Re: superlative missuse
От | David Wilson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: superlative missuse |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e7f9235d0905141821l40397eci92f6f9f1cdf0e4d8@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | superlative missuse (Angel Alvarez <clist@uah.es>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote: > 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? Oh, I agree it's an error- and it's one I personally avoid. But unfortunately, it's remarkably common and has been for some time- as Tom pointed out with the quote from the US Constitution. On the other hand, "more best" is more clearly a mistake because of the presence of "better" as an alternative that is both correct and commonly used. "More optimized" is infrequent enough to slip by a little more easily. > Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one > rebuttal. As is, of course, your certain right. I think that's enough on the list, though I'd be happy to continue off-list if there's any interest. :) -- - David T. Wilson david.t.wilson@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: