Re: Functionality (#699979)

Subject: Re: Functionality (#699979)
From: Sabahat Iqbal Ashraf <ashrafs -at- RPI -dot- EDU>
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 03:26:51 -0400

On May 23, 10:37am, Bill Burns wrote:

> what an utterance means. *Functionality* is a root with two suffixes,
> that it has shifted from one syntactic category to another and back again.
> Could that throw some readers? Possibly.

Loved Bill's response. I would like to add that in most of realms (contexts?)
that most of us use "functionality", it is already a much-bandied word. And
using it a) saves time and space b) tells the user that you talk the talk. As
for using it in contexts that it is not much-seen already (likes simple user
handouts for use by *all* types of users), well, I should just humbly suggest
one thing: DON'T.


2209 15th Street ashrafs -at- rpi -dot- edu
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 274 9562

Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net

Previous by Author: Re: Job Description Request
Next by Author: Re: Jobs, the industry, etc.
Previous by Thread: Functionality (#699979)
Next by Thread: "Functionality" is the least of our worries

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads