enthralling use of english

[Robin Fairbairns]

in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find

In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...

he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
verb...
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
my address is @cl.cam.ac.uk, regardless of the header. sorry about that.

[Jenny M Benson]

On 29/02/2012 15:04, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
>
> In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
>
> he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
> verb...

Because of something I mis-read, I got to wondering a few hours ago if a
person who is assassinated is an assassinate.
--
Jenny M Benson

[Ralph B]

"Assassinatee", Shirley?

[Ralph B]

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:04:15 PM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
>
> In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
>
> he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
> verb...

"Obsoleted", Shirley?

[john ashby]

That would depend on how far the process went. In RFC 4422 said "Use of
<document X> is deprecated and will be phased out by 1st December 2010",
then "made obsolescent" would be correct.

john

[Robin Fairbairns]

the question is, do people stop reading when encountering a word like
that (i did, obviously)? if they do stop reading, what chance have they
of restarting with the correct view of the word? (i.e., what john and i
think the author meant.)

have said all of which, would it be sensible to register as a w'pedia
editor to correct a single word? ;-)

[john ashby]

On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:54 +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> john ashby <johna...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 07:27 -0800, Ralph B wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:04:15 PM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >> > in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
> >> >
> >> > In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
> >> >
> >> > he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
> >> > verb...
> >>
> >> "Obsoleted", Shirley?
> >
> > That would depend on how far the process went. In RFC 4422 said "Use of
> > <document X> is deprecated and will be phased out by 1st December 2010",
> > then "made obsolescent" would be correct.
>
> the question is, do people stop reading when encountering a word like
> that (i did, obviously)? if they do stop reading, what chance have they
> of restarting with the correct view of the word? (i.e., what john and i
> think the author meant.)
>
> have said all of which, would it be sensible to register as a w'pedia
> editor to correct a single word? ;-)

For your last question, I think we'd (you'd) be fighting a rearguard
action against the inevitable forces of barbarism corrupting the
language of Milton and Shakespeare.

john (Garn!)

[Frederick Williams]

Robin Fairbairns wrote:

>
> have said all of which, would it be sensible to register as a w'pedia
> editor to correct a single word? ;-)

Many articles can be edited without registering. Does it not have an
'Edit' tab?

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[Ralph B]

You're being ironic arncha?

You're being ironic, aren't you? Because we all know Shakespeare didn't use consistent spelling and wasn't averse to inventing new words if he couldn't find the one he wanted.

[john ashby]

I Shaw am.

It's a tough call, though, deciding between defending existing usage and
embracing a neologism. My (probably not terribly consistent) take is
that existing usage should be preserved where it maintains a clear
distinction, and neologisms should be welcomed if there is no word or
phrase doing the same job with not great loss of felicity.

For the former I dislike the americanism which uses alternate as a
synonym for alternative, as I believe the two words do different, and
equally useful, jobs, and to lose one diminishes the language. I used to
think the same about the confusion of less and fewer until I realised
that there are very few, possibly no, cases where the distinction
between a reduction in the countable or the continuous versions of a
noun would be important. And we don't make the same distinction for
increases. Recognising that has reduced my stress levels in supermarkets
considerably.

In the case above "made obsolescent" is barely longer than and arguably
more mellifluous than "obsolesced" that I do not consider the neologism
warranted. But beyond that the introduction of such a word makes me
wonder if the author really meant "made obsolescent" or "made obsolete".
Logically what was written means the former, but it's not impossible
that the latter was intended.

john

john

[DavidK]

I thought you were joking, but gurgling on 'obsolesced' asks me if I
meant obsoleted and says that that can be found in dictionaries.

[Robin Fairbairns]

i could have guessed all of that, to some extent.

except, of course, that the hideous word "obsoleted" presumably means
_more_ than "made obsolescent". the computer that runs google obviously
doesn't have a classical education ... i don't know, where do they get
such machines?

[Kate Brown]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, DavidK wrote

Actually I think I rather like the word 'obsolesced'. One has the image
of something softly and silently evanescing away. 'Obsoleted' is more
like 'deleted', a hard word and unforgiving.

--
Kate B

PS nospam means nospam. But umra at cockaigne dot org dot uk will get through!

[Mark Williams]

"Robin Fairbairns" <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:qfpqcwd...@dev-rf10-linux.cl.cam.ac.uk...

> DavidK <Dav...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 29/02/2012 15:27, Ralph B wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:04:15 PM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns
>>> wrote:
>>>> in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
>>>>
>>>> In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
>>>>
>>>> he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
>>>> verb...
>>>
>>> "Obsoleted", Shirley?
>>
>> I thought you were joking, but gurgling on 'obsolesced' asks me if I
>> meant obsoleted and says that that can be found in dictionaries.
>
> i could have guessed all of that, to some extent.
>
> except, of course, that the hideous word "obsoleted" presumably means
> _more_ than "made obsolescent". the computer that runs google obviously
> doesn't have a classical education ... i don't know, where do they get
> such machines?

Can you actually make something obsolescent? Surely it would be obsolescent
before any action by a third party occurred, although that action might
actually render it obsolete. Most things must be obsolescent, it is simply a
matter of time and degree.

[Ralph B]

On Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:02:12 AM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> DavidK <Dav...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
> > On 29/02/2012 15:27, Ralph B wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:04:15 PM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >>> in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
> >>>
> >>> In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
> >>>
> >>> he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
> >>> verb...
> >>
> >> "Obsoleted", Shirley?
> >
> > I thought you were joking, but gurgling on 'obsolesced' asks me if I
> > meant obsoleted and says that that can be found in dictionaries.
>
> i could have guessed all of that, to some extent.
>
> except, of course, that the hideous word "obsoleted" presumably means
> _more_ than "made obsolescent". the computer that runs google obviously
> doesn't have a classical education ... i don't know, where do they get
> such machines?

Hey! Move with the times, Grandpa!

Of course Google doesn't have a classical education - it doesn't have ANY education - it's just reporting usage. Like the OED does.

Let's see how many results Google returns for each variant of this term:
1. obsoleted - 2,200,000 results
2. "made obsolete" - 1,640,000 results
3. obsolesced - 26,300 results
4. "made obsolescent" - 5,800 results

"Obsoleted" sounds fine to me, but then I've spent my life working with software.

Having said that, when I see "lose" misspelt as "loose" I generally stop reading then and there.

[Jo Lonergan]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:04:15 +0000, Robin Fairbairns <rf...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
>
> In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
>
>he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
>verb...

What's wrong with superseded?

--
Jo

[Mark Williams]

"Jo Lonergan" <jolon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38vuk7hpkmmv6lanj...@4ax.com...

Not quite the same thing. Superseding means "sitting above". A
regulation/standard/law may supersede another without necessarily replacing
or repealing the earlier version, but the later version might cover a
broader set of circumstances with the provisions of the earlier version left
entirely intact (eg. various instances of the Companies Act, lots of IT
standards).

[Andrew B.]

On Mar 1, 10:02 am, Robin Fairbairns <r...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> DavidK <Dav...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> > On 29/02/2012 15:27, Ralph B wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:04:15 PM UTC+1, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> >>> in the wikipedia entry on sasl, i find
>
> >>>    In 2006 that document was obsolesced by RFC 4422...
>
> >>> he obviously means "made obsolescent", but i don't think it works as a
> >>> verb...
>
> >> "Obsoleted", Shirley?
>
> > I thought you were joking, but gurgling on 'obsolesced' asks me if I
> > meant obsoleted and says that that can be found in dictionaries.
>
> i could have guessed all of that, to some extent.
>
> except, of course, that the hideous word "obsoleted" presumably means
> _more_ than "made obsolescent".  the computer that runs google obviously
> doesn't have a classical education ... i don't know, where do they get
> such machines?

SOED says:
- obsolete (adj) late 16th century; (v.t.) mid 17th century.
- obsolescent (adj) mid 18th century.
- obsolesce (v.i.) late 19th century

So yes, "obsoleted" is both more appropriate and more traditional here
than "obsolesced" :-)

It's funny how language works - apparently "obsess" and related words
date back to the 16th century, later died out, and then returned after
over a century of obsolescence in about 1870.