<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 18/09/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername">Barry Roberts</b> <<a href="mailto:manithree@gmail.com">manithree@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
My sister "Tivo's" all her television. I "Netflick" all my movies. Today as I was talking about a PBS show that airs at 3:00 am I unwittingly told someone that i "Myth'ed" it. They were thoroughly confused, thinking I had "missed" it.
</blockquote><div><br>See I "record" TV programs, and have done so for over 20 years. The technology I use has changed - and probably will again. Similarly I "hire" movies (though not very often). Talking this way has the advantage that anyone who speaks English can understand me.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Trendy verbification is absolutely essential for mass adoption of entertainment technology.
</blockquote><div><br>I think you're confusing cause and consequence. People talk about "hoovering" their carpet because Hoover have already succeeded in getting the message out that they sell vacuum cleaners. The problem with trying to reverse that logic is it relies on someone having to ask "er excuse me what's Bantha'd mean?" So it's advertising by annoyance factor. A good percentage of people will just ignore you or pretend they understood and move the conversation on to other things. After all whatever it is can't be that important if you couldn't even be bothered explaining in plain English could it?
<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Paul Mason