn't know any better, then you miss out on a
    lot of the enjoyment there is in the English language. English is the
    most expressive language since the Age of Pericles, and probably even
    before then (but that's arguable). There are many people in this world
    who have a fine command of the language and are quite witty. Others are
    unintentionally witty -- the stuff you find as column filler in the New
    Yorker -- but so what? Flowers are no less pretty in a meadow than a
    garden, and they often smell nicer. 

    	Jon

    � The descriptive noun phrase "red pencil" was intentionally verbed.

        re .6
    
    Your statement that "English is the most expressive language
    since the Age of Pericles" is particularly witty. 

    My own opinion is that English is more similar to itself than
    ANY OTHER language in the world. 
    
    	roger
    

    Re: .7
    
    >         ...English is more similar to itself than ANY OTHER language 
    >         in the world. 
 
    
    It would seem than ANY language is more similar to itself than to
    any other.  Would you like to rephrase your statement?

       If .7's, "...English is more similar to itself than ANY OTHER language
                in the world" is/was NOT a tongue_in_cheek line, will
                I have to recall all the laughs that I had as a result
                of reading it? ( ? :-) Where do laughs go ? How would
                I recall them? Does Ford Motor Co. have such problems?)
      
      jc 
     

    	Anyone who knows Roger well will recognise in this a spirited
    defence of his native French, which has other virtues than mere
    similarity.

    re .9
    
>                of reading it? ( ? :-) Where do laughs go ? How would
>                I recall them? Does Ford Motor Co. have such problems?)

    
    Recalling of laughs is acheived by the command
    
    Notes >	SMILEY_RECALL conference note_range
    
    This will remove any humour from the specified notes.
    Only moderators can wipe the smiles from other peoples' (should that
    be "people's" ...we are in JOYOFLEX !) replies.

    
    Avoid writing backwards to recall written laughs, unless you wish to
    convey sexual noises
    
    e.g.  Ha haaa ho ho		becomes		Oh oh aaah ah !
    
    
    Recalling audible laughter will make you sound like a chicken.
    
     
    Cheers,							Steve

    MLNOIS::HARBIG
                  I think that Roger's comment was a joke to point
                  out that language comparison is a very subjective
                  business.
                  Any multilingual person will tell you that they
                  find it easier to express certain things in one
                  of their languages rather than another.
                  This reminded me a bit of a 16th century Spanish
                  saying on the utilisation of the main European
                  languages:
                            "Use English with dogs, horses and sailors,
                             French with diplomats, German with soldiers,
                             Italian with women but only Spanish should
                             be used for Kings, Princes and God."
    
                   Very subjective.
                                                  Max

        re .11
 
    Reply 11 proves once again that JOYOFLEX is probably the best 
    reason for keeping a notes$notebook.note file hanging around.

    Thanks for the laugh_out_LOUD_in_my_cubicle.
    jc
    

    Re. .0:
    
    From the VAX APL Reference Manual, page 4-52:
         
         4.4.9 []CR - Obtaining a Canonical Representation
         
         The []CR system function provides a canonical representation
         of a user-defined function... A canonical representation is
         a character matrix with rows that are the original lines of
         the function definition...
         
         The canonical representation consists of exactly what you typed
         when you defined the function...
    
    Why "canonical"? Damned if I know. Maybe it seemed like a good idea
    at the time.
    
    Andy
                

    Why "canonical"? Because that's the mathematical term. APL is a
    mathematical language, so they use mathematical terms. 
    
    	Jon

    And Jon has a math degree, so he uses mathematical terms too. :-)
    
    					Val

    Another "in" word I've noticed lately is "utilize.  It seems to
    be used (utilized) as a three syllable synonym for "use".  Knowing
    how techies love syllables, I see it a LOT.  The meaning of utilize
    as "use advantageously" seems to be blurring into indistinction.
    
    Susan

    
    As .-1 suggests, a sad effect of words becoming "in" is that their
    meanings are lost.  My favorite example of this is the word paranoid,
    which refers to a specific mental disorder.  When used in conversation
    these days, however, it usually only means "afraid".  Now, if one
    wants to say "Joe's paranoia is acting up this week" and not be
    asked "What's old Joe scared of, anyway?", one has to say instead
    "Joe's serious mental disorder, characterized by well-rationalized
    delusions of persecution, is acting up this week".
    
    Any others examples of meaning loss through popularity?
    

    Re: .14
    
    QED my original comments in .0
    
    Re: .15
    
    Back to Jon...you have at least given the probable source of the
    incursion of the word "canonical" into DEC-land.  Now, is there
    a reasonable explanation of how "church law" became the authority
    for mathmatical principles?  Or was it another example of someone
    selecting a 50-cent word as a synonym for "standard", "accepted",
    or "required".  "Canonical" carries the implication of "You damned
    well better do it my way or you shall be condemned to perdition." 

    As I indicated earlier, its use in other than a church-law context
    grates on the ears.  (In my case, that probably by at least 50 db 
    over "functionality".)

    Would these uses grate upon your ears?
    
    	Pachelbel's Canon
    
    	The Shakespeare Canon (referring to the complete collection
    of his plays)
    
    	The Mozart Canon (the same idea)
    
    These are neither mathematical nor ecclesiastical usages.
    
    -Glinch

    Re .20:
    
    >Pachelbel's Canon
    
    How about Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ Canon?  :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                                   

    re .19: 
    
    Well, as I said in .1, "canonical" as you defined it in .19 is in the
    OED as dating from 1553. The mathematical use dates from the 1800's.
    What's the big deal about a usage that's 434 years old? 
    
    I use it in a mathematical sense, but I also use it in other contexts
    when it seems right (like "Canonical Anglo-Saxon F-word"). Your
    statement about it carrying the connotation of "do it or else" is
    precisely why it is good to use sometimes. When you want to load a
    sentence with that connotation, there's no other way of doing it.
    "Accepted" falls short. Only "canonical" has that extra oomph. I had an
    English professor once rail snidely against "the now-canonical use of
    'hopefully.'" I liked that turn of phrase. He also said it with the
    proper curl of the lip (note -- "proper" rather than "canonical." The
    latter would have been too strong). 
    
    There is a good way to desensitize your self to an otherwise good word
    that is some sort of linguistic allergen. Try using it as often as you
    can for a week. After that you'll be sick enough of it that you will
    break yourself of overuse (if that was your problem) or you'll have
    heard it enough out of your own mouth that it won't stick as badly (if
    that was your problem). 
    
    	Jon

    Canon  [ME, OE < L < Gk _kanon_ measuring rod, rule akin to _kanna_ cane]

    As I learned it, _kanna_ was used as a synonym for Holy Bible, which
is to be used as a measuring rod, a yardstick if you will, to live by.
I *think* this meaning predates Roman Catholicism, but I guess.
(I also think _kanna_ derives from an Egyptian term for some kind of reed
or somesuch found in the Nile.)

    Canonical  1. pertaining to, established by, or conforming to a canon
or canons.  2. included in the canon of the Bible.  3. authorized;
recognized; accepted.  4. Math. (of an equation, coordinate, etc.) in
simplest or standard form.

    When I've heard "canonical", I've assumed the meanings listed in 3 above.

    	Since I might have been called Joe, I resent .18
    
    		Dave

               Re .23
               Canna with the hard "c" is the Italian word for reed
               or cane and the verb cannegiare is to measure land
               with a rod.
                                            Max

    Re: .16
    
    Almost any medical term seems to be a prey to this trend. Likewise
    'neurotic', 'schizophrenic' (sometimes appearing as 'schizoid' in the
    speech of people who recognize that 'schizophrenic' nowadays is taken
    as meaning nothin more than 'having a split personality' - whatever
    THAT means), 'chronic' (widely used in the sense 'jolly bad')... 
    
    But "examples of meaning loss through popularity" is a pretty wide
    brief. Any word that's been around for a while has probably lost
    its _original_ meaning. Not a lot of people are aware of any sense
    of originality in the word 'pristine' - although the word's etymology
    shows the 'pri_' coming from "prius" or some such root. If I'd
    said "...has probably lost its pristine meaning" I don't think I'd 
    have won any marks for communication. Times change and so do words.
    
    So I often have conflicting reactions to changes in words.
    Call me 'schizophrenic' if you will. I regret the passing of
    useful meaninings and distinctions, but recognize that the only
    language that doesn't evolve is a dead one.
    
    
    Re: sticks, reeds, canes, etc.
    
    ... whence cannon (artillery type) and canyon. But that belongs
    in another note.
    
    bob