[Info-vax] Long uptime cut short by Hurricane Sandy

[AEF]

On Feb 11, 10:09 am, koeh... at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <13bcadfd-0102-4dca-98be-471859f09... at ia3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > So VAXes it is. VAXen is illogical. The term has no parallel in the
> > English language.
>
>    Niether does the spelling of laugh.  Both are exceptions adapted by
>    the society that uses them.

It's still illogical, and computers are logical. Therefore, it is
illogical to use an illogical term to describe a logical entity.

Yes, English is illogical, but that doesn't mean we have to add
illogical words. Furthermore, laugh is illogical w.r.t. pronunciation,
VAXen and VAXes are not. And why lump VAX with ox? Is the VAX like an
ox? Oh, how about tough? rough? cough? enough? trough? All have gh
pronounced as f, if that's what you mean.

How about this: VAX pl. VAXen or VAXes or VAX systems. That's pretty
standard in the dictionary. For example, from webster.com:

plural oc·to·pus·es or oc·to·pi.
plural an·ten·nae or an·ten·nas
plural fun·gi also fun·gus·es

So what exactly is the appeal of the term VAXen?

> It's too late to tell us to use VAXes
>    when we all know the plural of VAX is VAXen.

Is it really? By what criteria? By VAX users? sysmgrs? cov
participants?

Searching cov for VAXen and VAXes and "VAX systems"

10,100 results for vaxen
 5,180 results for vaxes
 3,150 results for "vax systems"

That's a fairly respectable number. Certainly worth an "also", if not
an "or".

AEF