From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Why all the jargon?
Message-ID: <GISLE.91Aug12121656@kyrre.ifi.uio.no>
Date: 12 Aug 91 10:17:03 GMT
References: <551@uucs1.UUCP> <RBNSTEIN.91Jul28212527@bucsf.bu.edu> <563@uucs1.UUCP>
	<1991Aug11.171004.18206@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Distribution: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: kyrre.ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: michaelg@neon.Stanford.EDU's message of 11 Aug 91 17: 10:04 GMT
Originator: gisle@kyrre.ifi.uio.no

gaf@uucs1.UUCP (gaf) writes:

> The original poster used the word "argot" instead of the already
> existing and well understood word "jargon".  I'm not picking on that
> person at all, I just use that as an example of how Scientology has
> needlessly invented a word to replace one which is already well
> established in the language.

My trusty old "Concise Oxford Dictionary" (which predates scientology) says:

   argot n. Jargon or slang of a class or group, forerly esp. of
      thieves. [F, of unkn. orig.]
      ^^^^^^^

Seeing what Church of Scientology is doing to the life savings of
some of its followers, I believe that the original poster
must have deliberately used that particular word.

"Argot" is just as existing as "jargon".  How well understood
english is in the colonies is a matter of opinion :-) .

--
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my
            employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norwegian Computing Center)
  EAN:   C=3Dno;PRMD=3Duninett;O=3Dnr;S=3DHannemyr;G=3DGisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------