Re: Auto Fill Comments

[Arthur Miller]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * 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.
I understood what you mean; but I tried to tell you what you actually
said, or at least how I percieve you. Of course I understand that you
don't mean it literally; but that is how it sounds; it least I
percieve it so, and I can be wrong and missunderstand you too.

I think you are onto something though, but I am not sure you are
expressing it precisely, and I am not sure I can express it well myself.

> 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 paragraph is definitely the key (I think). I can't agree completely
with you; partially I do. For the first, I think that no manual or
terminology should used words that does not stem from semantic meaning
of the language. Killing text or buffers in emacs is not very much
detached from the meaning of word kill in general. Thus it probably is
not very hard for anyone to understand what it means in the text editing
context either, right?

If somebody gets reminded of something else when they see a word, it is
not because they don't know what the word means, or what it means in
that particular context (usually). Especially not such basic word as
kill for example. Human beings can get reminded of somethign because of
certain smell, sound, colour, shape, feel, or simply a memory can come
up. Does not have necessary to be because of person knowing or not
knowing "true" meaning in the context of the language or in the context
of praticular situation (such as text editing).

> 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.
Then we have silly situations we all find us in sometimes, where we are
not aware of context words are used in. If somebody who is not a
programmer hear people talking about brainfuck they certainly may think
of something else than a silly programming language. But that is just a
lack of information at particular moment. While yes, that can happen to
people; I doubt that any normally gifted person would missunderstand
what "kill" in Emacs manuals aims at. I don't think dictionary lookup is
needed in that particular case. That also attaches to this one:

> 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.

I am not sure what do you really mean with replacement meanings that
occur by themselves. Do you have some research on that? I don't think
that any normally gifted, average person, would put some imaginative
meaning into words in some new context, but I am not sure I know what I
am talking here :-). I am not an expert on the language and psychology.

I have been reading some philosophy, physics, math and programming in my
life, seldom in my first language. I have been many times in a situation
where I didn't know what a word mean, or how do they use a particular word
in a context and so on. Somehow I always knew when I didn't understand
the word or when I didn't understand how it is used, and I always
looked it up. I am not a linguist, nor have I ever studied the
language, but I am sure most people understand when they need to look up
a word. At least, that is what I percieve when I look around me, from
the life. Sure, sometimes we do get things wrong too, but not such
things that I wouldn't know what word "kill" in Emacs mean. Having
correct meaning still does not prevent from having association when I
think about it sometimes. 

> 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.

Yes, of course, but we should still be allowed to disslike things, or to
like things and to state our disslikes. It belongs to freedom. The other
thing is what practically matter. Terminology in Emacs has been brought
up so many times, and I still disslike the terminology but I can also
realize that there are more interesting things to work on, then renaming
things. Sure, I still think we would do better by cutting and pasting
then killing and yanking, but who cares really? You bind them to a key
anyway, and just think in terms of key. I mean, few shortcuts and names,
people should probably reflect about how much it really means, and that
is not much; it's just names.

>> > 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:

>> 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.
I am sorry if I missunderstand you, but this is how it comes to me:

Someone has been in a car, driving into a curve, loosing the controll
and tipping on the roof with the car. Afterwards, that person says: I
don't like to travel by car, I prefer to travel by train.

If you told them to lookup true meaning of the word car, how do you
think they would percieve that? Would that help them? I don't know;
maybe some other book would, but probably not a dictionary.

That is how I am thinking of it; and it makes me laugh, but I don't mean
in a bad way. I do understand that you mean that people should not hang
themselves on the traumatic memories, but focus on the context in which
the word is used. I agree with you, I just don't agree on the dictionary
part of it :-).

I am sorry; too lengthy; always nice to chat, but wasn't so much of the
programming I meant to do today. I wanted to font lock my auto readme
mode, I actually red the manual and I think I know how to do it know;
will see.

I wish you great day, or evening or whatever is in your part of the
world;

Cheers
/a