From: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
Cc: | clist(at)uah(dot)es, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: superlative missuse |
Date: | 2009-05-15 01:21:44 |
Message-ID: | e7f9235d0905141821l40397eci92f6f9f1cdf0e4d8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
Oh, I agree it's an error- and it's one I personally avoid. But
unfortunately, it's remarkably common and has been for some time- as
Tom pointed out with the quote from the US Constitution. On the other
hand, "more best" is more clearly a mistake because of the presence of
"better" as an alternative that is both correct and commonly used.
"More optimized" is infrequent enough to slip by a little more easily.
> Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one
> rebuttal.
As is, of course, your certain right. I think that's enough on the
list, though I'd be happy to continue off-list if there's any
interest. :)
--
- David T. Wilson
david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-18 15:07:59 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
Previous Message | Craig James | 2009-05-15 01:08:06 | Re: superlative missuse |