atw: Re: Into Linguistic semantics. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hallett, Michelle:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:23:11 +1100,  you wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with Peter. He says 'put' is short and meaningful. It's
> not especially meaningful, it is like 'get', it gets (use intentional) used
> in a variety of sentences where you can't think of a specific word.

Of course it's meaningful.  Its most common modern meaning
is simple enough.     

Try :
"place something: to move something into a particular place or position"

... which I found in a trice as the top priority meaning in the first 
web dictionary I came across. 

And as I mentioned in a separate post, it is not insignificant that
simple old software engineers use the words "put" and "get" all the time
in their programming -- because they work !   

A word is not responsible for those who misuse it. 
In fact, I would suggest that you act more "professionally" if you use
this word in its clearer context and thereby encourage its "proper" 
use, instead of trying for Latinate or Frenchified substitutes.  

They may go down well with some, but then if you want to do that all
the time, you can talk about leveraged opportunities for suitable placement
in the relevant location. 

And see where that gets you.  Sure "add" is not bad.  But neither is "put".

Why not refuse to be moved by those who misuse words and simply use them
properly ?  

--Peter M

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: