Re: [FWP] Fun with terminology

[John Porter <jdporter@min.net>]

rgaushell@iswest.com wrote:
> 
> Ok, sports fans.  I did a search at openlook.com for related words,
> and came up with "crucifixes" ... which translates to "circumfixes".
> However, being a good English major, I also know that it would be
> incorrect to assign a plural sense to an adjective or verb, which
> circumfix assuredly must be, just as 'infix', 'postfix' and 'prefix'
> are adjectives or verbs.  So, the correct usage would be "circumfix
> operators" or "circumfix <i>your plural noun here</i>". 

Since when?  I mean, it may at one time have been true -- like,
in 1611 -- that "prefix" was not a noun.  But it most assuredly
is now, at least in the very broad jargon we, all of us, speak.

And although it doesn't address this exact construction,
no discussion of plurals in any Perl-related forum would be
complete without a reference to the article about the same
by Tom Christiansen -- him whose words allegedly bring only
good things.

    http://www.perl.com/pub/language/misc/virus.html


> Although I have to agree with the writer who suggested outfix
> as a more logical choice.

Thank you !

-- 
John Porter


==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe