[OT] Re: Impossible combinations?

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 02:47:50 EST

  • Next message: o.nalesini@tiscali.it: "RE: Impossible combinations?"

    Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:

    > In addition to the examples pointed out by Roozbeh and Michael,
    > this pattern is growing increasingly common in commercial English,
    > where such forms as "eBusiness" and "eSecurity" are enjoying
    > increasing vogue. And CamelCasing is apparent not only in
    > technical terminology, but has spread to company names and the
    > like, as well. Consider, e.g., "PayPal".

    See, for example, the Jargon File entries for "BiCapitalization" and

    More to the point, though, I'm really not sure I would expect a
    lower-upper combination to kern as tightly as an upper-lower combination
    anyway, at least in the BiCapitalized environment, because of the
    presumption that the lower-upper combination really involves two words.
    In the semi-mythical word "eTraining," if the "e" were typographically
    farther from the "T" than the "r" was, everything would probably look OK
    because the word breaks down as e-Training. I don't know how badly this
    model would fall apart for Irish or Bantu words, though.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 03:34:25 EST