[comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Miles Bader]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 771 bytes --]

From: "Thomas Widmann" <thomas.widmann@harpercollins.co.uk>
Subject: "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary
Date: 13 Jun 2005 09:52:42 -0700
Message-ID: <1118681561.957194.160950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Hi there,

it might interest people in this group that "emacs" is defined in the
new edition of the Collins English Dictionary (7th edition).  The
dictionary gives the plural as "emacsen", and it is defined as follows:
"a powerful computer program used for creating and editing text,
functioning primarily through keyboard commands".

/Thomas
--
   Thomas Widmann         thomas.widmann@harpercollins.co.uk
   Lead Developer                 +44 (141) 306 3295
Collins Dictionaries                  Glasgow, UK




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Mathias Dahl]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> it might interest people in this group that "emacs" is defined in
> the new edition of the Collins English Dictionary (7th edition).
> The dictionary gives the plural as "emacsen", and it is defined as
> follows: "a powerful computer program used for creating and editing
> text, functioning primarily through keyboard commands".

[off-topic]

I am a native Swedish-speaker and wonder about these plurals ending in
-en. I have seen "emacsen" and "boxen", and to me they look "ugly"
(not offence intended), cannot explain why. Does not sound right at
all to me. Is there any "old" words that use this too or is this some
modern "thing"?

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Nic Ferrier]

Mathias Dahl <brakjoller@gmail.com> writes:

> Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> it might interest people in this group that "emacs" is defined in
>> the new edition of the Collins English Dictionary (7th edition).
>> The dictionary gives the plural as "emacsen", and it is defined as
>> follows: "a powerful computer program used for creating and editing
>> text, functioning primarily through keyboard commands".
>
> [off-topic]
>
> I am a native Swedish-speaker and wonder about these plurals ending in
> -en. I have seen "emacsen" and "boxen", and to me they look "ugly"
> (not offence intended), cannot explain why. Does not sound right at
> all to me. Is there any "old" words that use this too or is this some
> modern "thing"?

Oxen, Children, Bretheren.

See:
  http://www.snvt.hum.uva.nl/Taalunieversum/Web/SIBData/resources/grammar/010.htm


Nic

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Juanma Barranquero]

> Is there any "old" words that use this too or is this some
> modern "thing"?

Oxen: (plural of ox) are cattle trained as draft animals. Often they
are adult, castrated males. [etc.]


-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Robert J. Chassell]

Thomas Widmann wrote,

   ... it might interest people in this group that "emacs" is defined
   in the new edition of the Collins English Dictionary (7th edition).
   The dictionary gives the plural as "emacsen", and it is defined as
   follows:  "a powerful computer program used for creating and
   editing text, functioning primarily through keyboard commands".

Unfortunately, the definition is wrong in two ways:

  * first, the definition follows RMS in saying that moving files and
    such is a form of editing.

    Such actions are a form of editing but most people do not speak
    that way.  They speak of renaming a file as different from
    changing a word within a file.  If the Collins English Dictionary
    uses his definition, it needs to explain RMS' idiosyncratic
    language in the definition itself.

  * second, Emacs is much more than an editor (unless you use RMS'
    definition of editing).

It is simpler and shorter to say that Emacs is an integrating
environment, like a command line interface or a graphic user
interface.  Emacs is a virtual lisp machine.

Like a shell which has VI, Emacs has editing.  In the same way, the
various graphic user interfaces have editors and word processors, too.
And you can move or rename files in all the interfaces.

The Emacspeak auditory desktop, although derived from the Emacs
virtual lisp machine, is a different, fourth, form of integrated user
environment.

See

    http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/four-interfaces.html

A better definition for Emacs is:

   "... a powerful computer program that is one of the four major
    integrated user environments.  Like a command line interface or a
    graphic user interface, Emacs provides editing and other features.
    Although it provides various mouse commands, people often control
    it through keyboard commands.  The Emacspeak auditory desktop is
    derived from this program, but is a different, fourth integrated
    user environment."

or shorter:

   "Emacs is an integrated user environment, like a command line
    interface or a graphic user interface.  It provides editing and
    other features.  Although it provides various mouse commands,
    people often control Emacs through keyboard commands."

People attempting humour use "emacsen" as the plural.

--
    Robert J. Chassell
    bob@rattlesnake.com                         GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Juanma Barranquero]

Other words do still have the -en, though it is less identifiable as
the plural form of a singular noun: children, brethren.

There's a simplified explanation of the historical variation of
English plural forms in:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990930

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Is there any "old" words that use this too or is this some modern
   "thing"?

ox -> oxen, and since VAX machines are as strong as oxen, we have the
plural VAXen.

And from there it (I assume) got applied to other things that do alot
of work, like emacs (emacsen), and a couple of machines (boxen).

That is atleast how I gather it.

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Mathias Dahl]

Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> writes:

>> I am a native Swedish-speaker and wonder about these plurals ending in
>> -en. I have seen "emacsen" and "boxen", and to me they look "ugly"
>> (not offence intended), cannot explain why. Does not sound right at
>> all to me. Is there any "old" words that use this too or is this some
>> modern "thing"?
>
> Oxen, Children, Bretheren.

Of course, thanks!

Actually, I did not know about oxen.

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "RJC" == Robert J Chassell <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

RJC> Like a shell which has VI, Emacs has editing.  In the same way,
RJC> the various graphic user interfaces have editors and word
RJC> processors, too.  And you can move or rename files in all the
RJC> interfaces.

I completly disagree.

Emacs is an editor, the finest  one. Oh, by the way, it's programmable
in the  same language used to build  it. This leaves the  door open to
the most strange uses of a text editor, a thing that pleases hackers.

Integrated   envirnonment  usually  lack   the  elegance   and  simple
extensibility of  Emacs while  all the extensions  are both a  sort of
editing and a very useful complement to editing.

-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico  
\/		    e coltivatore diretto di software

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Robert J. Chassell]

    Emacs is an editor ...

At some point, an `editor' ceases to be a program that encompasses all
the ways that people can twiddle bits and becomes something else.

People like RMS do not see any difference between changing a file name
and changing a word within that file, but others do.  When you speak
the word `editor' and wish to communicate, you must either tell your
listener that you are using an uncommon definition, or use a different
term.  I am not saying that RMS is incorrect in this thought, but that
when using the word `editor', he and others fail to communicate
successfully unless they explain what they mean.

The definition I saw did _not_ say "using an uncommon definition of
the word, one that to most people means `integrated user environment',
Emacs is an editor."

As written, the definition misleads people into thinking that Emacs
falls into the same category as VI or Notepad.

    Integrated envirnonment usually lack the elegance and simple
    extensibility of Emacs ...

Yes, indeed.  That does not means that Emacs is not an integrated
envirnonment; it means that others are not as elegant and simple.  On
this, we agree.

Fewer words are needed to define Emacs as an integrated user
environment with editing capabilities than to explain that the word
`editor' is not as defined elsewhere in the dictionary, but is a
special usage for the entry.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         
    bob@rattlesnake.com                         GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Nic Ferrier]

GianUberto.Lauri@eng.it (Gian Uberto Lauri) writes:

>>>>>> "RJC" == Robert J Chassell <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:
>
> RJC> Like a shell which has VI, Emacs has editing.  In the same way,
> RJC> the various graphic user interfaces have editors and word
> RJC> processors, too.  And you can move or rename files in all the
> RJC> interfaces.
>
> I completly disagree.
>
> Emacs is an editor, the finest  one. Oh, by the way, it's programmable
> in the  same language used to build  it. This leaves the  door open to
> the most strange uses of a text editor, a thing that pleases hackers.
>
> Integrated   envirnonment  usually  lack   the  elegance   and  simple
> extensibility of  Emacs while  all the extensions  are both a  sort of
> editing and a very useful complement to editing.

At the risk of sounding pious... we really are getting into religous
territory here when we're supposed to all be doing what we can to
make a release happen.

I know I'm as guilty as everyone else... but I've just noticed it.


Nic

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Gian Uberto Lauri]

>>>>> "RJC" == Robert J Chassell <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

RJC>     Emacs is an editor ...  At some point, an `editor' ceases to

Nope. Emacs can do it, but doesn't do it.

I think that even Microsoft Word could be programmed to do such things
but I' pretty  sure that nobody would call it  anithing else than word
mangle\b\b\b\b\b\bprocessor.

RJC> People like RMS do not see any difference between changing a file
RJC> name and changing a word within that file, but others do.

They  see the  difference IMHO.  They  understand that  they are  just
specializations of altering information. 

RJC>  When
RJC> you speak the word `editor' and wish to communicate, you must
RJC> either tell your listener that you are using an uncommon
RJC> definition,

I tell them I use an uncommon Editor, that's true.

RJC> As written, the definition misleads people into thinking that
RJC> Emacs falls into the same category as VI or Notepad.

<kidding>
Putting  vi side  by  side with  notepad  is unfair  to  vi. While  is
notorious that vi is penance, notepad is almost useless. Therefore vi
is much more useful.
</kidding>

vi  is a  powerful  editor I'm  not  comfortable with  unless for  the
shortest and  quickest tasks.  Anyway, using vi  and (a lot  of) shell
scripts you can implement an Emacs.

RJC> Yes, indeed.  That does not means that Emacs is not an integrated
RJC> envirnonment;

Emacs can  turn into a sort  of integrated environment  by loading the
appropriate modules  (auctex, jdee), but  after all is an  editor that
does much more than other editors  do and often by delegating the work
to external programs.

It's a sort of integrating  editor more than an integrated environment
(or collection of integrated environments). Something that could be as
extensible as Emacs could be Eclipse. That's an integrated environment
that does it all.

But Emacs does  editing. If you want it does tetris,  but it's goal is
to edit and  to do it in  the most productive way, often  doing it for
you.

The editing  capabilities of  Emacs are so  powerful that you  can put
them behind its ability to integrate other software work. That's why I
disagree with you.

-- 
 /\            ___
/___/\__|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____________________
  //--\ | | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamico  
\/		    e coltivatore diretto di software

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> As written, the definition misleads people into thinking that Emacs
> falls into the same category as VI or Notepad.

emacs seeps into every nook and cranny, first explicitly changing named
bits locally, then meta-bits locally, then any bits outside of itself
anywhere, then any bits including itself, then finally the perception of
all those bits by its users, whether or not any external change is
actually involved.

people who don't understand this initially do so eventually, although
they may not understand their understanding.

every motion achieves change (surprisingly :-).

thi

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Daniel Brockman]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:

> "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:
>
>> As written, the definition misleads people into thinking that Emacs
>> falls into the same category as VI or Notepad.
>
> emacs seeps into every nook and cranny, first explicitly changing
> named bits locally, then meta-bits locally, then any bits outside of
> itself anywhere, then any bits including itself,

I'm with you on all these...

> then finally the perception of all those bits by its users, whether
> or not any external change is actually involved.

...but you've lost me here.  Are you saying that Emacs at some point
becomes the lens through which we percieve every part of reality,
including (and not limited to) Emacs itself?

> people who don't understand this initially do so eventually,
> although they may not understand their understanding.

Will we at least know as soon enough we understand?

> every motion achieves change (surprisingly :-).

You've lost me again.  Are you talking about Emacs development,
developer health, that weird Japanese game, or the second law
of thermodynamics?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Kevin Rodgers]

Robert J. Chassell wrote:
 > It is simpler and shorter to say that Emacs is an integrating
 > environment, like a command line interface or a graphic user
 > interface.  Emacs is a virtual lisp machine.

Emacs can be an integrating environment, and it does have both graphical
and command line interfaces.  But it is definitely a text editor.

The Emacs manual has the correct definition, which the dictionary should
paraphrase:

	GNU Emacs [is] the GNU incarnation of the advanced,
	self-documenting, customizable, extensible real-time display
	editor.

(Shouldn't "incarnation" be "implementation"?)

And the manual explains each of those terms (see esp. "advanced" and
"extensible"):

	Emacs is a "display" editor because normally the text being
	edited is visible on the screen and is updated automatically as
	you type your commands.

	It [is] a "real-time" editor because the display is updated very
	frequently, usually after each character or pair of characters
	you type.

	Emacs [is] advanced because it provides facilities that go
	beyond simple insertion and deletion: controlling subprocesses;
	automatic indentation of programs; viewing two or more files at
	once; editing formatted text; and dealing in terms of
	characters, words, lines, sentences, paragraphs, and pages, as
	well as expressions and comments in several different
	programming languages.

	"Self-documenting" means that at any time you can type a special
	character, `Control-h', to find out what your options are.

	"Customizable" means that you can change the definitions of
	Emacs commands in little ways.

	"Extensible" means that you can go beyond simple customization
	and write entirely new commands, programs in the Lisp language
	to be run by Emacs's own Lisp interpreter.

-- 
Kevin Rodgers

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[foo experimental account]

When you see a `login' prompt, you can start with Emacs just as you
can start with BASH or X.  In fact, I am writing this from such an
Emacs, user `foo', not from an instance of Emacs running in X under
user `bob' as you might guess from my Reply-to line and signature.

Kevin Rodgers writes, 

    Emacs can be an integrating environment, and it does have both
    graphical and command line interfaces.  But it is definitely a
    text editor.

There is no doubt Emacs can be an integrating environment.  Similarly,
BASH can be an integrating environment.  Although it lacks a graphical
interface, with its libraries, for example those for ed or vi, it also
is definitely a text editor.

Indeed, no one wants an integrating user environment that lacks some
way of editing text, moving files, evoking interpreted commands, and
evoking commands written in compiled languages.

    The Emacs manual has the correct definition ...

Why do you think it has the correct definition?  After all, RMS said
that moving files is a form of editing.  Indeed, I agree, such actions
are a form of editing.  But few speak that way.  Most people speak of
renaming a file as different from changing a word within a file.

And while the Emacs manual has room to define each of its terms, such
as `advanced', a dictionary entry does not.

I like thi's comment:

    emacs seeps into every nook and cranny, ... explicitly changing
    ... the perception of all those bits by its users ...

    people who don't understand this initially do so eventually ...

but the change takes time.

A dictionary entry has little space and its readers little time.

Certainly, as Nic Ferrier said, we are in religious territory when we
argue over what makes for a good dictionary entry for people who know
nothing of Emacs.  

But that does not mean religious arguments are irrelevant.  After all,
one argument in the US is whether self-replicating entities have the
capacity to make changes when replicating, and the implications of
that, or whether their replication produces entities that must be
similar (and implications).  If you conclude the latter, you can
safely cut your budget for research on the growth of drug resistance
among germs.  The argument over Emacs' definition in a dictionary
entry is less significant.

But it is not completely insignificant.  The grammar in a command line
interface like BASH is different from the grammar in a graphical user
interface.  Currently, those two environments provide the two most
commonly perceived grammars.  (I mean grammar here as a linguist does,
as a way of structuring representations.)

The grammar of a virtual lisp machine is different.  (Not hugely
different, but different enough.)  That is what this argument is
about:  what grammars should people commonly perceive as being
suitable for integrated environments, for what can come up when they
type their account name and password to a login prompt?

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         
    bob@rattlesnake.com                         GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc

Re: [comp.emacs] "Emacs" defined in Collins English Dictionary

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> writes:

> Will we at least know as soon enough we understand?

to know what you know: switch-to-buffer.
to know what you understand: C-h v.
to understand what you know: C-h f.
to understand what you understand: M-x dired RET ~/src/emacs/ RET.

> You've lost me again.  Are you talking about Emacs development,
> developer health, that weird Japanese game, or the second law
> of thermodynamics?

yes, depending on the contents of your ~/.emacs (or equivalent :-).

thi