tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post113944127189214134..comments2023-10-25T10:16:23.924-04:00Comments on Invented Usage: usage of the weekScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299970053622180647noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1142833855461987652006-03-20T00:50:00.000-05:002006-03-20T00:50:00.000-05:00I kept getting into fights with CS profs in grad s...I kept getting into fights with CS profs in grad school over the existence of the word "recurse" (they claimed it should be "recur", because that's the Latin form, as if that mattered). Then I pointed out that they used the verb "induct" all the time. Furthermore, there's a strong distinction: I can have a <I>recurring</I> dream. I can have a <I>recursing</I> dream. And they're different. (blahedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160994517895256904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1139869095866936212006-02-13T17:18:00.000-05:002006-02-13T17:18:00.000-05:00well said, ACW. Second time's the charm. I was wor...well said, ACW. Second time's the charm. I was worried for a while that my original post was unclear. <BR/><BR/>also, this 'hole in the lexicon' concept intrigues me (and it's come up in other recent posts). <BR/><BR/>perhaps another post will follow...?Cristihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09794033331046211307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1139605380338251042006-02-10T16:03:00.000-05:002006-02-10T16:03:00.000-05:00I find myself unable to explain myself coherently....I find myself unable to explain myself coherently. Having said that, let me try.<BR/><BR/>On purely compositional-semantics grounds, we would expect <I>recursion</I> and <I>recurrence</I> to be approximately synonymous abstract nouns corresponding to the verb <I>recur</I>. Both <I>recursion</I> and <I>recurrunce</I> should mean "happening again".<BR/><BR/>However (ah, here comes my coherence! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1139501673568707192006-02-09T11:14:00.000-05:002006-02-09T11:14:00.000-05:00Takes a lot of work to get people to case that wor...Takes a lot of work to get people to case that word right (speaking from intro computer science TA experience...)<BR/><BR/>i.e., people slip and use "recurse" instead of "recur"<BR/><BR/>(Makes more sense as a back-formation of recur<B>sive</B>--unvoiced phoneme, see?--which gets used a lot in contexts like:<BR/><BR/>A: Why the hell are you making that procedure <B>recursive</B>?<BR/>B: Because Sebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10513430642013001336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5719279.post-1139501322646518942006-02-09T11:08:00.000-05:002006-02-09T11:08:00.000-05:00The usual back-formation from recursion is recurse...The usual back-formation from <I>recursion</I> is <I>recurse</I>; when I was an undergrad in the late 1970's, my computer-savvy friends always used the word with a grin, knowing it was a wacky coinage rather than a "real word". The etymologically correct verb is, of course, <I>recur</I>, but this can't be used because it already means something else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com