Not to mention gay. So let's stick to original definitions.
On 9 Jun 2006, at 18:13, Tim Wynn wrote:
I would have thought that the best solution is either to explicitly
define what is meant by terms such as reverse, transcurrent, transform
etc in each presentation, report or paper or for the geotectonics world
to agree a set of standardised terms. The former is not always very
practical, particularly in presentations and the latter is probably
never going to happen. This is partly from different people having
personal favourite definitions that they can’t reconcile but also from
the general trend of all language to evolve new meanings that replace
or add to the meanings attached to old words. Look what happened to
cool and wicked.
|