Re: IBM Micro-partitioning and software licensing

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:58:29 -0000 (GMT), "Obnoxio The Chav" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote: > > >John Carlson said: >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:18:23 -0500, "Art S. Kagel" >> <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote: >> >>>Neil Truby wrote: >>>> "Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4225FCE7.2030309@bloomberg.net... >>> >>>> >>>> First of all, only an American could mangle the noun "affinity" and >>>> come up >>>> with the verb "affine" :-) >>> >>>There's a logic to it. If 'unity' is the noun, 'united' the adjective, >>> and >>>'unite' the verb, then for the noun 'affinity' there SHOULD exist the >>> verb >>>'affine' if there exists the adjective 'affined'! Voila: >>> >>> From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: >>> >>>AFFINED >>>adj. Linked by a close relationship. Beholden to another; bound. >>> >>> >>>Which begs the equivalent definition: >>> >>>AFFINE >>>v. To link by a close relationship. To create an affinity or objects >>> which >>>are affined. >>> >>>And as the final nail in the 'there ain't no such word' coffin: >>> >>> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) >>>Affine \\Af*fine"\\, v. t. [F. affiner to refine; ? (L. ad) + fin fine. See >>>{Fine}.] To refine. [Obs.] --Holland. >> >> Score one for the Yanks . . .8-) > >Well, I'm not sure how. Art, for all his great knowledge on databases, has >succumbed to what grammarians refer to (with some irony) as "verbing" -- >taking an adjective, noun or other non-verb and making it into a verb. > >The fact that his references are all American is also not a particularly >good sign, very few grammarians will accept an American reference if it >isn't backed up by a corresponding English reference. Don't shoot the >messenger, I'm just pointing out how grammarians feel about the quality of >American English. > At least the British grammarians . . . .8-) >Finally, the "final nail in the coffin" says that an out of use instance >of this word actually means something else than what what Art took it to >mean. > He just brings up the logic of it, not necessarily that it exists . . . purely hypothetical in nature . . . >In essence then, I'm not sure how the Yanks scored one here, but if it >makes you feel happy, then by all means, carry on believing it. Still in the realm of the theoretical, not the practical . . . .I'll take them how I can get them . . . . JWC