From: | Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | clist(at)uah(dot)es, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: superlative missuse |
Date: | 2009-05-15 01:08:06 |
Message-ID: | 4A0CC076.7030207@emolecules.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Wilson | 2009-05-15 01:21:44 | Re: superlative missuse |
Previous Message | Dimitri | 2009-05-14 18:34:48 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |