"Peter" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Ok, I'll bite. What relationship do you see between the term "prime lens" used to mean the main lens as opposed to a supplementary lens or attachment, and the term "prime lens" used to mean a fixed focal length lens? Clearly that came about because fixed focal lenses are typically, for any given price better lenses than a similarly priced zoom lens. Prime of course can mean the one which is the first in quality, or the first in favor, or the first to be used, or "primitive" as in the least complex. It is just an extension of the concept that a "normal" or "standard" lens is called a "prime lens". And since there are already at least two very good terms for that meaning, it does seem rather natural for the meaning of "prime" to migrate to a somewhat broader scope. Rather, it is a logical progression. Again, what is the logical connection between the two? Again... (You are aware of the various meanings of prime and of how these various terms have been used in this field, right?) And the newer meaning does not necessarily negate correctness of the older meaning any more than and older meaning makes a new one incorrect. Of course. Though having a word with multiple meanings or an unclear meaning within a technical lexicon could create problems. That's part of why I think "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length" while a useful bit of slang until someone comes up with something better, shouldn't be regarded as a part of the proper technical vocabulary of photography. Well, until some other term comes along, you don't have any choice. The *fact* is that is is here, today. And it probably won't be going away any time soon either. So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". It would be interesting to see such a paragraph in which at least four out of the five uses had no obvious connection to the concept of "first" indicated by the word "prime." I would like to see you try. Why would it have to be where four out of five have no connection to the etymology of the word? The use of the word to mean "fixed focal length" has it roots in that. Your merely proposing a ridiculous shift of the goal posts. Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? No, but creating additional meanings for an existing technical term could be a problem. A lot of things "could be a problem". So what? *Not* creating some such term would definitely be a problem. It makes a lot of sense to deprecate the use of a new meaning for a technical term if it is seen as beginning to erode the usefulness of the established technical use of the term. You are welcome to try, but tilting at windmills, barking at the moon, and a number of other similar activities would be more productive. Language just doesn't work that way. As the late Steve Allen used to say on TV about timing being everything in comedy, context is everything in word usage. Right, if context is not actually everything, it is a lot of it. I've got no strong objection to "prime lens" as a handy bit of slang to refer to fixed focal length lenses, but if it starts to look as if some people are treating it as if it were a proper part of the technical lexicon then it may be time to object. Wrong. That is when it is already far too late to object. All you get then is someone like me making fun of you for refusing to accept reality... :-) It's a done deal. We might as well get used to it. I'll grant that if you had asked me 20-30 years ago if I thought it would be a good idea to use that term in that way, *I* would have been on your side at that time. But undoing history isn't something I'm up to. But that happens with a lot of words. For example, I really really wish that "hacker" was not equated with "cracker" the way it is today. But it is. And on a more technical note, we hear about high speed T1 or T3 lines in the telephone industry all the time... and almost every time you hear someone say T1 or T3 what they are talking about is a DS1 or a DS3. We live with it though... -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
|
Floyd Davidson wrote:
"Peter" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Ok, I'll bite. What relationship do you see between the term "prime lens" used to mean the main lens as opposed to a supplementary lens or attachment, and the term "prime lens" used to mean a fixed focal length lens? Clearly that came about because fixed focal lenses are typically, for any given price better lenses than a similarly priced zoom lens. You say "clearly" but the origin of the term really seems to be pretty murky. The slang use of "prime lens" for "fixed focal length" appears to have originated in the professional cine industry. And while the early pro cine zooms were rather flare-prone they didn't have anywhere near the performance compromises of the amateur cine and still-camera zooms of the 1960s. Other possible hypotheses a 1) Afocal zoom attachments used to be available which would convert a fixed focal length lens into a zoom. In that case the base lens would have been a "prime lens" in the more orthodox terminology and the name could then have stuck. 2) Fixed focal length lenses could have been primary at one point simply because the studio or production company owned a lot more of them and thus could be the default when a zoom lens was not specifically needed. Prime of course can mean the one which is the first in quality, or the first in favor, or the first to be used, or "primitive" as in the least complex. The explanation that they are less complex and thus "prime" seems possible. There appear to be many possible reasons for the name, but so far no one appears to have provided documentation or a really strong argument to indicate how it started. The name seems to be in use because people hear or read others using the term and it catches on, and not because there is any widespread agreement about exactly why they are "prime." And the newer meaning does not necessarily negate correctness of the older meaning any more than and older meaning makes a new one incorrect. Of course. Though having a word with multiple meanings or an unclear meaning within a technical lexicon could create problems. That's part of why I think "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length" while a useful bit of slang until someone comes up with something better, shouldn't be regarded as a part of the proper technical vocabulary of photography. Well, until some other term comes along, you don't have any choice. The *fact* is that is is here, today. And it probably won't be going away any time soon either. I'm not objecting to the slang use of the term. It is convenient. The convenience alone justifies its use as slang. I do object to the idea that it has, through use, achieved status as part of the standard photographic vocabulary. So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". It would be interesting to see such a paragraph in which at least four out of the five uses had no obvious connection to the concept of "first" indicated by the word "prime." I would like to see you try. Why would it have to be where four out of five have no connection to the etymology of the word? The use of the word to mean "fixed focal length" has it roots in that. Your merely proposing a ridiculous shift of the goal posts. I don't think I'm shifting goal posts. I'm not asking for four uses which have no possible connection to "first," but only for four uses where the nature of the connection is obscure. Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? No, but creating additional meanings for an existing technical term could be a problem. A lot of things "could be a problem". So what? Ask someone in any other technical field, or even in optics whether the technical vocabulary of their field should shift in such a fashion. *Not* creating some such term would definitely be a problem. Leaving it understood as a common slang term would seem to fit our actual needs just fine. It makes a lot of sense to deprecate the use of a new meaning for a technical term if it is seen as beginning to erode the usefulness of the established technical use of the term. You are welcome to try, but tilting at windmills, barking at the moon, and a number of other similar activities would be more productive. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there have been cases in the history of photography where a once popular misuse of a technical term has been corrected. The example I gave was the common early 20th century tendency to use "depth of focus" when what was really meant was "depth of field." Right, if context is not actually everything, it is a lot of it. I've got no strong objection to "prime lens" as a handy bit of slang to refer to fixed focal length lenses, but if it starts to look as if some people are treating it as if it were a proper part of the technical lexicon then it may be time to object. Wrong. That is when it is already far too late to object. All you get then is someone like me making fun of you for refusing to accept reality... :-) There's no point in objecting to slang when it is used as such. The slowly creaping respectability of the term is a relatively recent phenomenon. I have dozens of books about photography, only one, published in 2000, contains "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length lens." It would be interesting if someone could dig up the earliest print uses in photography books. It's a done deal. We might as well get used to it. I'll grant that if you had asked me 20-30 years ago if I thought it would be a good idea to use that term in that way, *I* would have been on your side at that time. But undoing history isn't something I'm up to. But that happens with a lot of words. For example, I really really wish that "hacker" was not equated with "cracker" the way it is today. But it is. By newspapers, by the general public, but not by the people who stay up to early morning doing interesting things on computers for recreation. A hacker knows what the word means and knows that it's the newspapers and general public who have it wrong. And on a more technical note, we hear about high speed T1 or T3 lines in the telephone industry all the time... and almost every time you hear someone say T1 or T3 what they are talking about is a DS1 or a DS3. We live with it though... I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the field to comment much, but based on what you say, it would seem that T1 is sometimes used as slang when DS1 is the correct designation for that line. If so, this would seem to be a good example of the difference between correct terminolgy and slang use. Peter. -- |
In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote: Can you think of any change to the language perpetrated by marketing that was good? To pick a random example, we have the verb "to hoover", which avoids overloading the noun, "vacuum" by turning it into a verb. Or for something more modern, and with more international currency, try "to google" - much more managable than "to search the Internet". There's also an endless list of names of foodstuff, introduced into the language through marketing exercises, which are useful and inoffensive. Sundae, Stilton (never been made there, AFAIK), Creme-brulee, etc.. Some words: awesome, amazing, astounding, incredible, unbelievable. All of these words now mean "very good". That's stupid. There is nothing good about that; it has removed meaning and variety from the language That variety still exists - if a concept is useful, there will be words to express it. In the cases above, for words or phrases which convey the "original" meaning, I'd offer the following: For awesome, try awe-inspiring. For amazing, try astonishing I don't agree that "astounding" has "lost" its meaning - perhaps this is a British English/American English difference? Incredible - not-credible Unbelievable - not-believable |
Chris Brown wrote:
Can you think of any change to the language perpetrated by marketing that was good? To pick a random example, we have the verb "to hoover", which avoids overloading the noun, "vacuum" by turning it into a verb. Wow... I've never heard the verb "to hoover". I think my ears might bleed if I did. :) (I'm sure the folks at the Hoover company wouldn't be too happy about it, either.) As for "vacuum" being verbed, that is not a recent development; it seems to have been used as such for about as long as vacuum cleaners have existed, and I'm not sure it originated with marketing. In any case, the earliest example in OED of "vacuum" as a verb is from 1922, while the noun colloquially meaning "vacuum cleaner" dates back to 1910. I'd rather see "vacuum cleaner" used formally (as would the nice folks at Oxford), but "vacuum" doesn't bother me much; it beats "to hoover" by a country mile, at least. Or for something more modern, and with more international currency, try "to google" - much more managable than "to search the Internet". I really hope that one never makes it past pop-culture slang. :) It is worth noting, in that case, that the word "google" actually has another meaning, one that has almost certainly already been destroyed beyond hope of recovery. -- Jeremy | |
Chris Brown wrote: For awesome, try awe-inspiring. For amazing, try astonishing I don't agree that "astounding" has "lost" its meaning - perhaps this is a British English/American English difference? Incredible - not-credible Unbelievable - not-believable One of my strongest memories from reading H.G. Wells' The Time Machine when I was about 10 or 11 was the way he used the word "incredible" it was immediately obvious from the context that he really meant it. I do not think I had read the word used in its strong sense before. It has left me with a conviction that words can be rescued. Perhaps the word did not yet need to be rescued in 1898 when the book was first published, but it certainly did in 1978, and for me the word was restored to its proper meaning as soon as I read it. To my mind, "not-credible" is a weak work-around for a word that has lost its former power, and I'd much rather read "incredible" from someone capable of writing in a way which shows that he really means it. Peter. -- |
"Peter" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: "Peter" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: It does not necessarily have to be that one grew out of the other. However, I *don't* see them as totally unrelated. Ok, I'll bite. What relationship do you see between the term "prime lens" used to mean the main lens as opposed to a supplementary lens or attachment, and the term "prime lens" used to mean a fixed focal length lens? Clearly that came about because fixed focal lenses are typically, for any given price better lenses than a similarly priced zoom lens. You say "clearly" but the origin of the term really seems to be pretty murky. The origin may be murky, but the reason it caught on and stuck is perhaps not. The slang use of "prime lens" for "fixed focal length" appears to have originated in the professional cine industry. And while the early pro cine zooms were rather flare-prone they didn't have anywhere near the performance compromises of the amateur cine and still-camera zooms of the 1960s. None of which is significant. That does *not* explain why it became a common usage. Other possible hypotheses a 1) Afocal zoom attachments used to be available which would convert a fixed focal length lens into a zoom. In that case the base lens would have been a "prime lens" in the more orthodox terminology and the name could then have stuck. 2) Fixed focal length lenses could have been primary at one point simply because the studio or production company owned a lot more of them and thus could be the default when a zoom lens was not specifically needed. I can't imagine that either of those was a great influence, though both may have had some insignificant but measurable effect. Prime of course can mean the one which is the first in quality, or the first in favor, or the first to be used, or "primitive" as in the least complex. The explanation that they are less complex and thus "prime" seems possible. There appear to be many possible reasons for the name, I think the point, though, is that the meaning of the word as it existed at the time made people feel comfortable with the extension of it into new ground. but so far no one appears to have provided documentation or a really strong argument to indicate how it started. The name seems to be in use because people hear or read others using the term and it catches on, and not because there is any widespread agreement about exactly why they are "prime." Exactly. It isn't in common usage because of where it started, or because it was obvious or strongly supported by some particular lobby (such as marketing). It's just a case of it being so close in meaning, so convenient, and sounding good, that it "rings true" and people remember it and use it themselves. Bingo, a new usage catches on. Since the advent of national TV in the late 1950's, this has been a fairly common occurrence in common language, but in technical fields it had become common even before then, as we came into the age of technology. My field is communications (and keep in mind that photography is in many ways a communications technology), and I've always been fascinated by the peripheral effects that basic changes in communications technology have had on society. In that respect, I saw TV come to the Seattle area when I was a kid, and then I saw it again in Alaska when my children were small. And I also watched, as a young adult, the effect of things like Direct Distance Dialing; and then again later I was part and parcel of bringing widespread telecommunications and computer networking to much of Alaska. Language evolution is one aspect in a much larger topology of the evolution of society as the technology of communications has advanced. I'm not objecting to the slang use of the term. It is convenient. The convenience alone justifies its use as slang. I do object to the idea that it has, through use, achieved status as part of the standard photographic vocabulary. Well... a short review of what google turns up suggests that objecting is a waste of time. Tilting at windmills... ;-) So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". It would be interesting to see such a paragraph in which at least four out of the five uses had no obvious connection to the concept of "first" indicated by the word "prime." I would like to see you try. Why would it have to be where four out of five have no connection to the etymology of the word? The use of the word to mean "fixed focal length" has it roots in that. Your merely proposing a ridiculous shift of the goal posts. I don't think I'm shifting goal posts. I'm not asking for four uses which have no possible connection to "first," but only for four uses where the nature of the connection is obscure. Why though? That *is* the common thread that runs through various meanings of prime. I have never claimed, and see no point it any attempt to prove, that there are *any* meanings for "prime" which are not related to "first". That is just trivia, and insignificant. Does that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just because there is also an older meaning? No, but creating additional meanings for an existing technical term could be a problem. A lot of things "could be a problem". So what? Ask someone in any other technical field, or even in optics whether the technical vocabulary of their field should shift in such a fashion. Look, I'm a techie geek type of guy, who is retired after working for 4 decades in the communications industry. *You* are going to tell *me* about shifting technical vocabulary???? If you can, then we could compare notes... but if you want to "ask someone in any other technical field", rest assured you did. I can remember working with a fellow in the mid-1960s who had a really good story about that... He was a retired Navy Chief, who'd been in Fire Control before WWII, and retired in the mid 1950's. You wanna talk about shifting technical vocabulary! *Everything* to do with Fire Control changed. When he signed on, it was all mechanical. When he retired, is was all electronics. His best joke was about trying to order a "soldering iron" to work on electronics in about 1946, and being unable to get supply people to realize that he did *not* want a plumber's soldering iron. He also said that just about everyone was positive that anybody who dealt with the stuff they did was some kind of weirdo, with a social disease or something. Highly suspect, at a minimum. Of course in the 1960's when I worked with that fellow we were using vacuum tubes in computers, radios, and particle accelerators! Virtually the entire vocabulary used today in almost any industry using electronics *didn't exist* in 1965, and was created between then and 1985. And now has been in place for 20 years, and people think of it as *old* and carved in stone! But pull out a resistor that has colored *dots* to identify it, and is 3/4 of an inch long with wire leads that wrap around each end, and ask someone if they could solder it into a circuit... and you'll 1) have a hard time finding anyone with solder and an iron, and even if they do, they will 2) ask you what in tarnation that thing is, because 3) they've never seen nor heard of such a resistor. Heck, in the 1970's most electronics technicians couldn't identify many parts from WWII equipment because the technology had changed so fast. Today of course they can't identify *most* parts from back then. Photography and optics has changed relatively slowly by comparison. Perhaps that's why you are uncomfortable with the evolution of words, and to me that is just one more fascinating aspect of communications. *Not* creating some such term would definitely be a problem. Leaving it understood as a common slang term would seem to fit our actual needs just fine. That statement doesn't make sense. Just try coming up with a clear division of what is "common slang" and what is not. Ask 20 people... you'll get 25 different answers? It makes a lot of sense to deprecate the use of a new meaning for a technical term if it is seen as beginning to erode the usefulness of the established technical use of the term. You are welcome to try, but tilting at windmills, barking at the moon, and a number of other similar activities would be more productive. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there have been cases in the history of photography where a once popular misuse of a technical term has been corrected. The example I gave was the common early 20th century tendency to use "depth of focus" when what was really meant was "depth of field." One example makes it a pattern of significance??? :-) Even half a dozen examples, which probably could be scraped up, won't indicate any significance. Right, if context is not actually everything, it is a lot of it. I've got no strong objection to "prime lens" as a handy bit of slang to refer to fixed focal length lenses, but if it starts to look as if some people are treating it as if it were a proper part of the technical lexicon then it may be time to object. Wrong. That is when it is already far too late to object. All you get then is someone like me making fun of you for refusing to accept reality... :-) There's no point in objecting to slang when it is used as such. Sure. But like I said... try to draw a line between when it is and when it isn't, and you *can't*. The slowly creaping respectability of the term is a relatively recent phenomenon. I have dozens of books about photography, So? only one, published in 2000, contains "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length lens." It would be interesting if someone could dig up the earliest print uses in photography books. Interesting trivia, but again that just isn't really significant. It's a done deal. We might as well get used to it. I'll grant that if you had asked me 20-30 years ago if I thought it would be a good idea to use that term in that way, *I* would have been on your side at that time. But undoing history isn't something I'm up to. But that happens with a lot of words. For example, I really really wish that "hacker" was not equated with "cracker" the way it is today. But it is. By newspapers, by the general public, but not by the people who stay up to early morning doing interesting things on computers for recreation. A hacker knows what the word means and knows that it's the newspapers and general public who have it wrong. It is ubiquitous. And yes the old definition is still in use too! Context is everything... And on a more technical note, we hear about high speed T1 or T3 lines in the telephone industry all the time... and almost every time you hear someone say T1 or T3 what they are talking about is a DS1 or a DS3. We live with it though... I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the field to comment much, but based on what you say, it would seem that T1 is sometimes used as slang when DS1 is the correct designation for that line. I don't think "slang" is even close to what it is. The fact that you don't even know what it means, simply because it is a technical term from a field outside your range of experience, pretty much demonstrates that it isn't "slang". It is a very specific technical term, which originally had one specific meaning, but which now commonly is used (and some would of course say "incorrectly") to mean something slightly different too. Both uses are ubiquitous in the telecommunications industry. The only significance is that it's one of those "trick questions" by which you can determine if someone is *really* well versed. If they don't realize there are *two* meanings... they be newbies! If so, this would seem to be a good example of the difference between correct terminolgy and slang use. Virtually *everybody* in the industry uses the term in both the original, pedantic way, and as a synonym for a DS1. It isn't slang. (An interesting side note on just how significant "convention" is to me in communications... I just ran a spell check on this article and found that I had incorrectly spelled "communications" virtually every time I used the word. To me, a word is just a symbol for a meaning, and symbols are a dime a dozen and can change every day.) -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Floyd Davidson writes It is just an extension of the concept that a "normal" or "standard" lens is called a "prime lens". And since there are already at least two very good terms for that meaning, it does seem rather natural for the meaning of "prime" to migrate to a somewhat broader scope. I had never seen that usage before this discussion, despite being a keen photographer for several decades. The universal term for such lenses, in the days when they were the most common of SLR lenses, was always "standard". Maybe it was a US usage, but I don't even recall seeing it in US texts. You may have a point that once a respectable term has been utterly *******ised, it makes little difference if it sinks into further degeneration. I suggest that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the meaning of language (and I do think you have a good point, regrettable though it is) the use of such a *******ised words is best avoided by those who value precision of language. Those who do use it may be suspected by some of slipshod linguistic standards David "English is the most widely learned and used foreign language in the world, and, as such, many linguists believe it is no longer the exclusive cultural emblem of "native English speakers," but rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures worldwide as it grows in use. Others believe that there are limits to how far English can go in suiting everyone for communication purposes. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language |
In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote: Chris Brown wrote: Can you think of any change to the language perpetrated by marketing that was good? To pick a random example, we have the verb "to hoover", which avoids overloading the noun, "vacuum" by turning it into a verb. Wow... I've never heard the verb "to hoover". That's most likely because you're from North America, and it's a British English word. (I'm sure the folks at the Hoover company wouldn't be too happy about it, either.) On the contrary, I believe they are entirely happy with the word "hoover" having come to be a generic term for vacuum cleaner, and the currency of the associated verb. Indeed, AIUI they positively encouraged the use. It's probably responsible for a good section of the dwindling market share they have left. It used to be the case that everyone hoovered with a Hoover. Now everyone hoovers with a Dyson. I understand there's a near parallel in American English with "kleenex" (although there's no associated verb). In British English, there's no such improper noun (they're just "tissues"), only a proper noun. Or for something more modern, and with more international currency, try "to google" - much more managable than "to search the Internet". I really hope that one never makes it past pop-culture slang. :) I believe it's in the OED. It is worth noting, in that case, that the word "google" actually has another meaning, one that has almost certainly already been destroyed beyond hope of recovery. If you're thinking of 10^100 then you're wrong, that's a googol. The name of the search engine is a pun on that. |
nick c wrote:
David Littlewood wrote: I suggest that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the meaning of language (and I do think you have a good point, regrettable though it is) the use of such a *******ised words is best avoided by those who value precision of language. Those who do use it may be suspected by some of slipshod linguistic standards David "English is the most widely learned and used foreign language in the world, and, as such, many linguists believe it is no longer the exclusive cultural emblem of "native English speakers," but rather a language that is absorbing aspects of cultures worldwide as it grows in use. Others believe that there are limits to how far English can go in suiting everyone for communication purposes. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language That is an excellent point. There should perhaps be some emphasis on the purpose of language though, which is to communicate information. Pedants of trivia who concern themselves with criticism of the "correct" mechanisms of language evolution are missing the point entirely. It makes *no* difference why or how a change takes place. All that counts is whether it serves the purpose well for communicating information. For some people that is more significant, and more apparent, than it is for others. Barrow happens to be a very international place, with a majority of the population speaking English as a second language. I typically hear people born in Mexico, American Samoa, Korea, the Philipines, and Thailand, not to mention the local Inupiaq speakers all speaking 1) their native language and 2) English that varies from person to person. *Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
In article ,
David Littlewood wrote: If you mean the very large number 10^100, as used by mathematicians, then its name is "googol", not google. AIUI, the name google was chosen to resonate with googol - or maybe it was some marketer ignorant of the correct spelling. Good thing too, I say. It's a pun - it's "go ogle", as in, "go and look for", but it sounds a bit like "googol", giving the idea that it returns lots of results. And given Google's origins, I rather doubt there were any marketers involved. It was initially a university experiment in inexpensive Linux clustering. |
"Go ahead, outline "that evolutionary process" for me. I'd sure like to
see how you get "fixed focal length" to evolve into "prime." What might the intermediate steps look like, I wonder?" Many of the earlier zoom lenses from the 1960's and 1970's comprised an afocal zooming portion in the front, followed by a fixed focal length lens group in the rear. That fixed focal length lens group was, and still is, called a "prime lens". I suspect that this may have led to all fixed focal length lenses being called prime lenses. As a side note, this early type of zoom lens automatically had a constant f/# through zoom. However, it is not nearly as common a design form as it used to be. As I've pointed out to you earlier, respected manufacturers such as Panavision do use the word "prime" to mean fixed focal length. The cat is clearly out of the bag here, and we might as well get used to "prime" and "fixed focal length" being synonyms. Brian |
Chris Brown wrote:
(I'm sure the folks at the Hoover company wouldn't be too happy about it, either.) On the contrary, I believe they are entirely happy with the word "hoover" having come to be a generic term for vacuum cleaner, and the currency of the associated verb. Indeed, AIUI they positively encouraged the use. Odd. Companies tend to fight that sort of thing tooth and nail, since they lose trademark protection otherwise. I understand there's a near parallel in American English with "kleenex" (although there's no associated verb). Yes. But no one pretends it's actually correct. We have "xerox" as well. Or for something more modern, and with more international currency, try "to google" - much more managable than "to search the Internet". I really hope that one never makes it past pop-culture slang. :) I believe it's in the OED. It is not. It has made it into the New Oxford American Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd Edition), but not, thus far, the OED itself. It is worth noting, in that case, that the word "google" actually has another meaning, one that has almost certainly already been destroyed beyond hope of recovery. If you're thinking of 10^100 then you're wrong, that's a googol. The name of the search engine is a pun on that. No, I'm thinking of "google", to wit: google, v. Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a 'googly' break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball). Hence googler, a googly bowler. Which *is* in the OED. The usage predates the Internet search engine by some 90 years. -- Jeremy | |
|
In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote: Chris Brown wrote: It is worth noting, in that case, that the word "google" actually has another meaning, one that has almost certainly already been destroyed beyond hope of recovery. If you're thinking of 10^100 then you're wrong, that's a googol. The name of the search engine is a pun on that. No, I'm thinking of "google", to wit: google, v. Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a 'googly' break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball). Hence googler, a googly bowler. It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it, it will be obvious from context which version they are talking about, hence there is to be no confusion. |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote: [ . . . ] Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. So just show us examples... ;-) I'll do better than that. I'll direct you to an excellent dictionary which is just loaded with extensive usage notes, and you can while away many a pleasant hour reading them: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. (I think there's a later edition now.) This is the real big one, not the desk dictionary. Even quicker, do a Google search on "misused words." You'll find several lists, some of the words real oldies, still often misused. Wrong for years, still wrong today, and they'll still be wrong in years to come. In most cases the wrongness is in stylistic usage rather than definition, but the principle is the same. Popularity of usage does not automatically confer correctness. N. |
Chris Brown wrote:
It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it, it will be obvious from context which version they are talking about, hence there is to be no confusion. Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles, anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him thinking of the "new" meaning? -- Jeremy | |
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. As with many "quotations" - for example, "gilding the lily". I'm not familiar with the origins of that. My current anti-favorite is "that begs the question, question inserted here." Ever since some TV ads appeared (again and again) with a voice-over asking, "That begs the question, Is it better to give name of product, forgotten or to receive?" this annoying misusage has spread like the proverbial wildfire, among commentators, columnists and others, who evidently think it's just a classy way of saying "raises the question." Here in the U.S. the expression "that begs the question" was almost never seen, except occasionally in British writing. So when the average American reader saw "that begs the question" in, say, an English novel, he had not the foggiest idea what it meant. (Question? What question?) Now unfortunately we see it again and again, *never* used correctly. N. |
In article , Jeremy Nixon
writes Chris Brown wrote: (I'm sure the folks at the Hoover company wouldn't be too happy about it, either.) On the contrary, I believe they are entirely happy with the word "hoover" having come to be a generic term for vacuum cleaner, and the currency of the associated verb. Indeed, AIUI they positively encouraged the use. Odd. Companies tend to fight that sort of thing tooth and nail, since they lose trademark protection otherwise. I understand there's a near parallel in American English with "kleenex" (although there's no associated verb). Yes. But no one pretends it's actually correct. We have "xerox" as well. "Biro" is another example, at least in the UK. Or for something more modern, and with more international currency, try "to google" - much more managable than "to search the Internet". I really hope that one never makes it past pop-culture slang. :) I believe it's in the OED. It is not. It has made it into the New Oxford American Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd Edition), but not, thus far, the OED itself. It is worth noting, in that case, that the word "google" actually has another meaning, one that has almost certainly already been destroyed beyond hope of recovery. If you're thinking of 10^100 then you're wrong, that's a googol. The name of the search engine is a pun on that. No, I'm thinking of "google", to wit: google, v. Cricket. intr. Of the ball: to have a 'googly' break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball). Hence googler, a googly bowler. Which *is* in the OED. The usage predates the Internet search engine by some 90 years. Being English, and having gone to a cricketing school, I know about googlies (even if I could never bowl them). I have however never, ever, heard the term "google" in that context. If you say it's in the OED, fine. It's not in the Concise Oxford in my office, but it is mentioned as an "also..." in Chambers. Probably never been used in real life since WG Grace hung up his bat. David -- David Littlewood |
In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote: Chris Brown wrote: It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it, it will be obvious from context which version they are talking about, hence there is to be no confusion. Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles, anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him thinking of the "new" meaning? Even if they can't, that's not even close to your original position. |
"BC" wrote in message oups.com... "Go ahead, outline "that evolutionary process" for me. I'd sure like to see how you get "fixed focal length" to evolve into "prime." What might the intermediate steps look like, I wonder?" Many of the earlier zoom lenses from the 1960's and 1970's comprised an afocal zooming portion in the front, followed by a fixed focal length lens group in the rear. That fixed focal length lens group was, and still is, called a "prime lens". That's interesting. If that FFL lens group would (or could if separated) function independently as a stand-alone lens, then that seems like correct usage. That is, you have what is essentially a prime lens with a zoom attachment, even if they are built as a single unit. I suspect that this may have led to all fixed focal length lenses being called prime lenses. For all I know you may be right, though I have always suspected the usage came about through someone seeing "prime lens" correctly used, i.e. in connection with some attachment such as a close-up lens or tele extender, and the prime lens happening to be FFL, just assumed that was what "prime" meant. But this is just speculation on my part. As a side note, this early type of zoom lens automatically had a constant f/# through zoom. However, it is not nearly as common a design form as it used to be. As I've pointed out to you earlier, respected manufacturers such as Panavision do use the word "prime" to mean fixed focal length. The cat is clearly out of the bag here, and we might as well get used to "prime" and "fixed focal length" being synonyms. I'm sorry I don't remember your earlier mention of this. (Was it recent?) I've just Googled "panavision" and find you are correct, though as I've mentioned previously other manufacturers (Schneider, Zeiss, Arri etc.) do *not* use "prime" and "fixed focal length" synonymously, since they catalogue "variable prime" lenses--lenses of variable focal length. Panavision appears to be in the minority among lens makers as far as its usage is concerned. Incidentally, while looking I also found this, in connection with Panavision's Camera 65 system: "This employed using 65 mm film in conjunction with the APO Panatar lens, an integrated anamorphic lens (rather than a prime lens with an anamorphoser mounted on it) set to a 1.25 expansion factor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision Now that clearly uses "prime lens" to distinguish the camera lens--whether FFL or not--from the attachment used with it, which is correct usage. A link in that sentence takes the reader to Wikipedia's definition for "prime lens," which is the now popular and incorrect one. I think it's significant that Wikipedia's definition of the term, though a popular one, does not comport with their own use of the term in the Panavision article. This sort of confusion could be avoided simply by not using "prime" to mean fixed focal length, which no existing definition for "prime" can support in the first place. N. |
"Peter" wrote in message ups.com... Chris Brown wrote: For awesome, try awe-inspiring. For amazing, try astonishing I don't agree that "astounding" has "lost" its meaning - perhaps this is a British English/American English difference? Incredible - not-credible Unbelievable - not-believable One of my strongest memories from reading H.G. Wells' The Time Machine when I was about 10 or 11 was the way he used the word "incredible" it was immediately obvious from the context that he really meant it. I do not think I had read the word used in its strong sense before. It has left me with a conviction that words can be rescued. Hear, hear! :-) Perhaps the word did not yet need to be rescued in 1898 when the book was first published, but it certainly did in 1978, and for me the word was restored to its proper meaning as soon as I read it. To my mind, "not-credible" is a weak work-around for a word that has lost its former power, and I'd much rather read "incredible" from someone capable of writing in a way which shows that he really means it. Fully agree. If the cheapening and dilution of words like "incredible" is anyone's idea of evolution, I'll take vanilla. N. |
In article , Nostrobino
writes "David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. As with many "quotations" - for example, "gilding the lily". I'm not familiar with the origins of that. It is a Shakespeare quotation which has gone into common usage here for needless over-adornment or expense, as for example with gold plated taps. However, although pretty well everyone in the UK at least would understand "gilding the lily" to mean this, it is a foolish misquote, which flatly makes nonsense of the point: lilies are not already gilded, so gilding them is not pointless. The correct quote (from King John, ii 9) is: "To be possess'd with double pomp, To guard a title that was rich before, To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue, Unto the rainbow, or with taper light, To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and hideous excess." (He sure could write) Byron also quoted the key line in Don Juan, stanza 76: "As Shakespeare says, 'tis very silly To gild refined gold, or paint the lily." However, if you used the expression "painting the lily" I doubt if one in a thousand in the UK would get the point. Just an example of the massive power of popular ignorance. My current anti-favorite is "that begs the question, question inserted here." Ever since some TV ads appeared (again and again) with a voice-over asking, "That begs the question, Is it better to give name of product, forgotten or to receive?" this annoying misusage has spread like the proverbial wildfire, among commentators, columnists and others, who evidently think it's just a classy way of saying "raises the question." Here in the U.S. the expression "that begs the question" was almost never seen, except occasionally in British writing. So when the average American reader saw "that begs the question" in, say, an English novel, he had not the foggiest idea what it meant. (Question? What question?) Now unfortunately we see it again and again, *never* used correctly. To beg the question is, correctly, to assume the truth of a proposition without actually attempting to prove it. For example (from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable): "parallel lines never meet because they are parallel". Originally a translation from Latin "petitio principii", though first used by the Greek Aristotle. You are right in that it should not be used to mean "raises the question", as begging the question very much involves deliberately not raising a question (i.e. the truth or otherwise of the underlying proposition) which really needs to be raised. David -- David Littlewood |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
*Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes difficult or impossible. -- Jeremy | |
|
"Peter" wrote in message oups.com... [ . . . ] There's no point in objecting to slang when it is used as such. The slowly creaping respectability of the term is a relatively recent phenomenon. I have dozens of books about photography, only one, published in 2000, contains "prime lens" in the sense of "fixed focal length lens." It would be interesting if someone could dig up the earliest print uses in photography books. I don't know whether it's the earliest, but I have somewhere--can't find it at the moment--a book on the Minolta 600si by Thomas Maschke and Peter K. Burian that uses the term "prime" to mean FFL. The book is part of the Magic Lantern Guide series and (checking Amazon just now) was published in 1996. What is interesting is that a book on the 700si etc. by the same two authors, in the same series, published just a year or so previously, covering the same subjects including lenses, does not use "prime" at all. So from this I conclude that Maschke and Burian, who have written a number of books on cameras, only picked up this "prime lens" thing c. 1995. (Amazon gives only Burian as the author of the 1994 book, but I'm pretty sure my copy--which I also can't find at the moment--lists both authors.) N. |
David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Nostrobino writes "David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. As with many "quotations" - for example, "gilding the lily". I'm not familiar with the origins of that. It is a Shakespeare quotation which has gone into common usage here for needless over-adornment or expense, as for example with gold plated taps. However, although pretty well everyone in the UK at least would understand "gilding the lily" to mean this, it is a foolish misquote, which flatly makes nonsense of the point: lilies are not already gilded, so gilding them is not pointless. The correct quote (from King John, ii 9) is: "To be possess'd with double pomp, To guard a title that was rich before, To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue, Unto the rainbow, or with taper light, To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and hideous excess." (He sure could write) Byron also quoted the key line in Don Juan, stanza 76: "As Shakespeare says, 'tis very silly To gild refined gold, or paint the lily." However, if you used the expression "painting the lily" I doubt if one in a thousand in the UK would get the point. Just an example of the massive power of popular ignorance. My current anti-favorite is "that begs the question, question inserted here." Ever since some TV ads appeared (again and again) with a voice-over asking, "That begs the question, Is it better to give name of product, forgotten or to receive?" this annoying misusage has spread like the proverbial wildfire, among commentators, columnists and others, who evidently think it's just a classy way of saying "raises the question." Here in the U.S. the expression "that begs the question" was almost never seen, except occasionally in British writing. So when the average American reader saw "that begs the question" in, say, an English novel, he had not the foggiest idea what it meant. (Question? What question?) Now unfortunately we see it again and again, *never* used correctly. To beg the question is, correctly, to assume the truth of a proposition without actually attempting to prove it. For example (from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable): "parallel lines never meet because they are parallel". Originally a translation from Latin "petitio principii", though first used by the Greek Aristotle. You are right in that it should not be used to mean "raises the question", as begging the question very much involves deliberately not raising a question (i.e. the truth or otherwise of the underlying proposition) which really needs to be raised. I've almost given up on derailing the new usage and soon-to-be standard meaning. Begs the question: "Have they stopped beating their wives?" -- Frank ess |
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes "David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. As with many "quotations" - for example, "gilding the lily". I'm not familiar with the origins of that. It is a Shakespeare quotation which has gone into common usage here for needless over-adornment or expense, as for example with gold plated taps. However, although pretty well everyone in the UK at least would understand "gilding the lily" to mean this, it is a foolish misquote, which flatly makes nonsense of the point: lilies are not already gilded, so gilding them is not pointless. The correct quote (from King John, ii 9) is: "To be possess'd with double pomp, To guard a title that was rich before, To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, To throw perfume on the violet, To smooth the ice, or add another hue, Unto the rainbow, or with taper light, To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish, Is wasteful and hideous excess." (He sure could write) He sure could, and I'm embarrassed not to have known that source. (Sometimes it seems to me that about half of our common expressions, and practically all of the better ones, are from Shakespeare, so it doesn't surprise me.) I think I've read most of Shakespeare's plays and especially love the histories, but I guess I somehow missed King John. "Gilding the lily" is a well-understood expression here in the U.S. too, but I never knew it was a misquotation. Byron also quoted the key line in Don Juan, stanza 76: "As Shakespeare says, 'tis very silly To gild refined gold, or paint the lily." However, if you used the expression "painting the lily" I doubt if one in a thousand in the UK would get the point. Just an example of the massive power of popular ignorance. My current anti-favorite is "that begs the question, question inserted here." Ever since some TV ads appeared (again and again) with a voice-over asking, "That begs the question, Is it better to give name of product, forgotten or to receive?" this annoying misusage has spread like the proverbial wildfire, among commentators, columnists and others, who evidently think it's just a classy way of saying "raises the question." Here in the U.S. the expression "that begs the question" was almost never seen, except occasionally in British writing. So when the average American reader saw "that begs the question" in, say, an English novel, he had not the foggiest idea what it meant. (Question? What question?) Now unfortunately we see it again and again, *never* used correctly. To beg the question is, correctly, to assume the truth of a proposition without actually attempting to prove it. For example (from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable): "parallel lines never meet because they are parallel". Originally a translation from Latin "petitio principii", though first used by the Greek Aristotle. You are right in that it should not be used to mean "raises the question", as begging the question very much involves deliberately not raising a question (i.e. the truth or otherwise of the underlying proposition) which really needs to be raised. Your explanation is certainly far better than my dictionary's, which basically just says "beg the question" means "to reason badly" or some such thing. I doubt that most American dictionaries even mention the expression at all (my desk dictionary doesn't), which only makes it that much easier for the ignorant to get away with misusing it. N. |
In article , Nostrobino
writes (He sure could write) He sure could, and I'm embarrassed not to have known that source. (Sometimes it seems to me that about half of our common expressions, and practically all of the better ones, are from Shakespeare, so it doesn't surprise me.) I think I've read most of Shakespeare's plays and especially love the histories, but I guess I somehow missed King John. "Gilding the lily" is a well-understood expression here in the U.S. too, but I never knew it was a misquotation. It's not a popular play - the first of the English kings series (though I don't know whether it was written first - I mean John was the earliest king to be covered). To beg the question is, correctly, to assume the truth of a proposition without actually attempting to prove it. For example (from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable): "parallel lines never meet because they are parallel". Originally a translation from Latin "petitio principii", though first used by the Greek Aristotle. You are right in that it should not be used to mean "raises the question", as begging the question very much involves deliberately not raising a question (i.e. the truth or otherwise of the underlying proposition) which really needs to be raised. Your explanation is certainly far better than my dictionary's, which basically just says "beg the question" means "to reason badly" or some such thing. I doubt that most American dictionaries even mention the expression at all (my desk dictionary doesn't), which only makes it that much easier for the ignorant to get away with misusing it. Incidentally - and getting even more off topic - the bit about parallel lines never meeting is not an essential truth, it was merely one of the assumptions ("axioms") postulated by Euclid (another Greek philosopher, these guys got around) in devising the rules of geometry. Other systems of geometry exist in which it is not true at all, thus demonstrating the benefits of questioning the underlying assumptions. David -- David Littlewood |
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: *Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes difficult or impossible. No Jeremy, I think now, Floyd has a good prospective of the evolutionary process that has overtaken the English language. The language itself is no longer subject to exclusive overview by proponents of the Oxford dictionary, so to speak. Those that may be offended by the use of jargon as speaking aides may well find that to be a problem they have created unto themselves. "English is a pluricentric language, with marked differences in pronunciation and spelling between the UK and the US, and a variety of accents of those and other English-speaking countries. It is usually considered a symmetric case of a pluricentric language, because no variety clearly dominates culturally. Statistically, however, American English speakers comprise more than 70% of native English speakers, with British English a distant second at 16% and other varieties having less than 5% each." Within the US, communicative jargon is accepted. Should the word "Bucks" be substituted for "Dollars" the jargon would not be misunderstood. No more than "Howdy" would not be understood to mean "Hello." Consider also, Oxford English is not the English of Geoffrey Chaucer. Even in England, the English language has undergone considerable change. Though it serves to repeat: "... no variety clearly dominates culturally," the time to consider when extreme use of jargons have caused communicative problems is when a listener has to say ... eh? However, just having the ability to inquire about what is being said still leaves a listener with the ability to communicate. :) |
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: *Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes difficult or impossible. No, it's when things devolve too farr FROM that direction, or more precisely when "what did they mean" devolves too far from "what did they say". '"Words mean exactly what I want them to mean," the Red Queen informed Alice in Wonderland.' |
nick c wrote:
No Jeremy, I think now, Floyd has a good prospective of the evolutionary process that has overtaken the English language. The language itself is no longer subject to exclusive overview by proponents of the Oxford dictionary, so to speak. Those that may be offended by the use of jargon as speaking aides may well find that to be a problem they have created unto themselves. I have no problem at all with jargon; I'm a big fan of slang; and I think it's a good thing that the language is not set in stone. What I don't much like is the fact that I honestly, as I type this, don't know whether you meant "prospective" or "perspective", given that 9 times out of 10 that you see the former, the person really meant the latter. -- Jeremy | |
"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... "Nostrobino" wrote: "Floyd Davidson" wrote: [ . . . ] Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has evolved. No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct, as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were. So just show us examples... ;-) I'll do better than that. I'll direct you to an excellent dictionary which is just loaded with extensive usage notes, and you can while away many a pleasant hour reading them: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. (I think there's a later edition now.) This is the real big one, not the desk dictionary. Even quicker, do a Google search on "misused words." You'll find several lists, some of the words real oldies, still often misused. Wrong for years, still wrong today, and they'll still be wrong in years to come. In most cases the wrongness is in stylistic usage rather than definition, but the principle is the same. Popularity of usage does not automatically confer correctness. Show *show us* some words where the common use is "wrong". Note that that is different than words that are "commonly mis-used". You do have a real problem with understanding words, don't you. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: *Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes difficult or impossible. That simply is not true. That *is* the point of communications. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Floyd Davidson wrote:
The origin may be murky, but the reason it caught on and stuck is perhaps not. It is a handy term and people see others using it, that is enough. At least it is enough to make it useful as a handy term. I've been using the word "slang" for this kind of term. I think it applies, but since it isn't communicating quite what I want I'll have to go with a longer explanation. Amateur radio operators often use "c.w." as a kind of informal short form for radiotelegraphy. It isn't what it actually means. It actually means continuous wave transmission as opposed to damped wave, or spark transmission. Since damped vave transmission has been illegal for nearly 80 years, all radio transmissions of voice, data, television and everything else are c.w. and the correct use of the term mainly appears in historical discussions. If you use c.w. as a synonym for radiotelegraphy, hardly anyone is going to object, but if you try posting on a amateur radio newsgroup that c.w actually means that, you are going to be corrected. (And yes, it does happen.) The question, "when does improper terminology become correct?" is very interesting. While I might personally wish it never did, there is a perfect example of such a thing happening in photography. Photographic emulsions are not actually emulsions as chemists use the term, and yet it is the standard term in photography. I imagine that this must have annoyed more than a few chemists who went into photographic chemistry. But no one has managed to create a new word which conveys the same idea to photographers, and so it gets used in scientific papers where both the author(s) and the intended audience know that it doesn't conform to proper scientific terminology. So it can happen that a mistake becomes correct, but I'd personally like to set the bar pretty high for accepting this. If a term starts to be used regularly in a certain way in scientific papers or advanced technical discussions, then I think I have to agree that it has become correct. Other possible hypotheses a 1) Afocal zoom attachments used to be available which would convert a fixed focal length lens into a zoom. In that case the base lens would have been a "prime lens" in the more orthodox terminology and the name could then have stuck. 2) Fixed focal length lenses could have been primary at one point simply because the studio or production company owned a lot more of them and thus could be the default when a zoom lens was not specifically needed. I can't imagine that either of those was a great influence, though both may have had some insignificant but measurable effect. The afocal zoom attachment hypothesis seems to have got some support from BC, so I'm now inclined to take it fairly seriously as a possible origin of "prime lens" = "fixed focal length lens." I think the point, though, is that the meaning of the word as it existed at the time made people feel comfortable with the extension of it into new ground. Quite probably, but if the term grew out of the prime lens vs. supplementary lens use then very few people who use the term have any idea of its origins. Why though? That *is* the common thread that runs through various meanings of prime. I have never claimed, and see no point it any attempt to prove, that there are *any* meanings for "prime" which are not related to "first". I said the connection was obscure, not that there wasn't one. Ask someone in any other technical field, or even in optics whether the technical vocabulary of their field should shift in such a fashion. Look, I'm a techie geek type of guy, who is retired after working for 4 decades in the communications industry. *You* are going to tell *me* about shifting technical vocabulary???? If you can, then we could compare notes... but if you want to "ask someone in any other technical field", rest assured you did. OK, I had the impression that you got new vocabulary all the time, but that the older terms had to have pretty much fixed meanings to avoid serious confusion. I'm aware of what happened in philosophy with "subjective" and "objective." You have to pay attention to this to avoid the mistake of thinking that an older writer is saying nearly the opposite of what he intended. This sort of thing where words very nearly switch places can happen, but it is really undesirable. I can remember working with a fellow in the mid-1960s who had a really good story about that... He was a retired Navy Chief, who'd been in Fire Control before WWII, and retired in the mid 1950's. You wanna talk about shifting technical vocabulary! *Everything* to do with Fire Control changed. When he signed on, it was all mechanical. When he retired, is was all electronics. His best joke was about trying to order a "soldering iron" to work on electronics in about 1946, and being unable to get supply people to realize that he did *not* want a plumber's soldering iron. But that's really about expectations within an industry: soldering irons for electronics were very much around, but fire control people were not expected to be using them. If you order Glycin from a general chemical supplier, you will get the kind which isn't a photographic developer; there are only a few sources for the stuff you want for your darkroom and you have to go to them if you want the right stuff. This comes up on a semi-regular basis on rec.photo.darkroom. Of course in the 1960's when I worked with that fellow we were using vacuum tubes in computers, radios, and particle accelerators! Virtually the entire vocabulary used today in almost any industry using electronics *didn't exist* in 1965, and was created between then and 1985. And now has been in place for 20 years, and people think of it as *old* and carved in stone! But pull out a resistor that has colored *dots* to identify it, and is 3/4 of an inch long with wire leads that wrap around each end, and ask someone if they could solder it into a circuit... and you'll 1) have a hard time finding anyone with solder and an iron, and even if they do, they will 2) ask you what in tarnation that thing is, because 3) they've never seen nor heard of such a resistor. Are these the old carbon composition types from before they used stripes? I seem to recall that the colour code was the same even though the markings were different. I bet if they saw them in a radio they would figure out what they were pretty quickly. I know I did. I can see they would be a real puzzle out of context, but I don't think that you would often see them out of context: they would be in an old piece of electronic equipment. Heck, in the 1970's most electronics technicians couldn't identify many parts from WWII equipment because the technology had changed so fast. Today of course they can't identify *most* parts from back then. I wasted too many hours reading the radiation labs series to be puzzled by much from WWII. I suspect I'm unusual but not unique in that. Photography and optics has changed relatively slowly by comparison. Lenses can be much more complex and colour film is much improved from fifty years ago, but they still work the same way. Many photographers use fifty year old cameras on occasion, and it won't generally be obvious in the results. The better equipment from back then can still be above average by today's standards. My 1958 edition of the Ilford Manual of Photography is actually a better book for the areas it covers than the 2000 edition. The 2000 edition does cover some things which didn't exist in 1958, but at least half of the book is a rewritten version of the 1958 edition. The rewriting seems to be for the sake of rewriting; you can make paragraph by paragraph comparisons of surprising amounts of it and the new version of a paragraph is rarely an improvement. Perhaps that's why you are uncomfortable with the evolution of words, and to me that is just one more fascinating aspect of communications. Elsewhere in this thread, I mentioned my delight as a child at reading "incredible" used in a literal way in The Time Machine. I think a certain amount of conservatism is part of my personality. That statement doesn't make sense. Just try coming up with a clear division of what is "common slang" and what is not. Ask 20 people... you'll get 25 different answers? Maybe my use of the word "slang" is a problem. It seems to have a lot of meanings. I think that most people are aware that some terms which are frequently used aren't strictly correct terminology. I began this discussion by noting that audio engineers often call cellulose nitrate lacquer disc records "acetates" even though they are not made from acetate. It is an informal term which appears to be the result of an error but is nonetheless frequently used to communicate. No one would think of calling them "acetates" in any kind of technical paper. It makes a lot of sense to deprecate the use of a new meaning for a technical term if it is seen as beginning to erode the usefulness of the established technical use of the term. You are welcome to try, but tilting at windmills, barking at the moon, and a number of other similar activities would be more productive. We only get to find that out later. Sometimes the effort pays off. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there have been cases in the history of photography where a once popular misuse of a technical term has been corrected. The example I gave was the common early 20th century tendency to use "depth of focus" when what was really meant was "depth of field." One example makes it a pattern of significance??? :-) Even half a dozen examples, which probably could be scraped up, won't indicate any significance. As you suppose, there are other examples. The word "focus" used to be frequently used when "focal length" was meant. This is preserved in "long-focus lens" which is now quite respectable, but for the most part this usage has vanished. Sure. But like I said... try to draw a line between when it is and when it isn't, and you *can't*. One line is "would you expect to see the word used this way in a serious technical paper?" There may be problems with this, but it seems a reasonable dividing line between standard terminology and informal terminology. By newspapers, by the general public, but not by the people who stay up to early morning doing interesting things on computers for recreation. A hacker knows what the word means and knows that it's the newspapers and general public who have it wrong. It is ubiquitous. And yes the old definition is still in use too! Context is everything... The first time I was aware of the word "hacker" was from a Psychology Today article that was in our school computer room around 1980. I think they got it pretty much right. The word "hacker" is interesting because it is informal terminology in both senses. The vast majority of people who think it applies to them use it in the old sense, while the majority of people who are not now and have never been hackers are primarily aware of it in the sense of "cracker." I'm not one now, but I might just have qualified or had aspirations in that direction when I was in high school. I haven't written a shell script for my Mac since I got it. I'm pretty sure I could, but I haven't. I think you could argue that "hacker" really does have both meanings, but one should be aware that a guy who does computer programing for fun probably has pretty strong views on the matter. OTOH when clear techical language and popular use conflict, I think it is reasonable to give preference to the technical use. For instance, people who are neither coin collectors nor involved in the making of coins often call the grained or reeded edges of coins "milled edges." This is even in some dictionaries. Coin people nearly always deprecate this use because it comes from a misunderstanding of the term "milled coinage" which has nothing to do with the edges of coins, but from the fact that they are made on a screw press or other machine. I don't think "slang" is even close to what it is. The fact that you don't even know what it means, simply because it is a technical term from a field outside your range of experience, pretty much demonstrates that it isn't "slang". I've probably been guilty of trying to pay "slang" extra to mean what I want it to mean. Chambers's includes "the jargon of any class, profession or set" as well as "colloquial language with words and usages not accepted for dignified use." My use included elements of each, but perhaps this wasn't quite right. It is a very specific technical term, which originally had one specific meaning, but which now commonly is used (and some would of course say "incorrectly") to mean something slightly different too. Both uses are ubiquitous in the telecommunications industry. The only significance is that it's one of those "trick questions" by which you can determine if someone is *really* well versed. If they don't realize there are *two* meanings... they be newbies! If so, this would seem to be a good example of the difference between correct terminolgy and slang use. Virtually *everybody* in the industry uses the term in both the original, pedantic way, and as a synonym for a DS1. It isn't slang. Obviously my use of "slang" has failed to communicate the right idea, I've tried to use other expressions this time round. (An interesting side note on just how significant "convention" is to me in communications... I just ran a spell check on this article and found that I had incorrectly spelled "communications" virtually every time I used the word. To me, a word is just a symbol for a meaning, and symbols are a dime a dozen and can change every day.) I sometimes misspell words I use regularly too. I haven't run a spell check on this, so if I did it this time it will show. Peter. -- |
"David Littlewood" wrote in message ... In article , Nostrobino writes (He sure could write) He sure could, and I'm embarrassed not to have known that source. (Sometimes it seems to me that about half of our common expressions, and practically all of the better ones, are from Shakespeare, so it doesn't surprise me.) I think I've read most of Shakespeare's plays and especially love the histories, but I guess I somehow missed King John. "Gilding the lily" is a well-understood expression here in the U.S. too, but I never knew it was a misquotation. It's not a popular play - the first of the English kings series (though I don't know whether it was written first - I mean John was the earliest king to be covered). Popular or not, I should read it I suppose. When I took Shakespeare in college, the professor had us read Titus Andronicus as an example of below-standard Shakespeare, just to show that he didn't always write great stuff. But I *liked* Titus Andronicus. Maybe I just have a depraved sense of humor (the stew, of course). To beg the question is, correctly, to assume the truth of a proposition without actually attempting to prove it. For example (from Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable): "parallel lines never meet because they are parallel". Originally a translation from Latin "petitio principii", though first used by the Greek Aristotle. You are right in that it should not be used to mean "raises the question", as begging the question very much involves deliberately not raising a question (i.e. the truth or otherwise of the underlying proposition) which really needs to be raised. Your explanation is certainly far better than my dictionary's, which basically just says "beg the question" means "to reason badly" or some such thing. I doubt that most American dictionaries even mention the expression at all (my desk dictionary doesn't), which only makes it that much easier for the ignorant to get away with misusing it. Incidentally - and getting even more off topic - the bit about parallel lines never meeting is not an essential truth, it was merely one of the assumptions ("axioms") postulated by Euclid (another Greek philosopher, these guys got around) in devising the rules of geometry. Other systems of geometry exist in which it is not true at all, thus demonstrating the benefits of questioning the underlying assumptions. Yes, I remember the recent discussion here about that. :-/ Neil David -- David Littlewood |
"no_name" wrote in message om... Jeremy Nixon wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: *Nobody* cares whether words match precise dictionary meanings, because *point* is to communicate. When people *communicate*, the question is not "what did they say", but "what did they mean". When things devolve too far in that direction, communication becomes difficult or impossible. No, it's when things devolve too farr FROM that direction, or more precisely when "what did they mean" devolves too far from "what did they say". '"Words mean exactly what I want them to mean," the Red Queen informed Alice in Wonderland.' That was Humpty Dumpty ("it means just what I choose it to mean"), not the Red Queen. And actually both were in "Through the Looking Glass," not "Alice in Wonderland," though the two books are usually printed together so it's easy to get them confused. Neil |
"Peter" wrote:
Amateur radio operators often use "c.w." as a kind of informal short form for radiotelegraphy. It isn't what it actually means. Ahem... that is *precisely* what it means! It actually means continuous wave transmission as opposed to damped wave, or spark transmission. Since damped vave transmission has been illegal for nearly 80 years, Exactly, and that of course actually means you cannot modulate it... You were doing fine until you got to this point! all radio transmissions of voice, data, television and everything else are c.w. Nope, that just ain't so. They all require some form of modulation that produces discontinuity of the carrier. and the correct use of the term mainly appears in historical discussions. If you use c.w. as a synonym for radiotelegraphy, hardly anyone is going to object, but if you try posting on a amateur radio newsgroup that c.w actually means that, you are going to be corrected. (And yes, it does happen.) I think you need to look up the actual meaning of c.w., rather than surmising on your own. You also need to realize that c.w. is not defined by or for amateur radio operators, hence references to what ham operators thing it does or does not mean is only trivia. I assure you the reason nobody (except perhaps a few ignorant ham operators) objects to others equating cw with radio telegraphy is because in fact it *is* a synonym for radio telegraphy. (And be warned that I held a commercial radio telegraph license 40 years ago, and still hold valid commercial radio telephone and amateur licenses.) Your statement that "all radio transmissions of voice, data, television and everything else are c.w." is simply *wrong*. Here is the technical definition of "continious wave", according to the FTC 1037C Standards, available at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm continuous wave (cw): A wave of constant amplitude and constant frequency. Clearly it means a transmission that is neither amplitude, frequency, nor phase modulated. Any such modulation necessarily must cause a discontinuity in the wave. The only thing you can do is turn it on and off... which is called radio telegraphy! The question, "when does improper terminology become correct?" is very interesting. While I might personally wish it never did, there is a perfect example of such a thing happening in photography. Photographic emulsions are not actually emulsions as chemists use the term, and yet it is the standard term in photography. I imagine that this must have annoyed more than a few chemists who went into photographic chemistry. But no one has managed to create a new word which conveys the same idea to photographers, and so it gets used in scientific papers where both the author(s) and the intended audience know that it doesn't conform to proper scientific terminology. My particular field of expertize is communications, not chemistry. Hence I have no comment on this example, other than hoping you know more about chemistry terms than you do about radio communications terminology! .... -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
nick c wrote: No Jeremy, I think now, Floyd has a good prospective of the evolutionary process that has overtaken the English language. The language itself is no longer subject to exclusive overview by proponents of the Oxford dictionary, so to speak. Those that may be offended by the use of jargon as speaking aides may well find that to be a problem they have created unto themselves. I have no problem at all with jargon; I'm a big fan of slang; and I think it's a good thing that the language is not set in stone. What I don't much like is the fact that I honestly, as I type this, don't know whether you meant "prospective" or "perspective", given that 9 times out of 10 that you see the former, the person really meant the latter. "Perspective" is de word. :) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com