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 Wuerthner           MW Software          lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts: