From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.163.14 with SMTP id y14mr50877352qax.3.1374863345675; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.22.9 with SMTP id z9mr622165ige.6.1374863345546; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!gh1no421408qab.0!news-out.google.com!dk8ni1421qab.0!nntp.google.com!cb17no369500qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1l6m1yt.qd2fq61ydg9trN%csampson@inetworld.net> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=RxNzCgoAAACA5KmgtFQuaU-WaH7rjnAO NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <1l6m1yt.qd2fq61ydg9trN%csampson@inetworld.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <415580c1-2655-419a-b7dd-bce59d8801e5@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Vocabulary matter: Component vs Element vs Item From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:29:05 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2368 X-Original-Bytes: 2733 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182683 Date: 2013-07-26T11:29:05-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:24:55 AM UTC-7, Charles H. Sampson wrote: > As a result, I don't feel competent to comment on any technical > issues here, even from a historical perspective. However, I don't see > that "component", "element" and "item" are at all related in plain > English. Looking it up in an (American) English dictionary, www.m-w.com: Both "compo= nent" and "element" seem to mainly refer to a "constituent part" of somethi= ng else. "Element" sometimes carries the connotation of being the most rud= imentary (or "elementary") part, that can't be broken down into something e= lse, but not always. (The elements in the periodic table were thought to b= e just those, substances that couldn't be broken down into smaller things, = until protons and neutrons and electrons were discovered.) "Item" has one = similar definition, "a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series"= ; but another relevant definition is "an object of attention, concern, or i= nterest", which doesn't imply anything about being part of some larger thin= g. So it looks like Yannick isn't too far off. =20 -- Adam