>Historical fact is determined ... Original article talks about MEANINGS of pwd. To determine meaning YOU imply that MEANING is defined ONLY by looking for hi

>Historical fact is determined ... Original article talks about MEANINGS of pwd. To determine meaning YOU imply that MEANING is defined ONLY by looking for historical fact, but it is how YOU interpret it. We can look for historical fact and find out that most of the commands literally printed on PAPER. So IF we talk about MEANINGs, we can take into account historical fact but there is no much use for it, if it doesn't represent the MEANING! There are no flaws in my logic. There are flows in your suggestion that we should discuss ONLY historical fact to determine MEANING. >while the grandparent argument only requires that multiple readings be possible while it does say about multiple readings possible, it uses caps used only in "PRINT" word. I merely pointed out to that imbalance by providing alternative, to ballance it back. Then I went further and argued that multiple readings are inappropriate there, because it is naive to put the same weight to the words. Some words are ESSENTIAL and some can be used for almost any command in unix/linux. Even grandparent argument discarded manual as source. and we simply -do-not-know- historical fact, So I CAN use manual as source of interpretations in search for !MEANING! not historical fact, which is absent and not very useful even if it will be determined. convinced ?