Re: Auto Fill Comments

[Jean Louis]

* Arthur Miller <arthur.miller@live.com> [2020-11-27 09:28]:

> > What does make sense to help in understanding is using dictionaries
> > and finding definitions.
> Indeed; my engish really sux I know! Thank your posting the meaning of
> world kill, being long time until I worked on my glossary.

> Frankly I said old; I didn't said obsolete; nor incomprehensive;
> on contrary. Didn't you read that from the message I tried to
> convey?

I see, thank you. 

> I think you are going into waters we don't need to go to here. I was
> illustrating to the guy that everybody can find things to disslike, but
> at the end terminology is just names, just a combination of characters
> or sounds not to get attached to.

That is it.

But in general I was thinking I am replying on other person's
statement, maybe I got lost. My point is exactly is you stated above
that one may dislike things and that it is better to look what the
word really is, just characters and sounds and meanings.

There is no logical need to connect those meanings to get reminded of
any problems. But that is in fact so, people do, as we are not
perfect.

Specific words and writings are triggers for unexpected reactions
which historical source does not stem from the present time.

> > The word in itself is harmless. Trauma that person associates with the
> > word is what hurts the person. To lessen that effect it is advisable
> > to find the true meanings of the words used and in which context as
> > that way one will not use the imaginative meanings or wrong meanings
> > that stem from person's mind.
> For the record; I have no traumas, and if I did I would certainly not
> ask for the advice on the Internet but I can't be not to comment your
> statements:

I do not refer to you personally. I referred to "reminding of
killings" when reading the word "kill" in Emacs Manual.

> Do you mean, when people have traumas, they should get a dictionary to
> read, to make them feel better? Because that is what you are saying! :D
> Is that seriously what you are claiming, or you are just trying to be
> ironic/sarcastic?

I was specific and not sarcastic neither ironic. Neither I said what
you say in this paragraph neither meant it so. Sorry for
misunderstanding.

If any person does not know the meaning of a word "kill" in the sense
of wiping out some text or lines, that person may connect the word to
the only meaning that person knows which could be related to causing
to die. As the intention of the manual is not to cause people think
what it was meant, reader could be aware that something is not logical
there and should be able to find the true meaning of the word "kill"
in the context where it relates to deleting parts of text. This way
any raised emotions or memories or associations are calmed down.

> That sounds a little bit odd if you believe that people have traumas
> because they got wrong meaning of a word.

I did not say so neither expressed it so, maybe I have not expressed
myself very clear. My point was just the same as you said that words
are words with its characters, sound and meanings.

> I would rather claim the opposite. Also saying people use
> imaginative meanings is quite a wild claim; that is somethign you
> would have to assert on per case basis.

You may claim the opposite but you did not see that I do not claim the
opposite neither is important.

When I mentioned "imaginative meaning" I meant "the one meaning out of
context that person has". When reading the word "kill" without knowing
what it means in the context of deleting text, the only thing person
can think of is "causing somebody to die".

By simple reading one can over time learn what words mean without
consulting dictionary, but by consulting the proper definition one
learns it faster.

Example sentence:

Haskell programmer lost significant weight as he never came trough his
larval stage.

Without knowing what "Haskell" is or "larval stage" person reading
that sentence can get other meanings, what I meant with "imaginative"
meanings, those known to the person. What if instead of "Haskell" we
used "Brainfuck"?

Brainfuck programmer lost significant weight as he never came trough his
larval stage.

Then person could think that programmer is brainfucked instead that
programmer works in brainfuck language. Right? In absence of a true
meaning readers will put their own meanings or imaginative meanings or
replacements.

One has to know definition of each word to understand it and to
prevent replacement meanings that occur by itself when one does not
know the true one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

Larval stage:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/L/larval-stage.html

My important point is that Emacs Manual uses word "kill" or other
words that in other contexts mean something else. Readers are advised
to find the definition in dictionaries that fits into the context. If
such cannot be found as it is computer terminology then maybe asking
here or searching Internet can help.