Figure of 8 plug for laptop charger

[EFLImpudence]

I agree.

There was nothing wrong with what Bas wrote.

positive and return

It's AC - there is no positive and there is no return. One core will be the neutral, and will be at or very close to earth potential, and the other will be live and will vary from +325V from N to -325V. The current will change direction 100 times per second.

It was polite and informative and what happened when his 'slip-up' was corrected?
An immediate apology.




What is the alternative?
Richard carries on calling AC positive and return for ever with no one allowed to mention the error and increase his knowledge?





It would be a strange world if everyone was incorrect all the time but we just knew what was really meant.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree. ... There was nothing wrong with what Bas wrote. ... It was polite and informative and what happened when his 'slip-up' was corrected? ... An immediate apology.

On this occasion, I essentially agree. It's the language (often with implied sarcasm) used which is often the problem, but not on this occasion. The 'slip up' was just a little ironic (but, as you say, received an immediate apology) - which is why I thanked eric for picking up on it!!

What is the alternative? ... Richard carries on calling AC positive and return for ever with no one allowed to mention the error and increase his knowledge?

Indeed. It's nearly always reasonable to point out that incorrect terminology is being used, provided it is done politely. The one possible exception I wonder about (at least until/unless manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers change their ways!) is the ELV/LV thing - since, at the present time, if we educate a proportion of the masses to go into shops and ask for a Low Voltage lamp/bulb to put into a 230V fitting, we may not be thanked!

It would be a strange world if everyone was incorrect all the time but we just knew what was really meant.

Yes, but it is a 'strange world'! For example, what you describe happens countless times every day in doctors' consulting rooms all over the country (probably world) and very rarely does it result in education about the misuse of medical terminology!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The one possible exception I wonder about (at least until/unless manufacturers/wholesalers/retailers change their ways!) is the ELV/LV thing - since, at the present time, if we educate a proportion of the masses to go into shops and ask for a Low Voltage lamp/bulb to put into a 230V fitting, we may not be thanked!

Then we should promote the use of '12V' or '240V' or whatever V.
Proceeding when thinking you know what is meant is wrong and informing the misuser is the only safe way.

Yes, but it is a 'strange world'! For example, what you describe happens countless times every day in doctors' consulting rooms all over the country (probably world) and very rarely does it result in education about the misuse of medical terminology!

I am sure it would be if you were writing to the doctor and the intention was DIY healing of some sort.

 

[JohnW2]

Then we should promote the use of '12V' or '240V' or whatever V.

Indeed. I'm sure that would be best - but I really think it would be a losing battle to try to persuade the masses (probably 98% of the population) from regarding 12V as 'low voltage' - because, in everyday terms, that's precisely what it is!

Yes, but it is a 'strange world'! For example, what you describe happens countless times every day in doctors' consulting rooms all over the country (probably world) and very rarely does it result in education about the misuse of medical terminology!

I am sure it would be if you were writing to the doctor and the intention was DIY healing of some sort.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I'm not talking about 'DIY healing'. My point was that when describing symptoms etc. the general public use many words/phrases which are 'medically incorrect' (and sometimes have totally different 'medical meanings') but which are so widely used that a healthcare professional (also a member of the general public!) understands what is meant (and doesn't bother 'educating' the patient about the 'correct medical terminology' which (s)he would use when talking to medical colleagues).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't know what you have in mind, medically, but...

...perhaps the doctor is fed up trying to educate and certainly doesn't have time but we aren't and do have the time.

Isn't learning preferable to continued mistakes?

 

[JohnW2]

I don't know what you have in mind, medically, but... ...perhaps the doctor is fed up trying to educate and certainly doesn't have time but we aren't and do have the time.

I think you'll find that most of them have never even bothered to try.

Isn't learning preferable to continued mistakes?

I think we're back to the question of what is a 'mistake'. I strongly suspect that, say, 98% of the population were using 'low voltage' to mean what you call ELV long before the other 2% decided, unilaterally' to 'define it as meaning something different within their discipline/ speciality/ profession. Can 2% dictate that 98% are 'making a mistake' by continuing to do what they have always done?

Although there are countless others, one of the most dramatic medical examples I usually quote (often here) is that of "hysteria/hysterical". Again, an extremely high proportion of the population were using it to mean one thing (which is the meaning they continue to use) long before a tiny proportion of the population decided to define it as meaning something else within their profession. Again, can a tiny proportion of the population decide that the vast majority of the population are 'making a mistake' by continuing to do what they have always done?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Again, can a tiny proportion of the population decide that the vast majority of the population are 'making a mistake' by continuing to do what they have always done?

We've discussed this before but that is the result of long-term not correcting.

Then eventually, when the majority are 'wrong' that definition literally becomes 'right'

 

[JohnW2]

Again, can a tiny proportion of the population decide that the vast majority of the population are 'making a mistake' by continuing to do what they have always done?

We've discussed this before but that is the result of long-term not correcting. ... Then eventually, when the majority are 'wrong' that definition literally becomes 'right'

... but should it not be the vast majority, who continue to use the very-well-established vocabulary that they have 'always' used who should be "correcting" the tiny minority (IEC, Freud or whoever), who pop up and start using words to mean something totally different from their established meaning, rather than the converse?

More practically, I think it's probably often a mistake to try to impose specialist vocabulary on the general public. There are very many disciplines that have their own specialist terminology and jargon, sometimes conflicting with 'common usage' of the same words - but, in general, they keep that specialist vocabulary/jargon 'amongst themselves' and do not attempt to impose it on the general public. If I listen to those in some disciplines/professions talking amongst themselves, I sometimes have little clue what they are talking about, but if they talk to me, they say the same things, but in 'my' everyday English, which I can then understand.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... but should it not be the vast majority, who continue to use the very-well-established vocabulary that they have 'always' used who should be "correcting" the tiny minority (IEC, Freud or whoever), who pop up and start using words to mean something totally different from their established meaning, rather than the converse?

No, because, albeit too late by then, it is the result of ignorance going unchallenged.
It is the ignorant who bring about language evolution.

No intelligent person is going to wake up one morning and start using a word to mean other than its correct definition.

Shall I start using 'beautiful' to mean ugly - you, at least to start with, will know what I mean.

 

[JohnW2]

... but should it not be the vast majority, who continue to use the very-well-established vocabulary that they have 'always' used who should be "correcting" the tiny minority (IEC, Freud or whoever), who pop up and start using words to mean something totally different from their established meaning, rather than the converse?

No, because, albeit too late by then, it is the result of ignorance going unchallenged. ... It is the ignorant who bring about language evolution.

I think that many, including linguistic scholars, might disagree with that. Whatever, are you 'agreeing' that, in relation to the examples I've been mentioning, the IEC and Freud are/were 'ignorant' (I would be more inclined to say 'silly/stupid'!)?

No intelligent person is going to wake up one morning and start using a word to mean other than its correct definition.

Again, that's surely precisely what IEC and Freud did? By categorising them as 'no intelligent person', are you agreeing with me that what they did was silly/stupid, perhaps 'wrong'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

... but should it not be the vast majority, who continue to use the very-well-established vocabulary that they have 'always' used who should be "correcting" the tiny minority (IEC, Freud or whoever), who pop up and start using words to mean something totally different from their established meaning, rather than the converse?

I thought that was meant the other way round, i.e. the vast majority were using the well established meaning which had been 'evolved'.

I don't think I am well enough informed of your example.

 

[JohnW2]

... but should it not be the vast majority, who continue to use the very-well-established vocabulary that they have 'always' used who should be "correcting" the tiny minority (IEC, Freud or whoever), who pop up and start using words to mean something totally different from their established meaning, rather than the converse?

I thought that was meant the other way round, i.e. the vast majority were using the well established meaning which had been 'evolved'.

Oh no, I'm not talking about 'evolution' of language, which is a very long and slow process. On the contrary, I'm talking about a situation is which there is a long- and well-established (i.e. 'correct') meaning, in common usage by the great majority of the population, and then some small minority (maybe an organisation) comes along and 'suddenly' defines the word as meaning something totally different.

I don't think I am well enough informed of your example.

You may not be well-informed about the medical example, but you certainly know about 'Low Voltage'. I'm not totally sure when the 'official' definitions came into being - it seems that IEC 60449:1973 defined the bands for AC and that Amendment 1 of that in 1979 added bands for DC. What I'm not sure of is whether there were any such 'official' definitions prior to 1973 - but I am pretty sure that the general public's understanding and use of 'Low Voltage' and 'High Voltage' (conceptually, if not numerically) was very well-established long before that. Stillp may possibly be able to help us with the historic origin of the official voltage bands.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

The problem with the words "high" and "low" is that they are comparative terms and hence are context dependent.

A power distribution engineer would consider a 1000V threshold between "high" and "low" to be very reasonable. It sits nicely between voltages normally used for final use and voltages normally used for long distance transmission/distribution. It's also about the level where you have to start seriously worrying about electricity jumping.

A householder or someone working on building vacum tube radios would consider 240V to be high and 12V or 24V to be low.

A designer working in microelectronics may well consider 12V or 24V to be high. It's certainly more than high enough to destroy many of his components. Some may even consider 5V to be high.

It seems what has happened with "high voltage" and "low voltage" is that one groups idea of high and low has been codified as the "correct" definition.

 

[JohnW2]

The problem with the words "high" and "low" is that they are comparative terms and hence are context dependent.

Indeed.

A power distribution engineer would consider a 1000V threshold between "high" and "low" to be very reasonable.

Again, indeed. However, the proportion of the population involved with voltages above 1000V is truly minute, which makes one question whether the vast majority of the population should be 'confused' just because of them. Indeed, even that confusion was never necessary. I fully agree that, for that few, the distinction between above/below 1000V (or whatever) is relevant and important, but, with (IMO) a little more sensible thought, voltages above that could have been designated as "EHV" (or whatever, with probably a "SHV" above that, for an even smaller proportion of the population), leaving "HV" available for the 'mains voltage' band. The vast majority of the population "know" (and 'always have known') that "High Voltage" is potentially dangerous (but that "Low Voltage" isn't). It seems that the band definitions were created because of the need of a tiny number of people involved with 'extremely high voltages' with little, if any. thought given to the consequences for the vast majority of the population.

A householder or someone working on building vacum tube radios would consider 240V to be high and 12V or 24V to be low.

I would say that applies to the vast majority of the population. As above, the crucial thing (which is what worries me about all this) is that they almost universally regard "Low Voltage" as being essentially harmless, very unlikely to result in serious injury (or death). So, IMO, every time we persuade a person to refer to 230V as "Low Voltage" we run the risk of them subsequently saying something to another member of the general public that could result in a tragedy.

A designer working in microelectronics may well consider 12V or 24V to be high. It's certainly more than high enough to destroy many of his components. Some may even consider 5V to be high.

True, but that's a bit different - and even the IEC don't give them band(s) for 'ultra low voltages'. From the (human) safety point of view, all we really need is what is currently called ELV, which goes down to zero.

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

From the (human) safety point of view, all we really need is what is currently called ELV, which goes down to zero.

Though I would point out that even ELV isn't unconditionally safe. http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html