From: D. Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 14:39:21 CST
"Hans Aberg" writes:
> > That's not invariable; there are rare cases where capitalization alter
> > semantics. For example, Poles and poles are two different things. More
> > importantly, capitalization alters the meaning of the sentence and paragraph.
> It depends: If people cannot parse the sentence "he was a pole", or the
> sentence in all-caps "HE WAS A POLE".
Try "the pole fell down." or "THE POLE FELL DOWN." versus "The Pole fell down."
In any case, it doesn't matter; people can frequently parse sentences without
vowels, ro wth the wordsmisspelled. That doesn't mean that those elements don't
> There seems to be at two principles involved: The semantic and the graphic.
> If drawn to its logical end, one should perhaps have at least two character
> sets, one for the correct semantic representation, and another, for enabling
> a correct graphic representation.
I think it more accurately reveals that your analysis isn't useful. When
you start coming up with a lot of extra complexity, you're doing it wrong.
Heading down your direction would involve replacing all the words with logograms;
after all, honor versus honour versus honur really doesn't matter. Why identify
pH as mathematical and chemical letters, missing the real semantic meaning, in
exchange for etymological analysis of questionable real world accuracy?
-- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 14:40:17 CST