Re: Grammatical Inconsistencies

From: Dawn M. Wolthuis <>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:49:34 -0500
Message-ID: <c66mp1$rou$>

"James L. Ryan" <> wrote in message
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:10:23 -0500, Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote
> (in article <c669ug$8nl$>):
> [in response to my commenting earlier in this thread on the "grammatical
> inconsistencies" in the terms used by C. J. Date to describe certain
> relational operations]
> > What would you recommend instead?
> Date uses "union, intersection, difference, product, restrict, project,
> and divide."
> If we are to use nouns we could have, "union, intersection, difference,
> product, restriction, projection, junction, and division."

All of these terms sound fine except for "junction" -- wouldn't cross-product suffice? Then we don't have to make new names for operations already named in mathematics.

> If we are to use verbs we could have, "unite, intersect, subtract,
> restrict, project, join, and divide."

All of these terms sound find except for "unite". Since "union" is used as both a verb and noun in mathematics, I'd think that would work for us.

These are not important points, but if we are trying to clean up the language for better communication, then I would prefer not to add "junction" and "unite" as viable words when talking about set operations. Cheers! --dawn Received on Wed Apr 21 2004 - 22:49:34 CEST

Original text of this message