Led strips on shelves

[JohnW2]

But don't you agree that not correcting someone when they use the wrong word is going to make it spread even more?

There's absolutely no point in correcting 'the ordinary man in the street' unless/until the industry first reverses the changes in language they've adopted - that that just isn't going to happen.

Even in more 'learned' circles, 'going on about it' could easily have the opposite of the desired effect. I have a very strong suspicion that the likes of EFLI would never have even dreamed of thinking up and presenting arguments to support this 'modern' use of the word "transformer" if they had not been 'provoked' by your incessant, even if well-intentioned, 'corrections'.

If we all make the effort to only use the right term perhaps it will eventually get back to the manufacturers marketing people who (may) learn.

A nice thought, but it's not going to happen.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm surprised at you, John, saying that when you have frequently defended the actual misuse of ordinary words on the grounds that the language 'evolves' and, in any case, we know what they mean.

This one is different. In this case, we are not talking about just 'evolution' of language (e.g. coming to use a previously existing word, 'incorrectly' by past definitions, to refer to a wire-wound transformer). Instead, we are talking about inventing a new meaning of a technical term whilst the old meaning (in the same technical field) is still used and required - a certain recipe for confusion. In other words, we do not necessarily "know what someone means" when they talk of a "transformer". Essentially it is introducing a potentially unfortunate ambiguity - in the past, I could have walked into a supplier and asked for a "230V to 12V 50VA transformer" and would have known exactly what I would be getting but, today, I would not. Conversely, if the meaning of "transformer" you are defending came to be fully accepted, I could ask for "a transformer" when I wanted an SMPSU, and be surprised when I was given a wire-wound component. Ambiguities are not good.

However, as you know, I am a pragmatist, and I do not believe that we (or winston) has any choice but to accept that what has happened is very unlikley to ever be reversed, so we have to accept it (and the ambiguities it creates). However, unlike you (albeit, as I've recently written, probably only in the face of 'provocation'), I would not attempt to defend or justify the use of words that has arisen, even if I have to 'accept' it. However, in the context of domestic lighting, wire-wound transformers are far from extinct - so, again, in this particular case, we do not necessarily "know what they mean" when a poster here talks about their 'lighting transformer'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

in the past, I could have walked into a supplier and asked for a "230V to 12V 50VA transformer" and would have known exactly what I would be getting but, today, I would not.

Yes, because that's all there was
and because a word with a huge range of uses was misappropriated to mean a specific object (or perhaps they used to be called voltage transformers or electrical transformers or electrical induction transformers, I don't know but, if that were the case, then you are using an inappropriate abbreviation)
Like:
Go into Curry's and ask for a "telly"; will the assistant take you to the 'phone display? We get used to things; it doesn't mean they are actually correct.
Go into the grocer's and ask for an apple; might the grocer ask you what kind you want?
You wouldn't go into the baker's and just ask for a loaf.

Conversely, if the meaning of "transformer" you are defending came to be fully accepted, I could ask for "a transformer" when I wanted an SMPSU, and be surprised when I was given a wire-wound component. Ambiguities are not good.

So what? Things have evolved.
You will now have to qualify your request and be specific about the type of transformer you require.
Ask for what you want.

However, as you know, I am a pragmatist, and I do not believe that we (or winston) has any choice but to accept that what has happened is very unlikley to ever be reversed, so we have to accept it (and the ambiguities it creates). However, unlike you (albeit, as I've recently written, probably only in the face of 'provocation'), I would not attempt to defend or justify the use of words that has arisen, even if I have to 'accept' it. However, in the context of domestic lighting, wire-wound transformers are far from extinct - so, again, in this particular case, we do not necessarily "know what they mean" when a poster here talks about their 'lighting transformer'.

Why would you expect to know what they mean if they do not give the correct or enough information?

I do not know what people mean when they mistakenly say socket when they mean switch when asking questions on the forum.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I could ask for "a transformer" when I wanted an SMPSU, and be surprised when I was given a wire-wound component.

If he just does that without asking details, you will have met Winston.

 

[John D v2.0]

How about isolating transformers? They don't transform anything except safety! :trollface:

 

[winston1]

Still going on after a good nights sleep!
John W, there is no reason for confusion. A member posts, "I have a transformer." Reply, "It's not, it is a DC power supply."
Then for some reason a big argument ensues about language evolving, manufactures call it etc. That is when there is confusion. For some reason members on here are particularly argumentative.
It doesn't happen elsewhere. For instance on the various TV forums a member posts, "I have a digital aerial." Reply, "No you don't, there is no such thing."
No arguing, just agreement.
Member learns and does not the same mistake three posts down.

 

[JohnW2]

In the interests of trying to tidy things up, I have attempted to shift this semantic discussion into a new thread ... (click here) .


Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It doesn't happen elsewhere. For instance on the various TV forums a member posts, "I have a digital aerial." Reply, "No you don't, there is no such thing." No arguing, just agreement.

... which presumably means that, unlike the situation we're talking about here, there are no members of the forum who feel moved to attempt justify/defend the use of the phrase "digital aerial"?

As you will see, I've attempted to move discussion on this topic to a new thread.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It doesn't happen elsewhere. For instance on the various TV forums a member posts, "I have a digital aerial." Reply, "No you don't, there is no such thing."

There would be if you maintained it wasn't an aerial because it was a different design than the very first ones.

 

[JohnW2]

There would be if you maintained it wasn't an aerial because it was a different design than the very first ones.

It's actually fairly similar to the "transformer" issue - it is arguably inappropriate that the word "aerial" is used (without qualification) to refer to 'active aerials' (aerials with built in amplifiers, or whatever) - even though those devices do include an aerial (per earliest definitions).

Kind Regards, John