Always remembering, Andrew, that "to obsolesce" means to become obsolete and is
an intransitive verb. Whereas Ken is using the word "obsolete" as a transitive
verb.
It's a corruption of the language however you look at, but we have already been
through the idea that something is not obsolete if it's still in healthy use.
Chris
On 4 Feb 2013, at 23:13, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A philosophical response would begin with defining the term 'dog' and perhaps
> denying the validity of 'obsolete' used as an active verb. And defining the
> concept of 'obsolete' which originally meant, to fall into disuse. So if it
> is in use, it's not obsolete. And that qualifier 'appear to be' is
> problematic.
> To obsolesce here seems to depend upon the existence of a yet merely planned
> replacement, so it is a potential state, not an actual state. And then there
> is the problem that the replacement may not be an improvement in some or many
> ways. Did the E5 become obsolete when the E-M5 was released - clearly not,
> unless you really need small and light.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|