Re: Functionality

Subject: Re: Functionality
From: Mike Bygrave <bygravem -at- INTUITIVE -dot- CO -dot- UK>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:31:26 +-100

Sue proposed that:
>> It *is* a word, and is listed in my Webster's under "functional."

You may (or may not) be interested to find that 'functionality' is not
mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary. Does this mean that it is
acceptable in American English but not in English? After all, you can't get
much more definitive in terms of the English language than the OED.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mike Bygrave (bygravem -at- intuitive -dot- co -dot- uk)
"1966 was a great year for English football - Cantona was born"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net


Previous by Author: Re: Multiple headings (3rd ?)
Next by Author: Re: Doing your own graphics
Previous by Thread: Re: Functionality
Next by Thread: Re: Functionality


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads