Re: inappropriate word 'victim'

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Tom, all,
>
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> > So there is a precedent for using “target” for this command.
>>
>> I wouldn't object to substituting "target" for "victim"; they're both
>> pretty specific, and there's little risk of misunderstanding which
>> database is meant. I don't know if that amounts to much of an
>> advance in political correctness, though.
>
> Based on my review of what 'dict' returns for each, 'target' is
> distinctly more appropriate. Both definitions in WordNet for
> 'victim' refer to a 'person' and other dictionaries definitely
> refer to 'person or living creature' more than not.
>

As a non-native English speaker I associate 'victim' with a person, so
'target' sound more neutral and enough informative.

> The definitions for 'target', on the other hand, more generally refer to
> a goal or something which is being shot at and the references to
> 'person' in those definitions appears more in the vein of "covering all
> bases" as it relates to 'person, place, or thing'.
>
>> I'm less happy about substituting vaguer words like "subject".
>> Particularly for non-native English speakers, that seems like it
>> could be confusing --- eg, if you know the distinction between
>> subject and object of a sentence, you might think it means the
>> DB where the command is being issued.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen