Private Message replies to threads.

[JohnW2]

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.

IF the 'correct' meaning (i.e. 'dictionary definition') of the word "lamp" 200 years ago referred only to the 'function' (i.e. 'something which produced light', or somesuch) then I would agree with you.

However, I strongly suspect that the definition 200 years ago would have specifically related to oil lamps, rather than just to the 'function'. If that were the case, then to use the word to refer to any other source of light would have been 'incorrect' use of the word at the time - an 'evolution' which I personally would find totally reasonable/acceptable, but which you would presumably oppose?

Similarly, IF, 70 years ago, a "transformer" had been defined as a "voltage converting device" (rather than with reference to a wirewound component that worked by induction), then it would have been appropriate to continue using that word for SMPSUs etc. - but, of course, that wasn't the case

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

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.

A transformer changes voltage without changing frequency. There are no later items with that function.

 

[JohnW2]

A transformer changes voltage without changing frequency. There are no later items with that function.

As you are aware, this is one of the (probably few) situations in which I agree with the bottom line of your view.

However, to be a bit pedantic, the definition you give above would exclude a 1:1 'isolating' transformer, which I imagine would not be your intention.

 

[winston1]

However, to be a bit pedantic, the definition you give above would exclude a 1:1 'isolating' transformer, which I imagine would not be your intention.

I did think about that but decided not to complicate the issue. It was the “without changing frequency” I was emphasising.

 

[JohnW2]

I did think about that but decided not to complicate the issue. It was the “without changing frequency” I was emphasising.

Yes, I realise that, which is partially why I admitted that my comment was a bit pedantic. However, although the IEC definition, and that in a few 'general' dictionaries mention the lack of frequency change, most dictionary definitions do not - but, to this day, most of the dictionaries do talk about wirewound coils and induction. Mind you, returning to your original comment, namely ...

A transformer changes voltage without changing frequency. There are no later items with that function.

... although it may be true that "no later items" actually exist that would satisfy that definition, one certainly could be made and, if it were, it would satisfy both your and the IEC definitions of a "transformer", even though it would not be "a transformer" in your or my mind.

Indeed, a simple resistive 'potential divider' would satisfy your (or the IEC) definition, but would in no way be "a transformer" (at least, not in your or my view). Reliance on satisfaction of your definition therefore does not ensure that something truly is a transformer!

 

[EFLImpudence]

A transformer changes voltage without changing frequency. There are no later items with that function.

It is also a toy which changes shape so where does that leave us?

Perhaps you should not just use the abbreviation and instead use the full name when the type you have in mind would be more apparent.

 

[JohnW2]

... Perhaps you should not just use the abbreviation and instead use the full name when the type you have in mind would be more apparent.

If I understand you correctly, a potential problem with that is that I suspect that the 'full name' would eventually come to be re-abbreviated.

I imagine that when they first appeared, people probably talked about 'electric torches' or 'battery torches', to distinguish them from what had previously been usually understood to be a 'torch'. However, those 'previous items' presumably then fairly quickly became 'almost unknown', so people were able to change to calling the new-fangled things just "torches", with little scope for confusion/ambiguity.

In the case of transformers, the 'previous item' will presumably never become 'almost unknown' (after all, every SMPSU contains at least one), so the scope for confusion/ambiguity will persist, even after people have tired of using the 'full name' ('electronic transformer', or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenOak]

given that a high proportion of words in 'ordinary English' derive, directly or indirectly, from Latin or Greek.

And at times both - which irritates some 'purists'. An example being 'television', Greek tele meaning far or distant and Latin visio meaning sight. Other words beginning 'tele' have similar far or distant derivation, e.g. telescope, telephone.

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

I know that appeal to authority is a week argument, but you won't get a lexicographer to agree with that. The field is descriptive, recording what happens, rather than prescriptive, saying what should happen.

I don't know how it works in other languages but in English prescriptivism is rather pointless. I read Language Log, which is hosted in the US and most of the main authors are American (albeit with worldwide interest). One of their pet dislikes is a common US book known as Strunk & White, which purports to be an (American) English writing style guide.

When S&W has come up, the LL author has normally found examples in S&W of it breaking its own rules, often in the actual sentence describing the rule. Trying to rephrase the rule-breaking examples to follow the rules results in much worse English, that does not flow as well and is harder to understand.

One other example. I know someone who was involved in project with a US firm. In a small (telephone) pre-meeting the Americans raised a new topic and the meeting chairman (who was British) said, "OK, we'll table that" and the Americans got very upset.

What neither party knew was that "to table something" not only means different things in British English (BrE) and American English (AmE), it has opposite meanings. In BrE it means to put it on the (main) table for discussion but in AmE it means to put it on a side table and not to think about it. So which is the 'right' meaning?

 

[JohnW2]

And at times both - which irritates some 'purists'. An example being 'television', Greek tele meaning far or distant and Latin visio meaning sight. Other words beginning 'tele' have similar far or distant derivation, e.g. telescope, telephone.

True. Perhaps it was felt that the two 'purer' (same-language root) alternatives of "teleopsis" [Greek] and "proculvision" [Latin] (or words close to those) were not as 'attractive' More likely, I suppose, is that it was felt that "tele..." and "...vision" were both already well-established, such that it was appropriate to stick with them!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Well a good start would be professionals on here using the correct terms.

Are you going to do the same?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If I understand you correctly, a potential problem with that is that I suspect that the 'full name' would eventually come to be re-abbreviated.

Yes, but we are talking about Winston and his sole meaning of an ordinary English word to mean a specific piece of electrical equipment.

Did Edison patent "The Bulb"?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I know that appeal to authority is a week argument, but you won't get a lexicographer to agree with that. The field is descriptive, recording what happens, rather than prescriptive, saying what should happen.

I appreciate that, but there are limits.

One example I use is if someone says "Parliamentary Consistency".
Would that ever be right no matter how many people copy it?

Then, of course, there is the classic "would of", "should of" etc.

 

[JohnW2]

One example I use is if someone says "Parliamentary Consistency". Would that ever be right no matter how many people copy it?

Is that not usually just a typing or spelling mistake, or a case of someone 'mis-hearing' something they have only heard spoken, and not seen written?

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but there have certainly been a few occasions when I have been writing a word in a certain way for very many years before I came to realise that I had always been writing it incorrectly!

Then, of course, there is the classic "would of", "should of" etc.

Yes, that is 'sloppy' - presumably an attempt to write (phonetically) what people think is being said when others say (also 'sloppily', at least in the eyes of my late English teacher!) "would've" and "should've"?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but we are talking about Winston and his sole meaning of an ordinary English word to mean a specific piece of electrical equipment.

As you know, although I recognise that the situation cannot be changed, this is one rare examople of a situation in which I actually agree with him (at least, about how things would/should be in an ideal world).

As I recently wrote, the main problem is that the component which used to be uniquely/unambiguously identified /described by the word in question remains at least as ubiquitous as the (different) items which are now identified/described by the same word - opening up the possibility of all sorts of confusion.

Just as one would probably get funny looks if one asked for "a replacement lamp to put in one's lamp", so probably would a repairer of SMPSUs if he asked for a "replacement transformer to put in his transformer"!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but there have certainly been a few occasions when I have been writing a word in a certain way for very many years before I came to realise that I had always been writing it incorrectly!

I'd been spelling it 'your' all my life until I submitted a story to an editor and he changed it to 'you're'

Cerstificate and intertrupt spoken so I assume written too?