Re: Proper term usage
Common useage is not necessarily correct useage, and this is particularly true of technical terms.
Duke
Common useage is not necessarily correct useage, and this is particularly true of technical terms.
Duke
-
-
As to the origin of "dashboards" (per word-detective.com), they "were actually around for quite a while before automobiles and odometers. The term first appeared around 1846 and referred to a leather apron or wooden board mounted at the front (and sometimes along the sides) of a horse-drawn carriage, designed to prevent mud or water being splashed into the interior of the vehicle by the horses' hooves. "Dash" in this sense reflects the basic meaning of the verb "to dash," namely "to throw sharply against something; to break upon," as well as the derivative meaning of (as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it) "to bespatter or splash (a thing) with anything (e.g., water or mud)." This what-a-mess meaning of "dash" dates back to around 1530, and the hyphenated term "dash-board" first showed up around 1846. The word "dash" itself is probably of Scandinavian origin."
I agreed until they went on about the meaning of "dash" in this sense. They over-thought it. Horses don't kick up mud and stones while walking. I'd say a fast trot or gallop would be required - hence a "dash" (as in dashing through the snow...). - Just my humble opinion.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Are 53-62 Corvettes Solid Axle Corvettes, or Straight Axle Corvettes?Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
I believe "articulation challenged" is the policitally correct term.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Duke, you put up a good fight, and it is good to know that you stand for something. But in the long run, you can't stand against all of them. Our language is constantly changing and usually not for the better.
Part of it is the very engineering world you are protecting, and much of it is the marketing side of that engineering world. IBM created lots of words, many which are mutilations of the language. One I particularly disliked was "customization", not so much because of the word, but the use in that it was always in a phrase such as "a customization of this system" rather than the shorter and clearer "a customized system". I fought the use and changed the phrase each time I had the opportunity. The killer was one step further - customizationalized, as in "this system has been customizationalized for your situation."
I stood my ground and in one isolated corner of a throw-away section of IBM, I changed them. But I had to pick my fight. I couldn't change all of them. But I could change that one. I managed to win by making it one of those IBM jokes that they were embarrassed by, being the early days of bulletin boards.
I also won because it was not widespread. It was in one company only. It was in one division only. I believe it may have been in one location only. And it became an embarrassing issue.
But with a large portion of the engineering world now speaking English as a second (or third or fourth or ?) language and not as their native language, the usage gets more messed up.
But Zee Oh Six is all over the car world now. There is no getting the genie back in the bottle, so let this one go. Yes, you are technically correct. But Chevrolet owns the trademark http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...ate=davq93.2.1 and if they say "Zee Oh Six", then it is Zee Oh Six.
You can continue the fight that it is Z 0 6 and not z o 6, because there are a lot of people who think that second character is a letter and not a number. But the rest, use your energy elsewhere. Life is too short.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
I believe that miscalling a zero as "oh" is a particular American abberation. I'm not against adapatation of the language (as opposed to the French), and being as how English has no "language police" it is allowed to evolve with The Oxford Dictionary et al. reporting on common utilization.
However, one has to draw the line somewhere, and sometimes a referee is necessary. In the case of ohs and zeros, they are clearly completely different symbols and calling a zero "oh" is not only confusing, but could be dangerous when dealing with digital data.
What amazes me is that when I try to explain this to most people they seem utterly frustrated and unwilling to believe that their utilization is just plain wrong and as indefensible as trying to convince me that black is white or an apple is an orange.
DukeComment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Of course, this is probably all heighten by your experience with the Motor Vehicle Registration.
This is something I have always thought that we are lucky it isn't more screwed up than it is. The typical Corvette VIN has the "S" in the middle and it is frequently mistaken for a "5". (Just survey the eBay VINs.) Of course, the VIN plate in the windshield pillar doesn't help, the angel of the glass and the characters having a bit strange font, no doubt to make duplicating them harder, but it also makes reading them harder unless you know what they are supposed to be.
On applications that I had to handwrite the VIN, I have often circled the S and made a note that this is the letter "S", not a number 5.
Many of the other vehicles use "C" and "G" and are hard to distinquish on a VIN plate.
Then we add the government worker, who not only doesn't know what it should be, but doesn't really care.
That is why I try to fill paperwork out before so that I can make a copy. This way when they mess it up, I can show it was THEIR fault and I'm not paying for a corrected title or registration.
Been there too many times.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
You are probably going to use a thirty-aught six to convince these guys.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage *NM*
Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Loren, anything but "C-1!"
The thing that cracks me up about the Z06 discussion is that I'm usually the one arguing Duke's side... I just happened to be trying to explain why people say some of the things they say, not defending them.
Also, I'm a guilty Boston boy... "pahk the cah" ya know. However, thats accent, not really pronunciation.
How about:
-"VIN NUMBER"- If VIN stands for Vehicle Identification Number, that's like saying "Vehicle Identification Number number."
-How many people do you see type 63' instead of the correct '63 ??
-Let's not forget the favorite "frame-off."Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Do the 58-62s have a "grab bar", or a "sissy bar"?Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
On here, you have to forgive a lot of errors. Fingers type one thing while the mind thinks another, and reading any here will have goofs in spelling, grammar, and punctuation that don't really count, especially with no spell checker on this list.
Haven't there been a few 1693 Corvettes and such? A few days ago we had a "lenght" instead of length. I had the "helicoptor on night" instead of "helicopter one night".Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
I completely agree that there are plenty of typo's (I certainly contribute to those) but when people type 63' multiple times in their post, it's not a typo, it's a case of not knowing how to use an apostrophe. Common mistake.
It is tough for some people with no spellcheck; the spelling here is pretty awful sometimes. Just a reality of the message board culture.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Speaking of the correct use of apostrophes, an all too common mistake is the use of 's to indicate plural (more than one), eg. "There were three Corvette's in the class". The apostrophe indcates the possessive, as in "John's Corvette" not the plural. I see this mistake in ads, in newspapers, on signs and in correspondence all the time. Just my two cent's worth.Comment
-
Re: Proper term usage
Don, you are so right. What blows me away on this misuse is the fact that EVERY time people put apostrophes incorrectly in a plural (Corvette's) they ALWAYS have other plurals (cars, wheels) in the same post WITHOUT an apostrophe!!! Akkk! Is there any thought process at all?
Don't even get me started on "it's."Comment
Comment