T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1042.1 | Well, the Acad�mie Fran�aise comes to mind... | RDVAX::KALIKOW | Supplely Chained | Tue Apr 20 1993 17:29 | 3 |
| ... but that seems more to be about *prohibiting* words and
"protecting" a language...
|
1042.2 | | JIT081::DIAMOND | Pardon me? Or must I be a criminal? | Tue Apr 20 1993 19:15 | 10 |
| Doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer.... The word "Olympic" and many
derivatives, but these are akin to trademarks which are akin to what
.0 didn't want.
I must admit though, I don't see how "systems architect" is any less
qualified than "systems naval architect". I think this kind of
qualification is binary (yes or no), not a count of the number of
qualifiers.
-- Norman Diamond
|
1042.3 | | PASTIS::MONAHAN | humanity is a trojan horse | Wed Apr 21 1993 00:18 | 10 |
| If by "endangered" you mean "becoming almost meaningless by misuse"
then I would suggest "esquire".
A suffiently ancient definition will tell you that this can only be
used correctly for someone with a precisely defined rank in the
nobility, or a graduate of a British university (my wife qualifies on
the second count). Its current use, abbreviated to "Esq." seems to be
there only to give typists a little more work when typing addresses.
Dave (part-time tree architect)
|
1042.4 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 21 1993 08:06 | 3 |
| re .3:
In the U.S., esquire seems to be used only by pretentious lawyers.
|
1042.5 | | MU::PORTER | have a nice datum | Mon Apr 26 1993 10:09 | 18 |
| re .4
My Concise Oxford bears that out. It says
esquire n.
|| Title appended to name of one regarded as gentleman by
birth, position or education, or to name of any man in formal use
or in address of letter where there is no prefixed title.
* title of law officer etc. [arch]
The symbols are:
|| chiefly not U.S.
* chiefly U.S.
|