Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!uwvax!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: soc.misc
Subject: Re: the (non)word "functionality"
Message-ID: <632@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 13:39:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.632
Posted: Fri Oct 10 13:39:07 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 05:07:29 EDT
References: <528805870.7245@minster.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Summary: picking nits: slight correction of a misdefinition of "functionality"

> fisher@minster.UUCP (Tony Fisher)
>> ?

>> What could I use instead  [of functionality] ?
> For "a description of the system's functionality" read "what the system does"
No.  Use "what the system can do".

> For "this product has more functionality" read "this product works better"
Again, no.  Use "this product can do more".

--
We may not always be right; but, by God, we're never wrong.
                                --- General Wombat
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw