>>>>> "RM" == Richard Maine <[log in to unmask]>:
RM> Strictly speaking, the standard uses the term "obsolescent".
RM> To tell the truth, I'm not quite sure why (it was introduced before
RM> my involvement with J3). To me, "obsolescent" just sounds like a
RM> synonym for "obsolete" with some extra syllables added to sound
RM> more sophisticated. I'd have just said "obsolete". Perhaps there
RM> is a distinction that I'm not appreciating. Or then, perhaps it
RM> was all a matter of how it sounded to some people. Perhaps
RM> "obsolescent" didn't sound as strong as "obsolete" or something.
RM> That's all pure speculation on my part.
RM>
RM> But although the standard doesn't strictly use the word "obsolete",
RM> I still find it awful easy to confuse the words "obsolete" and
RM> "obsolescent", so I'd not recommend using those two words in a
RM> sense meant to be distiguishable (unless perhaps it's just me
RM> that gets them confused).
to be pedantic, the strict definition of obsolescent is "in the process of
becoming obsolete"
so it really isn't as strong as obsolete
--
John A. Turner, Senior Research Associate
Blue Sky Studios, One South Rd, Harrison, NY 10528
http://www.blueskystudios.com/ (914) 825-8319
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|