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

[AEF]

On Feb 11, 5:06 pm, koeh... at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <b08c69e6-5f41-48e5-b0a0-a45c84506... at fw24g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > It's still illogical, and computers are logical. Therefore, it is
> > illogical to use an illogical term to describe a logical entity.
>
>    Your argument is nonsequitur.
>
>    Computers may be logical, but language is a product of illogical
>    humans.  Language does not have to be logical, and I know of none
>    that is.

Well, new words don't have to be illogical, either. Why make things
worse?

What about Latin? I'm not sure but I thought it had rather strict
rules.

> > So what exactly is the appeal of the term VAXen?
>
>    Decades of use.

That doesn't work for "noo-cyoo-ler", and for me, at least, it doesn't
work for VAXen.

What a shame. What is probably the coolest word or name ever -- VAX --
is spoiled by a crummy plural spelling. Bummer.

> > 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"
>
>    Sure looks like VAXen wins to me, almost 2:1.

But as I said last time, words can have multiple plural spellings. I'd
say all three qualify, esp. since the third is what is used in the VMS
docs!

AEF