Vernacular versus Learned Terminology

ericgibbs · Mar 21, 2012

hi guys,
Created a new Thread for these 'Ohms Law' posts,,, hope you don't start arguing about the Title I have chosen. Eric

vernacular
[ver-nak-yuh-ler, vuh-nak-] Origin
ver·nac·u·lar
[ver-nak-yuh-ler, vuh-nak-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
(of language) native or indigenous ( opposed to literary or learned).
2.
expressed or written in the native language of a place, as literary works: a vernacular poem.
3.
using such a language: a vernacular speaker.
4.
of or pertaining to such a language.
5.
using plain, everyday, ordinary language.
EXPAND
noun
9.
the native speech or language of a place.
10.
the language or vocabulary peculiar to a class or profession.
11.
a vernacular word or expression.
12.
the plain variety of language in everyday use by ordinary people.
13.
the common name of an animal or plant as distinguished from its Latin scientific name.

MrAl · Mar 21, 2012

Hey nice Eric. This way we can still gripe about language and not ruin the other thread

TheRiver:
Yes i see your point, and i dont think it's totally bad to call it a sketch, but notice what it took to describe what you were saying there about what it can be...if it was called 'program' in the first place it would not take anything. But yeah, there is some method to it and they probably wanted to be a little bit distinguished from the many controller types out there already. The Arduino boards are kind of interesting too.

DerStrom8 · Mar 21, 2012

MrAl said:
TheRiver:
Yes i see your point, and i dont think it's totally bad to call it a sketch, but notice what it took to describe what you were saying there about what it can be...if it was called 'program' in the first place it would not take anything. But yeah, there is some method to it and they probably wanted to be a little bit distinguished from the many controller types out there already. The Arduino boards are kind of interesting too.

Well said. I agree with that

By the way, out of curiosity, do you dislike German?

MrAl · Mar 21, 2012

DerStrom8 said:
Well said. I agree with that

By the way, out of curiosity, do you dislike German?

No, why do you ask, because i translated your screen name? Just something to do i guess
Besides I have German ancestry also.

DerStrom8 · Mar 21, 2012

MrAl said:
No, why do you ask, because i translated your screen name? Just something to do i guess
Besides I have German ancestry also.

Aah, gotcha

I guess I should mention that it can be translated a few different ways, all of which have personal meaning to me. It can also be translated as TheCurrent, as well as TheRiver. That translation has more of an electronics meaning, but TheRiver has more personal meaning.

atferrari · Mar 22, 2012

What about these, then?

There are "cogs" and "shields" as well.

As a non-native they do not make sense to me when used in programming, Propeller and .....?.

Does anyone remember when the MPLAB IDE used "node", in versions 5.xx or maybe 6.xx? The originator was surely fired (or promoted!!) but the term was definitely dropped after few years.

After all, you all know that a frequency counter counts no frequency at all... just pulses or periods.

MrAl · Mar 22, 2012

Hi,

OH yes i've read about 'shields' which was kinda strange because at first i had no idea what they were talking about. That one is really not a good idea. Havent run into 'cogs' yet, and i dont want to

Nodes? What did they call a node in MPLab?

I always took Frequency Counter to mean a device that measures frequency by counting. It can be said to count the frequency of the pulses but maybe tabulate would be better.

atferrari · Mar 22, 2012

Nodes were...

"Nodes" = files. No more nor less.

Useless practices changing names for the sake of change.

BTW, why do they "synchronize" files? Myself, I just copy or update them.

Ratchit · Mar 22, 2012

DerStrom8,

So do you expect the human race to create a new word for every single little idea, rather than assign existing words to it?

Nope, never said that. But NASA replaced a very descriptive phrase with a misleading one.

That is not your call. You have to remember that the OP created this thread with a specific topic in mind, and we're just adding on things that have nothing to do with what he actually asked. We are guests on this thread. Let's try not to be rude to our host.

If the question from the OP has already been answered to everyone's ability, what's the harm?

Heh, I think "space walks" are a bit more descriptive than that

A misleading description.

I'm sure they still call it that, but call them "space walks" for the heck of it. Admit it--"space walking" sounds more fun than doing "extra-vehicular activity"

I haven't heard them use EVA for many years now. NASA is not a fun producing organization.

I never said anything about magnetic boots. They still get their traction from the shuttle's surface. The grab holds, tethers, and straps keep them from floating off into space, but they still use the ship for traction.

Mountain climbers use the mountain for traction also, but they don't call it "mountain walking", do they?

Eric,

Some of the posts in this thread are duplicated.

Ratch

ericgibbs · Mar 22, 2012

hi Ratch.

If the question from the OP has already been answered to everyone's ability, what's the harm?

As you can see a new Thread is running to cover this 'topic' , so feel free to express your point of view.

Eric

DerStrom8 · Mar 22, 2012

Ratchit said:
Nope, never said that. But NASA replaced a very descriptive phrase with a misleading one.

Even if it is slightly misleading, it does no harm. People generally know what "space walks" look like, from videos, etc. As long as they know what you're talking about, what's the problem?

If the question from the OP has already been answered to everyone's ability, what's the harm?

As Eric has pointed out, we're on a different thread now, made specifically for this discussion. Feel free to continue
However, if this was still the OP's thread, it would be rude to start a completely unrelated discussion on it. You'd be taking something of his and making it your own, which is not much different than stealing.

A misleading description.

Perhaps, but again, there is no harm in it.

I haven't heard them use EVA for many years now. NASA is not a fun producing organization.

Do you work at NASA? Unless you do, you have no way of knowing how they talk there. I'm sure they talk about EVA in lectures, simulations, etc. Even though NASA is not a fun-producing organization, it is made up of people, whose human nature is to try to have fun. They try to make things sound as good as possible.

Mountain climbers use the mountain for traction also, but they don't call it "mountain walking", do they?

AGAIN??? How many times do I have to say this?? You can call it what you want--"mountain walking" would describe it just fine. However, they call it "mountain climbing" because it is more vertical than horizontal. In space, there is no real "vertical" or "horizontal", so I'm sure to the astronauts, it feels more like walking than climbing. Think about it. You can call it whatever you want--the title is not important.

Roff · Mar 22, 2012

Derstrom8, I wanted to send you a PM, but your box is full.

Ratchit · Mar 22, 2012

DerStrom8,

Even if it is slightly misleading, it does no harm. People generally know what "space walks" look like, from videos, etc. As long as they know what you're talking about, what's the problem?

As MrAl point out in post #18, and I described in in post #16, the harm is confusion for those not "in the know".

However, if this was still the OP's thread, it would be rude to start a completely unrelated discussion on it. You'd be taking something of his and making it your own, which is not much different than stealing.

That point was already made and answered. As long as the question was completely explained, a diversion does no harm.

Do you work at NASA? Unless you do, you have no way of knowing how they talk there. I'm sure they talk about EVA in lectures, simulations, etc. Even though NASA is not a fun-producing organization, it is made up of people, whose human nature is to try to have fun. They try to make things sound as good as possible.

No, I don't. How are you sure they use EVA? They sure don't do so in public. But they certainly use specialized jargon in public when they launch their vehicles. Everything but EVA, that is. Do really think that NASA used "space walk" to have fun or sound good?

AGAIN??? How many times do I have to say this?? You can call it what you want--"mountain walking" would describe it just fine. However, they call it "mountain climbing" because it is more vertical than horizontal. In space, there is no real "vertical" or "horizontal", so I'm sure to the astronauts, it feels more like walking than climbing. Think about it. You can call it whatever you want--the title is not important.

Again is right. How many times do MrAl and I have to say that a descriptive definition is best for all concerned. For that reason, we believe that calling something what it really is is better than an obtuse name that only those in the know are cognizant about.

Ratch

DerStrom8 · Mar 22, 2012

Roff said:
Derstrom8, I wanted to send you a PM, but your box is full.

Ok, sorry about that. I'll have to clean it out. Give me about ten minutes

Ratchit said:
As MrAl point out in post #18, and I described in in post #16, the harm is confusion for those not "in the know".

Sure, but most people aren't completely stupid. I challenge you to find one person (who's heard "space walk" used on context) who doesn't know what it is. Go ahead! Try it!

No, I don't. How are you sure they use EVA? They sure don't do so in public. But they certainly use specialized jargon in public when they launch their vehicles. Everything but EVA, that is. Do really think that NASA used "space walk" to have fun or sound good?

Think about it. There are some situations where the technical terms MUST be used, and situations where it's fine to use idioms. Also, of course you don't hear them talk about EVAs when they're launching their vehicles. You expect someone to be on the outside of the rocket as it's taking off?

Again is right. How many times do MrAl and I have to say that a descriptive definition is best for all concerned. For that reason, we believe that calling something what it really is is better than an obtuse name that only those in the know are cognizant about.

So you mean to tell me you've never used an idiom, and you think that they should never be used in regular speech? Sometimes idioms just make it easier for things to be explained, and in some cases, to be understood. I have never known anyone who thinks that the term "space walk" is confusing. Everyone who has heard the term in context knows what it means, regardless of the name. When you're climbing a mountain, you are walking. You can call it "mountain walking" if you like--it is not even the slightest bit confusing, if you know what walking is and what mountains are. Put yourself in the situation of people who would hear terms like "mountain walking". Do you really think they're so stupid that they wouldn't be able to figure out what is meant by the phrase?

Ratchit · Mar 22, 2012

DerStrom8,

Sure, but most people aren't completely stupid. I challenge you to find one person (who's heard "space walk" used on context) who doesn't know what it is. Go ahead! Try it!

Stupidity in not in question. Having knowledge and being in the know is. After many years, folks are aware of what NASA means. But NASA as an institution should not be generating idioms. They should be generated by ordinary folks who use the language.

Think about it. There are some situations where the technical terms MUST be used, and situations where it's fine to use idioms. Also, of course you don't hear them talk about EVAs when they're launching their vehicles. You expect someone to be on the outside of the rocket as it's taking off

You are assuming they only talk about an EVA when they are ready to egress. They could be talking about the pending EVA before or even during a launch. But they don't use that term even when they are in orbit doing an EVA, either. I don't have any probs using technical terms if they are descriptive, but why dumb them down when a perfectly good description already exists?

So you mean to tell me you've never used an idiom, and you think that they should never be used in regular speech? Sometimes idioms just make it easier for things to be explained, and in some cases, to be understood. I have never known anyone who thinks that the term "space walk" is confusing. Everyone who has heard the term in context knows what it means, regardless of the name. When you're climbing a mountain, you are walking. You can call it "mountain walking" if you like--it is not even the slightest bit confusing, if you know what walking is and what mountains are. Put yourself in the situation of people who would hear terms like "mountain walking". Do you really think they're so stupid that they wouldn't be able to figure out what is meant by the phrase? .

I never said that I don't use idioms or that they should not be used in colloquial speech. You made a false inference. I don't think that an institution should go out of it's way to mint a idiom just for the hell of it like NASA did. If I said I was mountain walking, you would assume I was walking along a mountain trail. If I said I was mountain climbing, you would assume I was using ropes, pitons, and other paraphernalia to reach places where I could not walk.

Ratch

DerStrom8 · Mar 22, 2012

Ratchit said:
Stupidity in not in question. Having knowledge and being in the know is. After many years, folks are aware of what NASA means. But NASA as an institution should not be generating idioms. They should be generated by ordinary folks who use the language.

Who cares if NASA is generating idioms? If everybody knows what it means, then there is absolutely no problem with it. Besides, EVA could stand for all sorts of things. "Space walks" are pretty self-explanatory--you're moving around in space. What's wrong with that?

You are assuming they only talk about an EVA when they are ready to egress. They could be talking about the pending EVA before or even during a launch. But they don't use that term even when they are in orbit doing an EVA, either. I don't have any probs using technical terms if they are descriptive, but why dumb them down when a perfectly good description already exists?

No, you were assuming that. You said, and I quote:

How are you sure they use EVA? They sure don't do so in public. But they certainly use specialized jargon in public when they launch their vehicles. Everything but EVA, that is.

And they are not "dumbing it down". They're merely simplifying it. Again, who cares what it's called? As long as people who need to know what it is understand, it does not matter.

I never said that I don't use idioms or that they should not be used in colloquial speech. You made a false inference. I don't think that an institution should go out of it's way to mint a idiom just for the hell of it like NASA did. If I said I was mountain walking, you would assume I was walking along a mountain trail. If I said I was mountain climbing, you would assume I was using ropes, pitons, and other paraphernalia to reach places where I could not walk.

They do not "go out of their way to make idioms for the heck of it". It's just a simple, quick term that describes basically what is happening. As for the mountain climbing, you could call some hiking "mountain climbing". The definition is not bound to specific ideas. There is not a word for every single idea--there are overlaps in meaning, simplifications, generalizations, etc.

Ratchit · Mar 22, 2012

DerStrom8,

Who cares if NASA is generating idioms? If everybody knows what it means, then there is absolutely no problem with it. Besides, EVA could stand for all sorts of things. "Space walks" are pretty self-explanatory--you're moving around in space. What's wrong with that?

NASA contributes to language pollution. Knowing what it means is still language pollution. Space walks are pretty deceptive, when you don't walk in space. EVA was defined at one time in the proper context, so there should not be any confusion about what it means.

And they are not "dumbing it down". They're merely simplifying it. Again, who cares what it's called? As long as people who need to know what it is understand, it does not matter.

The description is deceptive. Why should anyone have to do a double think when they hear that?

They do not "go out of their way to make idioms for the heck of it". It's just a simple, quick term that describes basically what is happening. As for the mountain climbing, you could call some hiking "mountain climbing". The definition is not bound to specific ideas. There is not a word for every single idea--there are overlaps in meaning, simplifications, generalizations, etc. .

They did go out of their way on this one. They disregarded a perfectly good description for something that does not really define what they do. I could call hiking "mountain climbing", but that would not be correct, would it? That activity is descriptive of an action. In the case of EVA, it was unnecessary to simplify, generalize, or overlap it.

Ratch

DerStrom8 · Mar 22, 2012

Ratchit said:
DerStrom8,
NASA contributes to language pollution. Knowing what it means is still language pollution. Space walks are pretty deceptive, when you don't walk in space. EVA was defined at one time in the proper context, so there should not be any confusion about what it means.

If "space walks" is kept in just that context, it is not polluting language. It's simply another harmless idiom, whose meaning everyone already knows. There is no confusion.

The description is deceptive. Why should anyone have to do a double think when they hear that?

If someone hears "space walks", do you really think they'll double-think what it means? It's a common idiom that (in fact) isn't even that far from describing what's actually done.

They did go out of their way on this one. They disregarded a perfectly good description for something that does not really define what they do. I could call hiking "mountain climbing", but that would not be correct, would it? That activity is descriptive of an action. In the case of EVA, it was unnecessary to simplify, generalize, or overlap it.

Again, I doubt they have disregarded "EVA". I have no doubt they still use it when the proper term is necessary. However, even though it was not absolutely necessary to simplify/generalize/overlap the meaning, the fact that they did doesn't hurt anything. Why complain about something that's not a problem?

Ratchit · Mar 22, 2012

DerStom8,

If "space walks" is kept in just that context, it is not polluting language. It's simply another harmless idiom, whose meaning everyone already knows. There is no confusion.

It is an unneeded phrase that does not do the job as well as EVA did. Besides being falsely descriptive. That means pollution to me.

If someone hears "space walks", do you really think they'll double-think what it means? It's a common idiom that (in fact) isn't even that far from describing what's actually done.

When I first heard it, I did. I could not believe an outfit like NASA would countenance such a phrase. Of course I got used to what they meant after a while.

Again, I doubt they have disregarded "EVA". I have no doubt they still use it when the proper term is necessary. However, even though it was not absolutely necessary to simplify/generalize/overlap the meaning, the fact that they did doesn't hurt anything. Why complain about something that's not a problem? .

As I said before. It displaced a better description with a description that was deceptive.

Ratch

tcmtech · Mar 23, 2012

Since we are on the subject of misused words.......... Calling vehicles by their more correct names. You know calling a pickup a pickup and not a car.

That drives me nuts when people say we can take my car to get there and then we go out and get into their van, pickup, SUV, or any form of vehicle other than a car.

As far as Extra Vehicular Activities go I prefer to think of that as what I did a lot of in high school with my girlfriend.

Vernacular versus Learned Terminology

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Banned

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency