Re: superlative missuse

David Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <clist(at)uah(dot)es> wrote:
>
>> we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse
>>
>> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
>>
>> im not native english speaker but i think it still applies.
>>
>> Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use.
>
> As a native english speaker:
>
> You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a
> well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is
> appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically
> incorrect.

I disagree -- it's a glaring error. "More optimized" or "better optimized" are perfectly good, and correct, phrases. Why not use them? Every time I read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who is showing his/her ignorance of the basics of English grammar. If I wrote, "It's more best," would you find that acceptable?

> This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list...

Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one rebuttal.

Craig