* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:17 Backend is not a word ShengHuo ZHU
@ 2001-09-17 21:34 ` Paul Jarc
2001-09-17 22:30 ` Russ Allbery
2001-09-18 7:57 ` Mats Lidell
2001-09-17 22:28 ` Wes Hardaker
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Paul Jarc @ 2001-09-17 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> wrote:
> "Backend" is not a word.
It is. When I say "backend", you know what I mean. If it doesn't
appear in dictionaries, then that's a deficiency in the dictionaries.
> RMS suggests to use "back end",
I wonder why; he didn't say.
> while "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write?
> Opinions?
Any of them would be equally clear, I think. Is "backend" any more
awkward than the others?
paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:34 ` Paul Jarc
@ 2001-09-17 22:30 ` Russ Allbery
2001-09-22 22:06 ` Gaute B Strokkenes
2001-09-18 7:57 ` Mats Lidell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Russ Allbery @ 2001-09-17 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
Paul Jarc <prj@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> wrote:
>> while "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions?
> Any of them would be equally clear, I think. Is "backend" any more
> awkward than the others?
I believe the gcc folks just standardized on one of these, but I forget
which one (either back end or back-end). Probably should just use the
same one they used.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 22:30 ` Russ Allbery
@ 2001-09-22 22:06 ` Gaute B Strokkenes
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Gaute B Strokkenes @ 2001-09-22 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
On 17 Sep 2001, rra@stanford.edu wrote:
> Paul Jarc <prj@po.cwru.edu> writes:
>> ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>>> while "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write?
>>> Opinions?
>
>> Any of them would be equally clear, I think. Is "backend" any more
>> awkward than the others?
>
> I believe the gcc folks just standardized on one of these, but I
> forget which one (either back end or back-end). Probably should
> just use the same one they used.
IIRC they decided on "back-end" when used as an adjective, and "back
end" when used as a noun. But you should probably search the
arvhieves on gcc.gnu.org before you take my word for that.
--
Big Gaute http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~gs234/
The fact that 47 PEOPLE are yelling and sweat is cascading
down my SPINAL COLUMN is fairly enjoyable!!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:34 ` Paul Jarc
2001-09-17 22:30 ` Russ Allbery
@ 2001-09-18 7:57 ` Mats Lidell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mats Lidell @ 2001-09-18 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
>>>>> Paul wrote:
Paul> It is. When I say "backend", you know what I mean. If it
Paul> doesn't appear in dictionaries, then that's a deficiency in the
Paul> dictionaries.
I agree. A simple search on the net gives a lot of hits for backends
quite similar to the gnus backend. Languages evolves. Backend is
becoming a compound word!?
Yours
--
%% Mats
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:17 Backend is not a word ShengHuo ZHU
2001-09-17 21:34 ` Paul Jarc
@ 2001-09-17 22:28 ` Wes Hardaker
2001-09-18 7:41 ` Didier Verna
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Wes Hardaker @ 2001-09-17 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
>>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:17:42 -0400, ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> said:
ZSH> "Backend" is not a word. RMS suggests to use "back end", while
ZSH> "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions?
I think "backend" is a locally (to gnus) defined term. It means
something different than the generic "back end" description
I don't think we should change everything away from "backend" to "back
end" just so that a spelling checker runs cleanly on the document with
only "gnus" added to the personal dictionary.
IMHO,
Wes
--
"Ninjas aren't dangerous. They're more afraid of you than you are of them."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:17 Backend is not a word ShengHuo ZHU
2001-09-17 21:34 ` Paul Jarc
2001-09-17 22:28 ` Wes Hardaker
@ 2001-09-18 7:41 ` Didier Verna
2001-09-18 12:50 ` Per Abrahamsen
2001-12-30 3:25 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Didier Verna @ 2001-09-18 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
ShengHuo ZHU wrote:
> "Backend" is not a word. RMS suggests to use "back end", while
> "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions?
,----
| From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English [gcide]:
|
| Word \Word\, n. [AS. word; akin to OFries. & OS. word, D. woord,
| G. wort, Icel. or[eth], Sw. & Dan. ord, Goth. wa['u]rd,
| OPruss. wirds, Lith. vardas a name, L. verbum a word; or
| perhaps to Gr. "rh`twr an orator. Cf. {Verb}.]
| [1913 Webster]
| 1. The spoken sign of a conception or an idea; an articulate
| or vocal sound, or a combination of articulate and vocal
| sounds, uttered by the human voice, and by custom
| expressing an idea or ideas; a single component part of
| human speech or language; a constituent part of a
| sentence; a term; a vocable. ``A glutton of words.''
| --Piers Plowman.
| [1913 Webster]
`-----
"backend" is very much of a written form of a "spoken sign of a
conception or an idea" to me. Whether or not specific to gnus, the fact that
it does not appear in dictionaries doesn't imply that this is not a word. Many
words do not appear in dictionaries, especially in the scientific domain.
I don't think there's a really clean definition of the term "backend"
anywhere in the texi (it appears almost as a synonym of "method" in the first
node), but we all know what it means. Let's not be over-pedantic.
--
Didier Verna, didier@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 53 14 59 47
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 44 08 01 99 didier@xemacs.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:17 Backend is not a word ShengHuo ZHU
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-09-18 7:41 ` Didier Verna
@ 2001-09-18 12:50 ` Per Abrahamsen
2001-12-30 3:25 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Per Abrahamsen @ 2001-09-18 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> writes:
> "Backend" is not a word. RMS suggests to use "back end", while
> "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions?
Use the same term as the Emacs manual. Currently, the Emacs manual
uses both "backend", "back end" and "back-end", all refering to VC
back ends. If RMS suggests using "back end", that is probably the
term he has standardized on for the Emacs manual.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Backend is not a word
2001-09-17 21:17 Backend is not a word ShengHuo ZHU
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2001-09-18 12:50 ` Per Abrahamsen
@ 2001-12-30 3:25 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
4 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2001-12-30 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
ShengHuo ZHU <zsh@cs.rochester.edu> writes:
> "Backend" is not a word. RMS suggests to use "back end", while
> "back-end" is found in FOLDOC. What should we write? Opinions?
I think "back end" is fine.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread