• OT: Does Tim maybe overuse the word "Procrustean" a bit?

    From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 24 06:06:59 2022
    Previously, there was a thread on the use of the word "Procrustean" (among other things).
    But now it occurs to me that the compound word "one-size-fits-all" seems
    to say exactly the same thing in the same number of syllables, using much
    more common and easily accessible vocab? Furthermore, the cost
    in increased characters would appear small.

    But I suppose "Procrustean"-users could readily argue that they're
    encouraging people to get in touch with allusions from the classics
    and are furthering the cause of a traditional education.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Wed May 25 08:36:57 2022
    On 5/24/2022 9:06 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Previously, there was a thread on the use of the word "Procrustean" (among other things).
    But now it occurs to me that the compound word "one-size-fits-all" seems
    to say exactly the same thing in the same number of syllables, using much more common and easily accessible vocab? Furthermore, the cost
    in increased characters would appear small.

    There is certainly a difference in connotation.

    "One-size-fits-all" makes me think of socks that can stretch to
    accommodate feet of all different sizes. Something invented by
    an ingenious entrepreneur.

    "Procrustean" makes me think of chopping off people's toes to
    make them fit into a fixed-size shoe. Something a small-minded
    tyrant with some power would do.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Thu May 26 01:15:40 2022
    On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:37:01 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 5/24/2022 9:06 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Previously, there was a thread on the use of the word "Procrustean" (among other things).
    But now it occurs to me that the compound word "one-size-fits-all" seems
    to say exactly the same thing in the same number of syllables, using much more common and easily accessible vocab? Furthermore, the cost
    in increased characters would appear small.
    There is certainly a difference in connotation.

    "One-size-fits-all" makes me think of socks that can stretch to
    accommodate feet of all different sizes. Something invented by
    an ingenious entrepreneur.

    ...

    I googled the usage of "one-size-fits-all" a bit.
    The adjective tends to have highly positive or highly negative connotations, depending on the qualified noun.
    It is indeed positive when qualifying clothing (as you say), but almost always highly negative when qualifying
    "approach".

    However, "Procrustean" (as I understand it) (almost) never has positive connotations.
    I'm not convinced that the word "Procrustean" is therefore necessary (or even particularly valuable)
    since when "one-size-fits-all" is used as a synonym for "Procrustean", I think the meaning is clear.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Sun May 29 06:12:49 2022
    On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 2:06:18 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 5/26/2022 4:15 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    However, "Procrustean" (as I understand it) (almost) never has positive connotations.
    I'm not convinced that the word "Procrustean" is therefore necessary (or even particularly valuable)
    since when "one-size-fits-all" is used as a synonym for "Procrustean", I think the meaning is clear.
    There are other reasons to use "procrustean." A person
    can be described as procrustean. It would be odd, and would
    not really convey the same meaning, to say that a person is "one-size-fits-all."

    Also, even if used with a negative connotation, "one-size-fits-all"
    does not necessarily suggest that anything is being forcibly altered
    in order to fit into a fixed framework. If I'm an editor and you
    submit a photo to be published, then a procrustean approach suggests
    that I'll crop your photo, perhaps in a grotesque manner, to fit the
    space that I've allotted. A one-size-fits-all approach might mean
    that I enlarge or shrink your photo to fit the space.

    Good points. I didn't know that "procrustean" could apply to a person, but now that you
    say it, it makes sense. I think Dickens's famous novels had a lot of people who could
    be described thus.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Sun May 29 09:06:12 2022
    On 5/26/2022 4:15 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    However, "Procrustean" (as I understand it) (almost) never has positive connotations.
    I'm not convinced that the word "Procrustean" is therefore necessary (or even particularly valuable)
    since when "one-size-fits-all" is used as a synonym for "Procrustean", I think the meaning is clear.

    There are other reasons to use "procrustean." A person
    can be described as procrustean. It would be odd, and would
    not really convey the same meaning, to say that a person is "one-size-fits-all."

    Also, even if used with a negative connotation, "one-size-fits-all"
    does not necessarily suggest that anything is being forcibly altered
    in order to fit into a fixed framework. If I'm an editor and you
    submit a photo to be published, then a procrustean approach suggests
    that I'll crop your photo, perhaps in a grotesque manner, to fit the
    space that I've allotted. A one-size-fits-all approach might mean
    that I enlarge or shrink your photo to fit the space.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)