| Glotmorf on 14 Oct 2002 11:43:01 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [spoon-discuss] Catastrophe |
On 10/14/02 at 1:16 AM Baron von Skippy wrote: >> > Hey, I did some more searches in the English language, as well in >>others, >> > and I got this: >> > The German word Unglück means all of these: >> > accident >> > bad luck >> > calamity >> > catastrophe >> > disaster >> > fatality >> > harm >> > hoodoo >> > misadventure >> > misfortune >> > mishap >> > wreck >> > to be unlucky >> > >> > We can either use Unglück, or one of those, for Catastrophe. Any >> > preferences? >> >>I kind of like 'hoodoo'... though 'accident' has a certain charm to it... >> >>"I'm afraid dear Mr. Glotmorf has had a bit of an... 'accident', if you >>will..." >> >>Yeah, that's got a nice ring... >> >>-- >>Wonko >> >-But "accident" makes everyone believe that you did it. This may be true, >but to avoid blame, "mishap" or "misfortune" works better: "It seems that >our friend bd has had a bit of a mishap involving a ferret and fifteen >pounds of okra..."- > > [[BvS]] Hey, I paid good money for that mishap! Anyway, why are we focusing so much on the event rather than on the object? The whateveritis is supposed to be applied in the event of the object being destroyed, regardless of how. So think of it from the object's perspective. Call it the recovery plan, or the restoration instruction, or the warranty, or the fail-safe, or the hot swap, or the fallout pattern, or something like that. Glotmorf _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss