[OSM-talk] LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee holding public discussions on Etiquette Guidelines

[Hugh Kelley]

Is there any precedent for an organization choosing to limit itself to a
subset of the designated language they use?

As someone who has worked in languages other than my native english, it
seems very strange to think that looking up new words would not be a
necessary part of that work. It's a part of working in my native language
as well.

To me, if it's established enough for Miriam Webster  and the Oxford
English Dictionary it's established enough for anyone else.

Perhaps any word that is controversial could be replaced with "frindle". :)





On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:13 AM Amanda McCann <amanda at technomancy.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Sep 2021  1:50 +02:00, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> > I would suggest to limit vocabulary to words that were in widespread use
> > in perhaps 1990, except for essential technical jargon.
>
> When talking about LGBTQ+ issues, discrimination, or things like
> transphobic attacks, then verbs like “to deadname” is essential jargon for
> the topic. 🙂
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
Hugh Kelley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210901/8ea37ddb/attachment.htm>