Electrician Expert Statement - Recessed light Transformers

[ban-all-sheds]

I realise, and accept, that such is one view, but do I take it that you are against any 'evolution' of language? As I've said, it is very difficult to see how any evolution can ever happen unless a 'very first person', followed by many others, starts using a word in a sense which is "Plan (sic!), flat-out wrong" in terms of the current dictionaries.

It is even more difficult to see that not happening would be a bad thing.

As far as I am concerned, life is too short to waste time telling people that they are wrong "at every opportunity" when I know full well that my repeated efforts will achieve/change nothing. I would get no satisfaction from that, but maybe you would.

No I wouldn't. It's a simple matter of right and wrong, and I would get dissatisfaction if I did not tell them if I thought they should be told.



[EDIT]Quoting mistake corrected[/EDIT]

 

[JohnW2]

It is even more difficult to see that not happening would be a bad thing.

Fair enough - as I said, I accept that some have that view. So you don't want the meaning of any word to ever evolve to something that it is not correct in terms of the dictionaries current in 2014 (maybe even earlier ones).

As far as I am concerned, life is too short to waste time telling people that they are wrong "at every opportunity" when I know full well that my repeated efforts will achieve/change nothing. I would get no satisfaction from that, but maybe you would.

No I wouldn't. It's a simple matter of right and wrong, and I would get dissatisfaction if I did not tell them if I thought they should be told.

I don't think you did write the first bit of that (sloppy quoting? - tut-tut ) - but it is apparent that we differ, which is fine.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you don't want the meaning of any word to ever evolve to something that it is not correct in terms of the dictionaries current in 2014 (maybe even earlier ones).

Winding back the clock, at least by a significant amount, would be impossible.

So, almost, would be to stop the "evolution" you describe.

But no, I don't want it. I cannot see what advantages it has for anyone, nor what disadvantages would accrue if it were to stop happening.

I don't think you did write the first bit of that (sloppy quoting? - tut-tut )

Yes, sloppy, and you were right to pull me up.

 

[JohnW2]

But no, I don't want it. I cannot see what advantages it has for anyone, nor what disadvantages would accrue if it were to stop happening.

Fair enough - but I'm afraid that the evolution of language is not going to stop, even for you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I agree with BAS.

Perhaps it is the same people - not dictionaries - who decide to update the dictionary with common usage who also termed it 'evolution', which sounds like an improvement, when it would be more correct to call it 'contamination' or 'degradation',

Would it seem as acceptable if they state "The dictionary has been updated to include the latest degradation of the language"?

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with BAS. ... Perhaps it is the same people - not dictionaries - who decide to update the dictionary with common usage who also termed it 'evolution', which sounds like an improvement, when it would be more correct to call it 'contamination' or 'degradation', ... Would it seem as acceptable if they state "The dictionary has been updated to include the latest degradation of the language"?

Presumably not - but "evolution" and "degradation" are presumably both in the eye of the beholder, and beholders clearly have different views. In terms of biological evolution, of course, "degradations" which really had a negative effect on survival or reproduction would probably be eliminated by natural selection relatively swiftly. One might hope that the same would happen with language, if a 'change' proved to introduce confusion, ambiguity, or whatever - but I fear that linguistic changes (whatever one calls them) very rarely get reversed!

If I understand 'where we are', am I right in saying that you share my wish that electricians were not now using "lamp" and "continuity testing" in the way they are, but that you are defending the industry's use of the word "transformer" (unqualified) to refer to an SMPS, on the grounds that an SPMS still satisfies the 'original', ancient, pre-electricity meaning of the word? Have I got that right?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If I understand 'where we are', am I right in saying that you share my wish that electricians were not now using "lamp" and "continuity testing" in the way they are,

It may be better if we/they didn't but that has already happened.

but that you are defending the industry's use of the word "transformer" (unqualified) to refer to an SMPS,

I am not sure if it is used without 'electronic' but ...

on the grounds that an SPMS still satisfies the 'original', ancient, pre-electricity meaning of the word? Have I got that right?

Yes, my objection is that the meaning of transformer (English) is just "something which changes itself or something else".

Calling an electrical device by that name does not and cannot alter the English definition.
The fact that originally for some reason it included the components as well as the function does not and cannot alter the English definition.
The fact that modern devices have additional components but the same function does not and cannot alter the English definition.

That many English words have two completely different meanings surely allows two things with the same function to have the same name.

Or perhaps (original) transformers and (electronic) transformers do not use the same word. They just look the same but are in fact two different words.


The next time winston complains I can reply "No, you're right; it is not a transformer; it is a transformer".

 

[EFLImpudence]

I cannot think of another example where an ancient and a modern device with the same function have to have a different name but...

conversely, as this was invented and described first

I presume this cannot be one

So, what is it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In terms of biological evolution, of course, "degradations" which really had a negative effect on survival or reproduction would probably be eliminated by natural selection relatively swiftly. One might hope that the same would happen with language, if a 'change' proved to introduce confusion, ambiguity, or whatever - but I fear that linguistic changes (whatever one calls them) very rarely get reversed!

But they would have a negative effect on people's ability to communicate if everybody refused to accept their changes.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I presume this cannot be one

So, what is it?

Dunno - it's very small.

Is it a tree?

 

[bernardgreen]

It can't be a tree, a plane has only two dimensions, width and length, no height

 

[winston1]

I cannot think of another example where an ancient and a modern device with the same function have to have a different name but...

conversely, as this was invented and described first

I presume this cannot be one

So, what is it?

Surely it is an aeroplane, the other one is a plane.

 

[winston1]

[quote

The fact that modern devices have additional components but the same function does not and cannot alter the English definition.

[/quote]

But they don't have the same function do they. A transformer usually changes voltage/current (exception is 1:1) and usually isolates (exception is auto transformer), but maintains frequency and waveform (provided not driven to saturation). A SMPT does the first two but changes the frequency by a vast amount and changes the waveform. What is more these two parameters change with the loading and input voltage.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It can't be a tree, a plane has only two dimensions, width and length, no height

Unless we only think it's a plane because we cannot detect the other dimensions.

 

[JohnW2]

If I understand 'where we are', am I right in saying that you share my wish that electricians were not now using "lamp" and "continuity testing" in the way they are,

It may be better if we/they didn't but that has already happened.

Sure, I've agreed that we can't undo changes that have already happened. I was just seeking confirmation that you would have been happier if this 'evolution' had never happened.

but that you are defending the industry's use of the word "transformer" (unqualified) to refer to an SMPS, on the grounds that an SPMS still satisfies the 'original', ancient, pre-electricity meaning of the word? Have I got that right?

Yes, my objection is that the meaning of transformer (English) is just "something which changes itself or something else".

If (as you would presumably favour) nothing had happened in the meantime, then I would agree with you. However, the reality is that, for better or for worse, we went through a period of very many decades during which the word was in very widespread use to refer specifically (as reflected in the additional definitions which appeared in dictionaries) to an electrical component which worked by a specific mechanism (inductive coupling). Once that had happened, and been established for so long, it seems to become much more questionable as to whether it then is appropriate to start using the word for a different electrical component (working by a different mechanism), on the basis that it still corresponds to the original, 'pre-electricity', definition. I think that's even more true given that wirewound transformers are still around - as I've said, the change means that one can no longer safely use the same term as one would have used in, say, the 70s to unambiguously refer to a wirewound transformer

That many English words have two completely different meanings surely allows two things with the same function to have the same name.

In general, it does - but, as above, I think that all changes after one has been through a long period during which the word has been used to imply mechanism, as well as function, of that item.

Kind Regards, John