[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

XG Semantics

Posted By: Taper_Mike
Date: Wednesday, 26 February 2014, at 3:09 p.m.

In Response To: XG Semantics (phil simborg)

I am glad you are following up on this. I know is was my messages (here and here) that probably triggered you to act on something that has been bothering you for a while. The same thread contains a nice reply from you.

I tend to agree that it is better to leave any mention of cash out of it, otherwise the simple choice between “money play” and “match play” would be fine. “Cash games” and “match play” would be equally good. I prefer both of these to the politically incorrect offerings of Michael Petch, which make mention of “money” or “stakes,” but which seem awkward to me.

Michael Petch and Jason both allude to the fact that “single game” already has a meaning in backgammon. If you don’t win a gammon or backgammon, then your win is called a single game.

For that reason, I prefer the term “individual game” to “single game.” I do not care for the plural of either.

If Xavier wants to stick with “unlimited games” then I have a definite preference for plural (as, evidently, do both Christian and you).

Other terms, such as “individual games session” and “session of individaul games,” seem awkward to me. The best alternative to “individual game” that I could come up with is the “non-match play” phrasing also suggested by Bill. That term is also awkward, however, as it attempts to define something by saying what it is not. Besides, I have never heard anybody ask, “Feel like playing a non-match?”

Mike

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.