A & S standards

[I. Marc Carlson]

<Stefan li Rous<"Mark Harris" <mark_harris at riscgate.sps.mot.com>>>
>What is the difference between "Primary" and "Principle" sources? Or
>did I miss something in your explantion, Diarmuit? (Like a second
>message :-) )

I left that part out since I was starting to rant and froth at the 
keyboard.  I'm better now, and will get to the other part of the topic.
Now, assuming the jargon I described to you is accurate, what is wrong
with the following statement: "I made these shoes using _Shoes and Pattens_
as my primary source"?  *Technically* there is nothing wrong with the
statement, so why are all those academics sharpening their quills with
their grinding teeth?  The problem is that *since* "primary" is a jargon
term for the "original" item, and its meaning of "principle" or "major"
comes second to that (see which definition comes first in the dictionaries),
the use of the term, while technically accurate, can often sound like an
illiterate jargon usage (for example, would you be caught dead saying that
"my car is my main mode of transmission"?).  Yes, the "problem" such as 
it is, is with the anal academics (and I speak as somebody that the term
"my primary source" drives insane).

In short, by asking the question that way, I was intending to emphasis
the difference in meaning between "Primary" and Primary (we won't even
DISCUSS "primary").  I was asking if people knew the difference between 
the jargon term and the simple English word that means the same as
Principle...

Diarmuit