On Oct 5, 2:10 pm, vocabulary  wrote:
> On Oct 2, 1:42 am, Michele Dondi  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Note: crossposted to some supposedly relevant groups. If anyone has
> > better ones to suggest, then they're welcome.
>
> > For people reading this outside of clpmisc, the question arose with
> > the following post:
>
> > <news:sfvqs4-b8b.ln1@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>
>
> > which in turn was in response to an observation of mine. The whole
> > thread is available from GG at the following URL:
>
> > <http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=sfvqs4-b8b....@osiris.mauzo.dyndns.org>
>
> > ===========================================================================­­=====
>
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:59:52 퍝, Ben Morrow 
> > wrote:
>
> > >You have a good point; however, as is usual in English grammar,
> > >arguments from ancestry don't always help :). For instance, if 'optimum'
> > >and derived words are necessarily superlative, then 'optimized' means
> > >'made best', and A cannot be more optimized than B either. A has either
> > >been 'made best' or it hasn't.
>
> > I'm not sure. 'To optimize' could mean 'to try to reach the optimum'
> > (or optimal incarnation - of something) thus 'optimized' may mean 'to
> > have undergone the process of optimization', thus to have gone as much
> > as possible (wrt some constraints, e.g. time) towards the optimum
> > without necessarily reaching it. By contrast I see 'optimal' very much
> > as a synonym of 'optimum' itself, and personally I find much more
> > acceptable the expression 'more optimzed' than 'more optimal'.
>
> > >I think what has happened is that, in English, 'optimal' and
> > >'optimized' have acquired something of a sense of 'efficient', which is
> > >clearly comparative, rather than of 'best' in a more general sense. So
>
> > That they have been or are occasionally used in that sense may well
> > be, but I would be surprised to learn that they have actually
> > "acquired" it. If I paste the remaining two entries found by dict
> > (which I snipped last time), namely:
>
> > : From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :
> > :
> > :   24 Moby Thesaurus words for "optimal":
> > :      best, champion, choice, elect, elite, for the best, greatest,
> > :      handpicked, matchless, optimum, paramount, peerless, picked, prime,
> > :      prize, quintessential, select, supreme, surpassing, unmatchable,
> > :      unmatched, unparalleled, unsurpassed, very best
> > :  
> > :  
> > :
> > :
> > : From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03) :
> > :
> > :   optimal
> > :        
> > :           1.  Describes a solution to a problem which
> > :           minimises some cost function.  Linear programming is one
> > :           technique used to discover the optimal solution to certain
> > :           problems.
> > :        
> > :           2.  Of code: best or most efficient in time,
> > :           space or code size.
>
> > you will see that the last one, which is specifically aimed at CS and
> > IT -and it's actually relevant here- still does not mention just
> > "efficiency". Thus my take on the issue is that 'optimal' is not just
> > 'efficient' as alleged, but 'the most efficient'. All this, still at a
> > syntactical level, i.e. we're not discussing yet what "efficient"
> > could mean.
>
> > I'll repeat myself: maybe this strikes me more strongly because of my
> > implicit Latin heritage, but I still find 'more optimal' to sound like
> > 'more most efficient'.
>
> > >optimizing a program doesn't necessarily make it better, it simply makes
> > >it more efficient: other things may be more important than efficiency,
>
> > This is semantics. "better" and "more efficient" are both
> > comparatives. That other things may be more important than efficiency
> > (and indeed I think they are) is irrelevant to the linguistic point
> > being discussed here.
>
> > >portability or readability for example. 'Optimum' has not (I would say)
>
> > We're not necessarily speaking of computer programs here, and although
> > it is not in the dictionaries I mentioned before I think that the
> > italian definition I found for 'ottimale' may well be translated in
> > English, which is what I'm trying to do now:
>
> > : adj: of something that, according to some determinate parameters or
> > : points of view, represents the *best* possible condition or the *best*
> > : possible result: e.g. optimal life conditions.
>
> > If you accept this, then you can still speak in the context of
> > programming of a
>
> > >changed like this, so I find it odd that the dictionaries you quoted say
> > >it is synonymous with 'optimal': I would entirely agree that 'more
> > >optimum' is obviously wrong.
>
> > In all earnestness I had never witnessed the use you're reporting of
> > 'optimal', namely that in which it is not a superlative. But
> > admittedly I do not read *that* much in English.
>
> > >Theory aside, a quick google shows that 'more optimal' is definitely
> > >acceptable usage; for instance (a random example from the results)
>
> > Huh?!? Google may show that "ur so c00l bro" is acceptable usage!!
>
> > >    This is because the claim that A is more optimal or better adapted
> > >    than B with respect to some function does not entail that A is
> > >    optimal or even good with respect to that function.
>
> > >    http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/fall1999/entries/teleology-biology/
>
> > >which shows that 'optimal' can have the sense of 'efficient' or
> > >'effective' rather than simply 'best'.
>
> > Well, that is from an academic institution thus should not fall in the
> > "ur so c00l bro", but I'm still skeptical: young researchers, however
> > good may they be in their research field, often tend to speak and
> > write very bad in their own mother tongue. For example in Italy some
> > young mathematicians are beginning to use the horrible anglophonic
> > "surgettiva" in place of the traditional "suriettiva", not that a word
> > borrowed from English is so bad in and of itself, but it is when
> > there's a perfectly fine alternative in one's own language.
>
> > >    [English] not only borrows words from other languages; it has on
> > >    occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them
> > >    unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary.
> > >                                                        -- James Nicoll
>
> > I knew that. In fact it's amongs my .sigs!
>
> > Michele
> > --
> > {$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
> > (($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
> > .'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
> > 256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
>
> Yes, vocabulary in English was made rich by the words from many other
> languages. These languages were of the places where British and
> English moved in the course of history. I saw a website which helps in
> knowing words and building vocabulary. It iswww.buildingvocabulary.org.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


origins of the English words are many and so mastering them may be
little difficult.
www.vocabularycafe.com
www.improvingvocabulary.org

these may help