----- Original Message ----- From: "Shawn Burns" <s1burns at ucsd.edu> To: "'Dragaera (E-mail)'" <dragaera at dragaera.info> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Ubiquitous > This turned out to be funnier than I had even intended: > > Howard: "If you want to learn a language well, there are much easier > languages. But > to learn it poorly, English is a good choice. And of course, it is > ubiquitous." > > Shawn (commenting on how easy communication is in English even if used > poorly): "What is a 'ubiquitous' mean?" > > Def #1: "Nifty" (this may have been a joke) > Def #2: "Easily Corruptible" > Def #3: "Widespread" > Def #4: "It means that everybody knows what the words mean" > > I got kicked in the head by how truly difficult (and possibly > non-ubiquitous) the English language is. Perhaps the words themselves are > ubiquitous (although this is a matter of degree), but definitions are > resistant to dissemination. And they are malleable. And there's nothing > wrong with that. I'm going to use "ubiquitous" as "nifty" from now on. > > Shawn > > I find this to be the case in written communication more often than when speaking. I wonder if this is from the visual/body language cues that are missing, or if in a verbal conversation one is more likely to ask a question at the point of misunderstanding? Jeff