Private Message replies to threads.

[JohnW2]

Yes, maybe, but wouldn't it be better if everyone knew the correct terms - or rather had not learnt the incorrect terms.

Perhaps - but, as I said, when the vast majority of people use one term and a tiny minority use the other, one might at least wonder about the logic of the latter being being regarded as the 'correct' one.

If, as you seem to believe, the dichotomy between 'everyday terminology' and 'technical terminology' should not exist, then surely your only hope would be to cut of the everyday version 'in the bud', since it's clearly far too late by the time that most people are using it?

Worse, in my opinion, are cases like the lamp/bulb situation - since "bulb" was in universal use before someone took it upon themselves to try to instigate a 'change' (even if well-intentioned, since many bulbs no longer looked like bulbs!). That was, to my mind, far worse than 'too late' - perhaps witness the fact that a high proportion of the general public (and others!) seem to have ignored the 'change'.

I think it remains the case that if you ask in almost any retail store to be directed to "the lamps", you'll either be sent to the wrong place (for 'bulbs') or told that they don't have them (even if they clearly do!) - and, similarly, if you ask for 'a lamp for your lamp/bicycle/car/fridge/whatever' you'll either get some very funny looks or be shown/given the wrong thing!

If 240V is high voltage; what is 33,000V?

I suppose that would be for those (very few) who deal with such voltages to decide. For some reason, "MV" disappeared. As I said, I would think that around 500V would be a reasonable cut-off between "high voltage" (per 'lay' usage) and "higher voltage" (whatever calle), since that's roughly the dividing line between what is encountered by those involved with domestic/commercial (and much industrial) installations and those ('the few') involved with generation and distribution.

Anyway, there is no hope when manufacturers make GU5.3 lamps and call it MR16 - even when the lamp itself is not even MR16.

I think that one is perhaps in a different league since, as you say, it is plain wrong even in terms of technical terminology - so I certainly do agree that that one really should be 'corrected'!

I'll get you onside by mentioning 'plugtops'.

I'd love to know how that one ever came about!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I suppose that would be for those (very few) who deal with such voltages to decide. For some reason, "MV" disappeared. As I said, I would think that around 500V would be a reasonable cut-off between "high voltage" (per 'lay' usage) and "higher voltage" (whatever calle), since that's roughly the dividing line between what is encountered by those involved with domestic/commercial (and much industrial) installations and those ('the few') involved with generation and distribution.

I generally try to avoid using such terms completely, rather I quote actual voltages if I can. An additional issue, is that the use of such terms varies with domain - in radio engineer speak, 90v dc would be an HT voltage.

 

[SUNRAY]

I generally try to avoid using such terms completely, rather I quote actual voltages if I can. An additional issue, is that the use of such terms varies with domain - in radio engineer speak, 90v dc would be an HT voltage.

A point I've made in previous threads.

Also in an EPROM burner I've seen the 27V described as high voltage.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Clearly, voltage is a bad example to use so, as Harry says, just quote the actual number.

As for professional people using incorrect terms when talking to ordinary people, what is the point? All such examples (like language evolution) are born out of ignorance. Why not correct them?

I suppose one of John's medical terms might be 'chronic' -
medical usage: long lasting,
common usage: really bad,
so does a doctor really alternate depending on the person to whom he is talking? Surely he would just say 'really bad' instead of use ' chronic' incorrectly.

If a DIYer on here keeps calling a 'switch' a 'socket', should we continue with that or simply correct the position?

Obviously for things which have already had their meaning changed by long term ignorance, it is too late but that does not mean future cases must be excused.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

If a DIYer on here keeps calling a 'switch' a 'socket', should we continue with that or simply correct the position?

Obviously for things which have already had their meaning changed by long term ignorance, it is too late but that does not mean future cases must be excused.

I will try to correct a blatant misuse of a descriptive word, where it is causing confusion in a thread. Such as plug being used to describe a socket. Plug top I accept as OK. I accept that I, who should know better, often cannot remember the proper technical terms and so will drop into using the common words. Just so long as we all know what we are talking about, there is no problemo.

 

[Taylortwocities]

There is one problemo, but I don’t wish to speak his name.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just so long as we all know what we are talking about, there is no problemo.

Well, can you ever be absolutely sure, though?

Take the GU5.3 lamps; do we all have to call these MR16 just because a lot of people do?

MR16 can never mean GU5.3, no matter how many think it does.

 

[JohnW2]

Clearly, voltage is a bad example to use so, as Harry says, just quote the actual number.

Indeed so - and that's one of the reasons why, at least theoretically, even electricians should not really use "low voltage". That would be like a doctor diagnosing "an infection".

As for professional people using incorrect terms when talking to ordinary people, what is the point?

As I've said, many disciplines/professions have their own specific, sometimes 'complex', terminology/jargon, much of which will not be known or understood by people outside of the discipline/profession. Rather than attempting to teach the general public the technical language of every discipline with which they may interact, it's simpler to just talk to them with language that they already understand.

All such examples (like language evolution) are born out of ignorance. Why not correct them?

Some of the most commonly discussed examples (e.g. "low voltage" and "lamps") are nothing to do with gradual 'language evolution' or 'ignorance'. Rather, they are the result of 'overnight' arbitrary decisions made by someone or some body.

Indeed, one can even argue that some of those changes are essentially 'born out of ignorance' and therefore 'should have been corrected'. I presume there was a time when "lamp" correctly referred only to something with oil and a flame that produced light. That 'evolved' (i.e. due to incorrect usage) to refer to things that produced light from electricity. One might say that this had some analogies with "transformers" (similar end result by a totally different physical mechanism).

I suppose one of John's medical terms might be 'chronic' -
medical usage: long lasting, common usage: really bad, ...

Indeed so, and it gets far worse than that. In medical usage, 'acute' is the opposite of 'chronic', whereas in common usage the two words are often/usually used as being synonymous (as in chronic/acute pain, or other symptoms).

Hence, if an 'ordinary person' talks about "acute pain", they are not only usually talking about severity (whereas the term relates to duration in medical usage), but may also be talking about something which, in terms of medical usage, is actually 'chronic'! There are countless other examples - "hysteria/hysterical" is another which is often cited.

... so does a doctor really alternate depending on the person to whom he is talking? Surely he would just say 'really bad' instead of use ' chronic' incorrectly.

In that particular case, a doctor would probably do as you suggest. However, the discussion is not so much about what language the doctor should use, but whether or not it would be appropriate/helpful to also 'correct' the patient who had used language which differed from 'medical usage'.

However, more generally, I think it is true to say that a doctor would "...really alternate depending on the person to whom he is talking". Much of the terminology used routinely in conversation between doctors would be meaningless to the general public.

Even in terms of a topical issue, in relation to the clinical features of Covid-19 infection, if talking to healthcare professional I would probably use the words "anosmia", "dysgeusia" and "pyrexia". However, if I were talking to a 'lay' person, I imagine that very few would have a clue what the first two meant, and a good few wouldn't even understand the third - so I would use 'everyday language' when talking to them.

If a DIYer on here keeps calling a 'switch' a 'socket', should we continue with that or simply correct the position?

Calling a switch 'a socket' is just plain wrong, in terms of any 'use of language' so, just as I said about calling something "MR16" when it isn't, this clearly ought to be 'corrected' - since it is no different from calling a sausage a "burger"!

Obviously for things which have already had their meaning changed by long term ignorance, it is too late but that does not mean future cases must be excused.

Quite so. As I said, if one wants to avoid/prevent 'evolutions of language', one's only hope is to 'catch them in the bud'. As I've said, when one has a situation in which the vast majority of people are using one form of language, it is not really helpful to say that they are all "wrong".

Also, as above, there seem to be some 'double standards' at work here. Do you not feel that ('because it was 'incorrect, and was born out of ignorance'), things that didn't have any oil or flames should never have been 'allowed' to be called "lamps"?

Kind Regards, john

 

[EFLImpudence]

As for doctors using "the correct term", i.e. using Latin or Greek derived names, I think that is somewhat different than just using a wrong English word.
The modern use of the word "mysoginy" to mean anything against women, when not actually hating them, is surely just as wrong.

Also, as above, there seem to be some 'double standards' at work here. Do you not feel that ('because it was 'incorrect, and was born out of ignorance'), things that didn't have any oil or flames should never have been 'allowed' to be called "lamps"?

I must admit I do not know the origin of the word "lamp". Did it just refer to the flame? Oil lamp, gas lamp?

I would think it referred to the whole oil lamp because each part would not work on its own. Then with electricity, the actual 'bulb' on its own can produce light, irrespective of its housing however large - standard lamp - so led to the confusion.

If it did just refer to the flame, then the whole thing was not the lamp, either.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Another pet hate - there are so many - is "terribly good". I presume someone thought this the opposite of "terribly bad", which means 'even worse than just bad' therefore 'terribly good' is plainly nonsense.

However, at least one dictionary has defined 'terribly' as merely meaning "very" which is quite simply also nonsense.

 

[SUNRAY]

Flame, inflame, flammable, inflammable?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Flame, inflame, flammable, inflammable?

A good example.

People didn't know 'in' was part of the word; not a prefix meaning opposite, it had to be changed.

 

[JohnW2]

As for doctors using "the correct term", i.e. using Latin or Greek derived names, I think that is somewhat different than just using a wrong English word.

I think that's probably an artificial distinction, given that a high proportion of words in 'ordinary English' derive, directly or indirectly, from Latin or Greek.

One of the issues is that a lot of the 'correct medical terminology' does not have any equivalent 'single word' in 'everyday English'. Hence, with reference to the examples I mentioned, in everyday language one would have o use much longer phrases, such as "loss of the sense of smell", "disturbance of the sense of taste" and "elevated body temperature". The medical terminology is hence more compact and (for those who understand it) more convenient/efficient.

However, returning to your point, even "taste" and "temperature" derive ultimately from Latin (the origin of "smell" seems rather uncertain) - so, again, I don't think one can really use derivation to distinguished between 'technical' and 'everyday' English words.

The modern use of the word "mysoginy" to mean anything against women, when not actually hating them, is surely just as wrong.

A common problem these days. "Homophobia" is not generally used to mean 'fear of homosexuals'. "Paedophilia" is not used to mean just "love of children" (something which many women, and a good few men, are guilty of!) etc. etc.

I must admit I do not know the origin of the word "lamp". Did it just refer to the flame? Oil lamp, gas lamp?

It's not really the derivation it matters but, rather what was the original 'correct' meaning (in terms of 'definition' and usage) of the English word.

"Lamp" apparently derives from the Greek for "to shine", via Latin and Old French - so that derivation could be said to apply to anything which produces light. However, if you were to look at a dictionary from, say, 200 years ago, I presume you would find that the 'correct meaning' will have been defined in relation to oil lamps - so subsequent extension of that (on the basis of its derivation) to include other light sources was 'incorrect, born out of ignorance' in terms of the 'correct' use of the English word at the time the new meaning 'evolved'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

"Lamp" apparently derives from the Greek for "to shine", via Latin and Old French - so that derivation could be said to apply to anything which produces light. However, if you were to look at a dictionary from, say, 200 years ago, I presume you would find that the 'correct meaning' will have been defined in relation to oil lamps - so subsequent extension of that (on the basis of its derivation) to include other light sources was 'incorrect, born out of ignorance' in terms of the 'correct' use of the English word at the time the new meaning 'evolved'.

I think that is unfair, and similar to Winston's use of 'transformer' to only mean what was available at the time and not to later items with the same function.

If lamp means 'that which shines' then surely its use for the 'bulb' is correct and not the whole assembly.

 

[JohnW2]

Another pet hate - there are so many - is "terribly good". I presume someone thought this the opposite of "terribly bad", which means 'even worse than just bad' therefore 'terribly good' is plainly nonsense.

Same here, but it has again become widespread ... not just with "terribly" but also "awfully", "horribly", "wonderfully", "amazingly", "extraordinarily" or even "particularly" etc. etc.

It seems that, over the decades/centuries, people have felt the need for a range of semi-superlative 'qualifiers', but it's not even clear what 'order'; they are meant to come in! For example, would you care to try to put 'in order' (of 'goodness', 'badness'; or pain severity):

"terribly good" (or terribly bad", or "terribly painful")
"awfully good" (or awfully bad", or "awfully painful")
"horribly good" (or horribly bad", or "horribly painful")
"amazingly good" (or amazingly bad", or "amazingly painful")
"extraordinarily good" (or extraordinarily bad", or "extraordinarily painful")
"particularly good" (or particularly bad", or "particularly painful")
"wonderfully good"

??

Kind Regards, John