An uncommon clock function name [LWN.net]

An uncommon clock function name

Posted Dec 23, 2011 16:18 UTC (Fri) by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
In reply to: An uncommon clock function name by mpr22
Parent article: A common clock framework

What else could "unprepare" as a verb mean

The process of making yourself unprepared.

To me, it doesn't mean that you have to be prepared in the first place. If you don't do anything to get yourself ready for a presentation, one could say: "I will unprepare myself for the presentation".

Face it, the term sucks. It's silly. startup() and shutdown() are much better terms and more recognizable. As with all technical operations, it is best not to come up with new terms that may lead to confusion. The clearer you make your function names, the clearer you code will be to understand.

(Log in to post comments)

An uncommon clock function name

Posted Dec 28, 2011 20:48 UTC (Wed) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

> To me, it doesn't mean that you have to be prepared in the first place.

Why? You can't prepare yourself if you are already prepared, can you? So by symmetry unpreparing implies that you were prepared, and somehow undo that state.

To this non-native speaker at least.

That said, I have no beef with the alternative verbs given in this thread.

This is common situation...

Posted Dec 28, 2011 22:17 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I've seen it many times before: you see group of people, they all talk using English and have no problems understanding each other. Suddenly someone says: "no, you can not say <this> or <that>" and then fails to explain why. Invariably that someone is native speaker and he can not explain why you can not say <this> or <that> because there are no simple explanation.

If you'll ask linguist then usually source of the problem can be found: perhaps 200 years ago word was ostracized because it was too similar to some vulgar slang. It may be 300 years ago the original world (if this <this> or <that> are some modifications of other word) had slightly different meaning and so un<this> or im<that> made do sense. Sometimes even linguists have no explanation and can just cite some 100 years old articles which said (without explanation) that "<this> or <that> is not a word, don't use it".

This phenomenon if not restricted to English, this happens with all languages, of course.

As for me, I've filed "unprepare" under "strange aberration where English does not give you right to use seemingly simple and clear word". Really: why "unstick" does mean that something was stuck and "uncork" does mean that something was corked yet "unprepare" does not mean that someone was prepared?

Apparently the answer is "for historical reason": Marriam-Webster does include this word but gives the following explanation - "to cause to be unprepared : make unfit or unready <the purpose is precisely to unprepare the reader W.M.Frohock>" thus apparently you don't need to be prepared before you'll be unprepared, this can happen from "normal state", too.