From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:39:04 GMT

In article <8217@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>>>"Functionality" is merely the noun form of the adjective "functional."

>>>And what ever happened to "function"? Is that an outdated modality?

>>"Function" is a noun.
>>"Functional" is an adjective derived from "function".
>>"Functionality" is (unfortunately) a noun derived from "functional".

>>What's next, an adjective derived from "functionality"?  And yet 
>>another useless noun derived from that adjective?  Have we invented
>>linguistic ping-pong yet?

>Thank you! Somebody picked up on my point. Roger was so busy name calling
>that he missed it entirely.

Huh?  I missed that there are several suffixes attached to the word?  

I may have missed the *significance* you attach to this...

>The next step is no doubt "functionality-ness." 

Why?  Hundreds of words have gone from "-al" to "-ality."  It's 
a standard transformation.  "-alityness" doesn't happen.  Why do 
you say this? 

>Eventually, as it comes into common usage, the hyphen will be dropped.

And then the barbarians will be at the gate, right?

>Yes, functionality does have a slightly different meaning from function.
>But, can the meaning be better expressed (more simply) using existing terms?

Excuse me, but "functionality" is also an existing term.

It has existed for over a century, and the two OED citations for it
are from Earle's Philology of the English Tongue (1871) and the 1879
Britannica.  

That said, must one always use the simplest term?  Of course not, 
especially when different terms carry different nuances.  We think
of technical things when we hear "functionality," or perhaps modern
architecture.  "Use" doesn't do that.  

It's rather astounding that people who ignore nuance and its uses
(or, if you will, its functionality) turn around and call *me*
tin-eared.

>Others here have demonstrated just that.

Fine.  One *can* use another word.  But one need not.  And if this 
word suggests what the other one doesn't, and one wishes to suggest
just that, then one *should* not use another word.

>Sure, language can evolve over time, and sure, it is a living thing. But
>really, folks, is it right to perform continual genetic engineering on it?

Yes.  Just as breathing is right.  People change language every day, 
simply by talking about new things, by talking about things in new 
ways.  This includes rearranging words, inventing new ones, and using
old ones in new ways.

>For no good reason other than ignorance and laziness? 

The same person who calls me tin-eared is also the one who complains 
that I insult people.  YOu've just insulted every speaker of the language.
Nice going.  

Sorry, but your schoolmasterish approach has nothing to do with the
way people normally speak and write.  It's not laziness to combine
words in new ways, or to add a prefix or suffix where none was -- 
it's simply a natural act of speech.

Laziness is when you imagine that you know some rules for good and
bad speech, and that they obtain everywhere.

>Jive "happens," but that
>doesn't mean we need to seek it out, or contribute to it.

Jive being any language *you* don't like?  

In what way does "functionality" constitute or contribute to jive?
And why NOT seek out a new way of saying something, if that is what
you want to do?

>P.S. to Roger - Musicologists can have tin ears, too. Even in music, though
>I didn't accuse you of that. I know how your ear is in linguistics, can you
>share with us some of your music so we can judge that too? ;-}

Musicologists don't compose.  I could send you some music by my favorite
composers, though.  

As for linguistics, tell me again what your argument has to do with
linguistics.  My ear works just fine in detecting differences and in
noting usages, nice turns of phrase, etc.  

When you start doing linguistics, let me know.

Roger
>--
>Brian Diehm
>Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
>P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
>Beaverton, OR   97077


Newsgroups: alt.usage.english