krtisfranks wrote:
> This word (and kinda) is actually rather useful. I do not think that it

> should be considered only a joke word. There are lots of occasions when
one
> desires to describe something as being an approximate version of
something
> else or having an approximate quality (or approximately having a
quality);
> in other dituations, a statement or description may not be officially
true,
> but it loosely fits/is appropriate/ is de facto or effectively true;
these
> words are great for such situations.


for now it's better to add new definitions, in this case with jargon field
different or empty

Comment #3: Re: Joke Word with Serious Applications

Curtis W Franks (Sat Sep 12 15:19:08 2015)

gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > This word (and kinda) is actually rather useful. I do not think that it > > > should be considered only a joke word. There are lots of occasions when > one > > desires to describe something as being an approximate version of > something > > else or having an approximate quality (or approximately having a > quality); > > in other dituations, a statement or description may not be officially > true, > > but it loosely fits/is appropriate/ is de facto or effectively true; > these > > words are great for such situations. > > > for now it's better to add new definitions, in this case with jargon field > different or empty But the current definitions (possibly modulo typing) are fine. It is their usage and restrictions thereof that bother me.