[svn-upgrade] new version scowl (7.1)

[deb_pkgs/scowl.git] / current / r / enable / sigword.doc

diff --git a/current/r/enable/sigword.doc b/current/r/enable/sigword.doc
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..62fbe9d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/current/r/enable/sigword.doc
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+                           THE SIGNATURE WORDS\r
+                           ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+In addition to the words which must be there, WORD.LST contains a number of\r
+additional words, called "signature words". These words serve several\r
+purposes. Their inclusion distinguishes this list from competing lists. They\r
+give the ENABLE list a certain flavor. And most important, they illustrate\r
+an important principle, which is that the English language is too vital, too\r
+chaotic, too *full*, to be adequately summed up by a single book, even one\r
+of such pedigree and scholarship as MW10.\r
+\r
+The signature words are MW10 oughta-bes, words and inflections which one or\r
+both of the ENABLE particpants believe are worthy of recognition as bona\r
+fide English. In many cases, such as "terraform" and "schlockmeister", there\r
+are no other words which can adequately take their place. Some words, such\r
+as "renormalize", "epitheliums" and "pantyhose", are well-documented by\r
+other dictionaries. Some, such as "stabbings", "transportee" and\r
+"birthdate", seem to have escaped the attention of all the major American\r
+lexicographers.\r
+\r
+Unlike most of the rest of the ENABLE package, the signature word list and\r
+its value (if any) are completely subjective.  Mendel and I found it\r
+impossible to completely agree on a number of words, and it would be\r
+surprising if anyone else found themselves in full agreement with either of\r
+us.  Is "absquatulate" a useful word, or a work of the devil? Is it possible\r
+to take the putative existence of the plural "breaksaway" seriously?  Does\r
+anyone actually say "bildungsromane"?  Is "unputdownable" a valuable\r
+addition to the lexicon, or the ultimate triumph of lack of style over lack\r
+of substance?\r
+\r
+Whether you agree with all our choices or not, we think the list to be an\r
+interesting illustration of the truism that the English language is just too\r
+damn big to be adequately captured, even for a moment, in anything so static\r
+as a dictionary, a CD-ROM, or even a "Benchmark Lexicon".\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+---Alan Beale\r