#words
2 messages in this thread
I did not save the thread, so to whomever objected to "re-architectured", as
I recall the thread.
I quote from an ad for SuperPrint (from Zenographics (Windows Mag. Nov. '95):
"The new SuperPrint 4.0 has been *re-architected* from the ground up for
Windows 95. SuperPrint delivers on the promise of true 32-bit, smooth
multitasking during printing with quality and productivity tools you'll find
nowhere else."
————————
As I recall, you objected to "re-archictectured" and perhaps you may object
even more to "re-architected". Charles DeGaule<sp?> tried to keep the French
language "pure" but he, and others who followed, have failed in those efforts.
We generally, on the other hand, seem to take pride in making a total mess of
our language <g>. One of my pet pickys<g> is: Well, since we live in a
democracy … We do NOT live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional
Republic with *somewhat* egalitarian elections (and that can be questioned).
Albert:
>> *re-architected* <<
It was I who objected to this newly coined bastardization, to see it
proliferate is tantamount to viewing a cancer grow. SuperPrint and CGW be
damned! <G>
>> As I recall, you objected to "re-archictectured" and perhaps you may object
even more to "re-architected". <<
Nope, you've got it backwards but "re-architectured" is equally foolish and
awkward in its sound.
I have no delusions that my opinion on this topic is going to keep this new
word from spreading. I'm just going on record that I think the term
"re-architected" appeals to me as much as a sharp stick in the eye.
– Bob Ritger