|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1 |
Can anyone tell me if "relevancy" is an acceptable alternative to "relevance"? I've seen it "relevancy" in official legal publications but it just strikes me as wrong and awkward...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 19
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 19 |
I actually had a little debate about this in law school. "Relevancy," in Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition --old!), is the term under which concepts of evidentiary relevance are discussed. My layman's dictionary, some sort of Webster's, lists "relevancy" and cross-references to "relevance."
In the legal profession, at least, it may be a question of personal preference. My personal preference is to speak like the rest of the public does and use "relevance."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Its the same with competence and competency
Competency, as I understand it, is a legal term meaning capacity to testify in a court of law; eligibility to be sworn, a witness would be legally competent) but it can also mean the same as competence (capable, able; sufficient income to live on).
Recently (in the UK and perhaps elsewhere) it has used in the sense of "the job requires certain competencies". It always irritates me as it seems a rather clumsy word when the term "level or levels of competence" works perfectly well.
That's my gripe of the week over with!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Jo--
>That's my gripe of the week over with!<
Have you a new one each week, then?? What a good idea!
Perhaps we should ask Anu to make this a nu (could NOT
resist! sorry, Anu!) category for the bulletin board?
Better allow a lot of space!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Dear Jo
As one with some contact with the Human Resources team in my firm, I believe the word 'competency', whilst perhaps ill-derived, now has a technical meaning that cannot be directly equated with level of competence. As used now, it refers to a basic skill level that is necessary in a particular field or area (verbal ability, commercial ability etc) for a person to be able to perform the job competently.
For instance, our ideal Branch Managers 'competency' profile might set minimum levels of competence within the verbal, numerical, leadership, initiative, selling, procedural and one or two other competencies that would be different from the levels required of, say, a Sales Manager. Put all the competencies together and you get a 'Job Profile Analysis'.
I know, I know - we all deplore the spread of jargon, but sometimes it starts with a relatively reasonable at defining the technical terms of a specialist field. Unfortunately, it then proliferates into a virus of the language... you know the result.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Shanks
Thank you for your much better definition. I'm involved in training and spent hours setting the wretched things for NVQs (non-vocational qualifications in England&Wales). I think it was chosen, over say "level of competence" because the key idea in NVQs is that there are no levels (say A+, B-) if you are looking at say, the task of typing a letter to an acceptable level, you either are competent or you are not, like an on-off switch not a scale.
As they say in Human Resources Mangement - I hear what you say .... but .... the word still sounds clumsy, especially, as you say, technical terms tend to filter into everyday language.
I think I'll utter one of Jackie's favourite words (was it demisemihemiquaver) to myself whenever I hear it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>was it demisemihemiquaver it's hemidemisemiquaver - a 1/64 note in music - there's no way to remember this, it's just the way it evolved from quaver to semiquaver to... http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Jo
I hope it was a deliberate (bitter? twisted?) joke on your part to describe NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) as non-vocational qualifications.
In any case I need to thank you for your earlier post, because it allowed me the opportunity to become a newbie. I have been translated to a higher realm. Some day I may even aspire to becoming a member. Huzzah!
cheer
the sunshine warrior
ps. I hope to start another thread, in Miscellanea, regarding a question of accents. Probably most appropriate for those who watch the BBC!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
> I hope it was a deliberate (bitter? twisted?) joke on your part to describe NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) as non-vocational qualifications
You are correct - a Freudian slip, I believe it’s called. I really don't have a problem with NVQ's as a concept - just the four-hour meetings I had to go to, arguing about minutiae, rather like this newsgroup but much, much more dull!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Sunshine warrior--
"translated" to a higher realm! How appropriate! Cheer!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,892
Members9,197
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
446
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
