English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:

> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>>>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>>>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>>>> understanding recursion.
>>> 
>>> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point
>>> was not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to
>>> understand in order to use.
>>
>> Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
> 
> I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
> from what I intended.
> 
> What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
> person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do
> you wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's
> contents?' meant. Never.

I know many people who have no idea what a directory is, let alone a 
subdirectory, unless it's the phone directory. They're non-computer 
users. Once they start using computers, they quickly work out what the 
word means in context, or they ask and get told, and then they've learned 
a new word and never need ask again. This is a good thing.

The idiom of "recursively delete" is no different. Of course some people 
will have to learn a new term in order to make sense of it. So what?


> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their
> garden? I burn them.

I know many people who incinerate leaves in an incinerator. Or at least 
they used to, until the government here banned it. It might only have 
been a 44 gallon drum with holes punched in the side, but they still 
called it an incinerator.

I learned that word from my father, who left school at 14 to work in a 
shoe shop. He isn't especially educated, doesn't read much beyond the 
daily tabloid, and thinks Benny Hill is the height of wit. But he's not 
an idiot and even at 72 is capable of learning new words.


>> Do they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be
>> saying "invisible rays cooking thing"?
> 
> The word oven has existed for ages, microwave is just a name for the
> type of oven. Not even a description, just a name.

Why do you think they're called "microwave ovens" instead of "fizzbaz 
ovens"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that they 
cook with microwaves?

So not actually "just a name" at all. It's a jargon description of the 
implementation of the oven.


>> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
>> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws
>> of Motion in order to drive cars?
> 
> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The
> simple addition of gas solved that need. 

What's a gas pedal? Is that some strange American term for what most of 
the English-speaking world knows as the accelerator? *wink*


> Oh, and it's break pedal, not descellarator. (sp?)

That would be brake, and decelerator.


>> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
>> that they don't need to know?
> 
> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.

You can't force people to learn new words, although you would be 
surprised how even the most disinterested, lazy speaker manages to pick 
up vocabulary without even being aware of it.

But nor do you have to pander to the slackers. They can learn the word, 
or not, I don't care. If I'm writing for an audience of children, or 
English as a second language, or the otherwise linguistically challenged, 
I'll simplify my vocabulary appropriately. For everyone else, I'll use an 
ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or 
"recursive". It's hardly technical jargon -- I've found a discussion of 
gangsta rap that uses it. Even children understand the concept of 
recursion (self-reference). People put it in comedies like Blazing 
Saddles and Space Balls! How difficult is it to put a name to the concept?


> I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word
> can be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value,
> somehow).
> 
> But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms
> that need to be explained to 'lay' people.

Pedantic... that's another one of those academic words that need to be 
explained to lay people, isn't it? As is academic itself, and in fact 
"lay people". Who uses "lay people" in conversation?

Conversation -- another one of those four syllable words that should be 
avoided, since we have "talk". I don't remember that last time I've heard 
Bazza or Jimbo say "I was on the Internet having a conversation on 
Jabber", do you?

Oh, actually I do. So much for that argument.


> widespread, usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless
> effort if pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)

I think you *grossly* underestimate how many words people know, 
particularly if you include so-called "passive vocabulary" (words people 
can understand in context, but not define precisely). See, for example:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm



-- 
Steven