On 1/6/2015 2:40 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: There's a subtle difference here, though. The difference is that I (at least) understood what Noel was saying in his context, with almost zero knowledge of Japanese and *without* further elaboration, whereas I'm not sure someone with zero knowledge of computers would know what a "2716" even referred to, moreso in comparison to a microprocessor. I hear these same kinds of mistakes resulting from very loose (and improper) use of language all the time, especially in movies when someone with no knowledge of computers has written the script, and the script happens to refer to some technical aspect of computers. They almost always get the lingo wrong, but I doubt that the audience ever notices. The improper language works on the audience because the audience is just as clueless as the writer was. Same holds here. Because I'm clueless on Japanese, Noel's language worked for me, despite not being 100% accurate. So, in your example, if both parties are clueless re 2716 eproms and microprocessors, the language might *still* work for them... because in their context, accuracy is not inherently important to the message. Different type of example, and here, I concur with you 100%. To each his own, and you are certainly entitled to it. I just happen to be in perhaps the minority that finds tangential or off-subject elaborations to be tiresome. - J.