Re: Insure vs Ensure, was Re: Should we hire this guy?

Subject: Re: Insure vs Ensure, was Re: Should we hire this guy?
From: Jo Francis Byrd <jbyrd -at- byrdwrites -dot- com>
To: "Ackerson, Allan" <aackerson -at- logicon -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:42:48 -0500

Interesting you should say that. Several years ago, a newsman described a
situation as SNAFU, then defined the term using "fouled" instead of the original
"F" word. It occured to me at the time that the "clean" version simply does not
convey the enormity of the problem. And usually, when something is SNAFU, it IS
horrible!

On a humorous side note: several years ago I was part of a development team
which included a couple of guys from India. Someone used the word SNAFU; the two
Indians looked puzzled; apparently they'd never heard the term before. They
asked the meaning and we all just looked at one another going, "um...." Ye local
wordsmith here got elected as the one to define the term. Which I managed to do
without getting graphic about it.

Jo Byrd

"Ackerson, Allan" wrote:

> Ah, but it was not always so. Once upon a time the words were used for
> separate purposes, but slipshod writing has blurred the distinctions. So have
> many unique words been prostituted by lackluster wordsmiths. My favorite
> misused word is enormity, which once meant only horrible, but has, through
> ignorance, come to mean large, also. Alas!
>
> Cheers!
> Al





Previous by Author: Word gripe
Next by Author: Re: Other Clients from Hell
Previous by Thread: RE: Insure vs Ensure, was Re: Should we hire this guy?
Next by Thread: RE: Insure vs Ensure, was Re: Should we hire this guy?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads