Re: [artworks] What's in a name?

  • From: Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:35:55 +0200

In message <012401c66f81$3ed8d5a0$65010101@jspsam>
          "Samuel Kock" <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Wuerthner" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>> In message <4459F5DA.5010002@xxxxxxxx>
>>          Clive Bonsall <C.Bonsall@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> "Integral" (i.e. part of the line) for the new style
>> 
>> "Integral" is a great idea - very much to the point and probably
>> easier to understand than "coincident". Certainly my new favourite,
>> thanks Clive. We do not really need a name for the old style since I
>> want to do it as an option button, but it is good to have "extended"
>> in case it is needed.
>> 
>> Could anyone give me a Dutch expression for "integral"?
> 
> How about "geintegreer" ?

Would that not be "geïntegreerd"? (note the dieresis and the d)
At least that is what I found in an online dictionary for 
"integrated", which, together with Hans's remark leads me to the 
question whether in English "integrated" would not be even more 
appropriate than "integral"?

Martin
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner           MW Software          lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: