Electrician Expert Statement - Recessed light Transformers

[EFLImpudence]

I agree with winston over "transformer".

Yes, that surprised me given your many posts promoting reliance on what things actually state.

It's harder to agree over "electronic transformer"

I cannot understand why as something which transforms, by whatever means, must (cannot not) be a transformer.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree with winston over "transformer". ... It's harder to agree over "electronic transformer"

Indeed. If you agreed with him over "electronic transformer", you would presumably also have problems with countless other examples of "electronic XYZ" in cases in which the 'electronic' version of XYZ bore little resemblance (particularly mechanistically) to the original XYZ.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The language or the dictionary? Surely the true purpose of a dictionary is to document a language, not to define it?

That's certainly my view, but some seem to disagree.

As I've said, a language could never change ('evolve' or whatever) unless people started using words in a way not currently documented in dictionaries.

"Lamp" seems to be an example of things working in a way in which I do not believe that they should. The 'new' meaning seemed to get into dictionaries long before (it hasn't really happened yet) that meaning was even remotely in 'common use' by the majority of English-speaking people. It would probably have been OK if they had indicated that the 'new' meaning was, at least for the time being, a technical/specialised one, but that don't seem to have done that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree with winston over "transformer".

Yes, that surprised me given your many posts promoting reliance on what things actually state.

It's harder to agree over "electronic transformer"

I cannot understand why as something which transforms, by whatever means, must (cannot not) be a transformer.

My response to both of those is the same - in an electrical context, AFAIC, a transformer (with no adjective) is an electrical device that transfers energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction - a varying current in the transformer's primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the core and a varying magnetic field impinging on the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field at the secondary induces a varying electromotive force (emf) or voltage in the secondary winding.

An electronic transformer is something different. It's an unfortunate example, as it wasn't ever needed in the first place - power supply was an existing term which worked perfectly well. And saved letters.

There are other, better, examples, of adding an adjective to an existing term to describe something new which does something effectively the same, e.g. electronic mail. It was surely better to do that than invent a completely new word.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The language or the dictionary? Surely the true purpose of a dictionary is to document a language, not to define it?

That's certainly my view, but some seem to disagree.

But what it documents is the meaning, i.e. the definition of words. So it does define it. The OED has a quasi-official status in that regard - you hear of new words being added to it, and the sense is that it is that process which gives them validity.

As I've said, a language could never change ('evolve' or whatever) unless people started using words in a way not currently documented in dictionaries.

You have, but you have not been able to show why this is necessary, or even beneficial, or what harms or disadvantages would accrue if it did not happen.

We of course need new words all the time, to describe new things, but we never need to take an existing word and pervert its meaning.

"Lamp" seems to be an example of things working in a way in which I do not believe that they should. The 'new' meaning seemed to get into dictionaries long before (it hasn't really happened yet) that meaning was even remotely in 'common use' by the majority of English-speaking people.

That quote from the Wiring Regulations of 1882 hints that "lantern" is what we should call the item which you say is commonly called a "lamp".

And you've still not explained why this isn't a bulbshade:

 

[JohnW2]

The language or the dictionary? Surely the true purpose of a dictionary is to document a language, not to define it?

That's certainly my view, but some seem to disagree.

But what it documents is the meaning, i.e. the definition of words. So it does define it. The OED has a quasi-official status in that regard - you hear of new words being added to it, and the sense is that it is that process which gives them validity.

Fair enough. However, what I presumed dave1x was getting at was the question of where any changes/additions to the dictionaries originated. He, like myself, seems to feel that dictionaries are, when necessary, updated to reflect changes in common/general usage - i.e. to document ('define', if you wish) the language 'as it is being spoken'. It is not, IMO, for the writers/publishers of dictionaries to, themselves, make the initial decision to change or add meanings unless those changed/new meanings are already in common use. In other words, they document and define the meaning 'as it is being used', but (IMO) they should not themselves attempt to dicate what new meanings should be given to words, if the words are not already being used commonly with those new meanings.

As I've said, a language could never change ('evolve' or whatever) unless people started using words in a way not currently documented in dictionaries.

You have, but you have not been able to show why this is necessary, or even beneficial, or what harms or disadvantages would accrue if it did not happen.

I don't think I've ever expressed such a view. What I have said is that this is a debate for academic linguists, many/most of whom seem to believe that evolution of language is a desirable thing - and, as I think we've agreed, such evolution, if it were deemed desirable, could never happen unless people start, and continue, using words in a manner different from what is documented in current dictionaries.

We of course need new words all the time, to describe new things, but we never need to take an existing word and pervert its meaning.

Agreed - we never "need" to do that - but change of meaning (what you call "perversion") is one of the major ways in which evolution of language has always occurred, and probably always will.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

And you've still not explained why this isn't a bulbshade: <picture of a lampshade>

I don't actually recall you having asked me to explain but, given that I'm all but certain that the item in question was called a "lampshade" long before anyone had even dreamed of calling the light bulb it 'shaded' a "lamp", the answer is not too obvious. One might speculate that it's derivation may have been as "the shade of the lamp" (particularly given that oil, gas etc. lamps can also have 'lampshades') - but who knows?

Kind Regards, John