The term "dog" means that it is unable to fulfill the intended purpose in
an acceptable manner. It can also mean that the performance, although
sufficient, is not competitive with other comparative models. The E-M5 may
have some size and weight advantages that will allow us to give some
problems a pass, but if something isn't up to the task, it isn't up to the
task. No amount of features will make up for the fact the camera won't
focus under some common applications. Nor does it mask the issue of
extremely poor battery life.
As to your strict adherence to obsolete language rules, I do tend to
utilize third or fourth definitions of words. If it's in the Oxford, I
consider it fair game.
AG
On Monday, February 4, 2013, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> A philosophical response would begin with defining the term 'dog' and
> perhaps denying the validity of 'obsolete' used as an active verb. And
> defining the concept of 'obsolete' which originally meant, to fall into
> disuse. So if it is in use, it's not obsolete. And that qualifier 'appear
> to be' is problematic.
> To obsolesce here seems to depend upon the existence of a yet merely
> planned replacement, so it is a potential state, not an actual state. And
> then there is the problem that the replacement may not be an improvement in
> some or many ways. Did the E5 become obsolete when the E-M5 was released -
> clearly not, unless you really need small and light.
>
>
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|