Re: Good style?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:48:14 +0100, Einde O'Callaghan
<einde.ocallaghan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Irritated Foreigner schrieb:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:48:54 +0000, John Hall
<nospam_nov03@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <8rhnq25hf3etro08prnjdh7vi1nv5jkiu9@xxxxxxx>,
Irritated Foreigner <somewhere@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

What do you think about frequently occuring word combinations
like "to open an object"?
For me, it sounds rather stupid and funny.
In my language, such combinations are impossible.
Because there is no logic in those.
You can open a door as such,
but you cannot open an object AS SUCH.

I think that "opening an object" is computer programming jargon, and the
expression would not be used in any other context.
I've never seen it
used elsewhere, so I am surprised that you describe it as "frequently
occurring". I agree that in "normal English" it would make no sense.


It is frequently occuring in computer games,
but they always mean wardrobe, box or similar things.
So I think that it is semi-(computer jargon). Not programming, at
least. It's language fact of common life , rather than of professional
activity.

It's not a case of opening an object in general - it's a case of opening
a container - wardrobes, boxes, cases, briefcases, are containers and
when they are closed it is impossible to access their contents,
therefore you have to open them. this is quite normal English. And I
must say that there are parallel phrases in the other [European]
languages I know - nothing illogical as far as I can see.

Thank you for your reply.
But my question was about word usage, not about meaning.
I know what they mean, but how they write!

If I use such word as "object", this usage must mean something.
For example, if I call a cow "even-toed", the context must be zoology.
In other contexts, usually, such usage is funny.
Because the fact (that a cow is even-toed) is irrelevant.
("Even-toed, come here!")
"Even-toed", as such, is not supposed to be summoned.

So if you are going to open something, there is no contextual reason
to call it "object". "Object", as such, is not supposed to be opened.


That is the question. Semantic agreement. If the second case is
normal, why the first is not?

.