Jonathan Van Matre on 12 Feb 2002 14:43:08 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Opening the floodgates

> It's not redefining "proposal". It's saying that "proposal" 
> and "proosal" are equivalent. Equivalence is commutative - 
> a==b means exactly the same as b==a (those are the 3-barred 
> equals sign thingies, not C-style comparisons, not that it 
> matters).

Dearest Uncle Psychosis,

Equivalence may be commutative for mathematics, but that doesn't extend to the written word.

For example "lead" (pron. leed) is synonymous with "direct", the verb.  But "lead" (led), the metal, is not synonymous with "direct", the adjective.  Moreover "lead" (leed), meaning an electrical wire, is not synonymous with "direct", either.

Not to mention that your rule contradicts itself.  If "proposal" is *precisely* equivalent to "proosal", how can "proosal" be "far superior"?

Since the "far superior" portion of the rule follows the "precisely equivalent" portion, and they appear to be contradictory, that should mean the terms are not equivalent, per the precedence rules.

Speaking as one who has yet to find a spouse, I for one should greatly prefer a proposal to a proosal, whatever that may be.

With Regards,

Miss Emma Stanton Scoff,
Hadleydale Manor