English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Rikishi42]

On 2011-05-25, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> I know many people who have no idea what a directory is, let alone a 
> subdirectory, unless it's the phone directory. They're non-computer 
> users. Once they start using computers, they quickly work out what the 
> word means in context, or they ask and get told, and then they've learned 
> a new word and never need ask again. This is a good thing.
>
> The idiom of "recursively delete" is no different. Of course some people 
> will have to learn a new term in order to make sense of it. So what?

OK, but the addition of recursive, is not really usefull, is it? Deleting
the directory says it, doesn't it?


>> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their
>> garden? I burn them.
>
> I know many people who incinerate leaves in an incinerator. Or at least 
> they used to, until the government here banned it. It might only have 
> been a 44 gallon drum with holes punched in the side, but they still 
> called it an incinerator.
>
> I learned that word from my father, who left school at 14 to work in a 
> shoe shop. He isn't especially educated, doesn't read much beyond the 
> daily tabloid, and thinks Benny Hill is the height of wit. But he's not 
> an idiot and even at 72 is capable of learning new words.

Is it that widespread? I figured most people woul speak of burning.
OK, my bad if it is.


>>> Do they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be
>>> saying "invisible rays cooking thing"?
>> 
>> The word oven has existed for ages, microwave is just a name for the
>> type of oven. Not even a description, just a name.
>
> Why do you think they're called "microwave ovens" instead of "fizzbaz 
> ovens"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that they 
> cook with microwaves?
>
> So not actually "just a name" at all. It's a jargon description of the 
> implementation of the oven.

True, but I meant that they just use it as a name. I don't think many people
would actually try to find out what a microwave is.


>>> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
>>> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws
>>> of Motion in order to drive cars?
>> 
>> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The
>> simple addition of gas solved that need. 
>
> What's a gas pedal? Is that some strange American term for what most of 
> the English-speaking world knows as the accelerator? *wink*


Oh, come one. I'm sure I've heard that often enough NOT to have imagined it.


>> Oh, and it's break pedal, not descellarator. (sp?)
> That would be brake, and decelerator.

Sorry. But I actually have a excuse for those. (see below)  ;-)


>> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> You can't force people to learn new words, although you would be 
> surprised how even the most disinterested, lazy speaker manages to pick 
> up vocabulary without even being aware of it.

I know, I'm one.


> But nor do you have to pander to the slackers. They can learn the word, 
> or not, I don't care. If I'm writing for an audience of children, or 
> English as a second language, or the otherwise linguistically challenged, 

Third, actually. But I do try.  ;-)


> I'll simplify my vocabulary appropriately. For everyone else, I'll use an 
> ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or 
> "recursive". It's hardly technical jargon -- I've found a discussion of 
> gangsta rap that uses it. Even children understand the concept of 
> recursion (self-reference). People put it in comedies like Blazing 
> Saddles and Space Balls! How difficult is it to put a name to the concept?
>
>
>> I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word
>> can be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value,
>> somehow).
>> 
>> But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms
>> that need to be explained to 'lay' people.
>
> Pedantic... that's another one of those academic words that need to be 
> explained to lay people, isn't it? As is academic itself, and in fact 
> "lay people". Who uses "lay people" in conversation?

That (lay people) was atually a quote, from someone who actually used it in
this thread.


>> widespread, usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless
>> effort if pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)
>
> I think you *grossly* underestimate how many words people know, 
> particularly if you include so-called "passive vocabulary" (words people 
> can understand in context, but not define precisely). See, for example:
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm

Got a point, there.



-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson