[MD] Doug Renselle & Language

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-08-18 16:02, Krimel wrote:
> [Magnus]
> I don't think we can avoid it. I think it has already happened. As soon
> as we started getting tired of explaining what "pattern" "dynamic" and
> "static" means in MoQese, we simply stopped explaining them and assumed
> everyone knew what we meant by those terms. And that happened just a
> month after starting the list and has been going on ever since.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think a very real problem is that after lo' these many years there is no
> real consensus on what even those three terms mean. I fear that fixing,
> kludging and rearranging levels is just adding a new coat of paint or a new
> frill to the frou-frou on our head boat. Devising our own private "prayer
> language" as Doug has done, in my view is a quantum leap forward in
> frou-frou formation.

I can agree it's a problem that we use our own version of those, and 
other, terms. But what is the alternative? I mean, we only have two 
books and there simply aren't that good definitions in those books to 
get even those three terms right. So whether we're "devising" our own 
language explicitly or it just happens to grow implicitly is the choices 
we have. We can't avoid it altogether.

And what is frou-frou?

And regarding quantum leap. That's a tiny, minuscule, step. But that was 
perhaps your intention?

	Magnus