Re: General advice beyond Org

[Gene <gene.sullivan@gmail.com>]

> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 3:07:01 AM UTC-4, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: 
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 04:27:12PM -0700, Gene wrote:
> 
>> U = No
>> topia = place
> 
> <nitpick> that's Greek, afaik </nitpick>
> 
> ;-)

Point taken ... and accepted along with the whole fertile field as yet addressed.

The subjective experience at the heart of the complaint -- for both the plaintiff and on behalf of one and all -- is non-free, unfree software used as a form of hobble, constraint, or operational handicap ... as if the (im)proprietary' suchness had a thing to do with the REAL, deeper issue; it doesn't.

In this thread we've all been, with NO complaints thus far, (mis)using the language of the English -- with it's draconian-yet-fickle-and-irregular orthography, grammar, subject-object metaphysics, lack of regular verbs, bullshit `standard' usage, etc, ad nausuem.

Why not complain that `The Boss' wants all reports in ENGLISH -- rather than German, Japanese, or Italian, which might have been the case had WWII turned out different?
Why not complain that deep-structural semantics are being obfuscated by a preference for ANY surface-structural so-called `natural' -- no less artificial or man-made than so-called `artificial' -- language such as English?

The complaint underpinning this thread is too superficial; it floats among the flotsam and jetsam with miles of DEPTH between it and the `bottom of things'.

Why not complain that `The Boss' doesn't accept William Whitaker's Words allowing one to use Latin ... or any app which allows one to craft words consistent with the rules for generating neologisms in Greek?

Can we use the rules for crafting neologisms available to the users of Ancient Greek or Latin when (mis)using English ... when in many if not most Anglophone countries the use of neologisms and 3 consulting physicians can get one sent off to the loony bin as if the crafting and use of neologisms were sufficient evidence for a Schizophrenia charge-cum-diagnosis?

We've got elisp for use via computational linguistics, but we've been pandering to the orthography, grammar, serial ticker tape of pandering-to-SOUND glyphs of English?

It's the non-free proprietariness of it all which seems insufferable ... as we pander-to and bow-before the hegemony of the would-be `natural' language arising more due to the caprice of which side won a world war than anything `rational'.

How `rational' seems this?

#+begin_src elisp
(setq
  U 
          "No"
  Topia 
          "Place"

  hyphenated-neologism
    (mapconcat 'identity `(,U ,Topia) "-")
)

#+end_src

Given the functional paradigm, computational linguistics, and the elisp functions split-string and mapconcat, why do we hand craft `literal strings' rather than symbolic expressions which generate the superficial surface structures of whatever `natural language' `The Boss' demands?

Why not transcend the proof-of-schizophrenia `neo'-ness of neologisms IN ENGLISH -- but not Latin or Greek -- by going further up the meta stream by programmatically ensuring that ALL text was generated anew with every generation of a side-effectual `report' pandering to whatever LANGUAGE `The Boss' arbitrarily specifies?

Ever so `rational' chemists can compose molecules from atoms and sub-assemblies of lower order molecules AND/OR exploit the inverse processes of decomposition.
How `rational' does it seem to NOT be able to decompose a word into roots, prefixes, and suffices but NOT cobble-together or synthesize new molecular WORDS -- perhaps to a holophrastic scope and scale -- BECAUSE `standard usage' and non conformance thereof may paint a target on one's back for targeting by language Nazis in cahoots with those with more-equal-pig status with a foot each in the Medical-Legal camps, in the metaphorical Animal Farm AKA `Mother Culture', as we are subjugated into COMPLIANCE -- into going along to get along -- while we bitch about ... what?

How rational seems it to set the angle of the blinders/blinkers to tunnel vision settings which allows THIS to seem figural while we're using one of the most mind-hobbling `natural' languages in the world, to discuss something less irrational than the language we're misusing to fumble around in our Universe of Discourse?