On 26 Apr 2008 13:17:11 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt
<mschwendt(a)gmail.com> writes:
MS> There is no such implication.
My apologies. Perhaps it's just the language barrier. FYI, when you
use the phrase "in the past", many English speakers will read an
implication that the behavior has changed.
Okay. Reading too much between the lines/words can change the meaning. I
understand that one can interpret a lot into it. "Do you know the shortest
way to Tower Bridge?" -- "[When I was in England] In the past, I would
have taken a cab. *But* nowadays it's faster to take a bus." Without
the "But..." sentence, what would the first sentence imply?
There are other phrases that are much more explicit, ranging from
"formerly" and "previously" to the very clear: "FESCo _used to_
do
conflict resolving". I would have chosen such a phrase if I knew that
things are different nowadays.
What I wanted to point out with the initial comment is that the old FESCO,
which I was more familiar with, would have looked into such issues. There
is only a different implication, and that is that someone in the committee
either gets informed about the issues or notices a discussion on one of
the prominent communication channels. Hence my question whether the
problems "have been discussed elsewhere before" (i.e. not just in this
thread).
The same goes for phrases
like "until now", which I believe have quite different connotations on
other languages.
"Until now" is an explicit comparison of past and present, because it
refers to a time-span that ends "now". Something during that time now is
different. "In the past" or "in former times" refers to an
imprecise/unspecific period of time somewhere in history.
Sorry for lecturing, but I figured you might want to understand how
I
read your message.
Never mind. I don't mind corrections/hints at all.
--
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) - Linux 2.6.23.15-137.fc8
loadavg: 1.63 1.74 1.81