#62915
03/29/2002 5:45 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 6 |
So far as the amalgamation of words into english is concerned, I have always wondered whether words which are used only among a particular group of professionals are actually part of the english language ??
To make the question more clear, "Phospholes" are a class of Phosphorus containing compounds. A related set of Arsenic containing compounds is sometimes jocularly referred to as "Ars(e)holes" by chemists. Does that mean that OED or Websters should include such words which are used by English speaking chemists ??? For that matter, words from any profession ??
|
|
|
#62916
03/29/2002 6:15 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear indianaugust:Many of the sciences: medicine, biology, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy - each have a vocabulary so extensive each could usefully have its own dictionary. If they were put into the OED it would become uselessly over-crowded.
Only a relatively small number become sufficiently widely used to justify inclusion in OED.
|
|
|
#62917
03/29/2002 6:15 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
This is a real, on-going problem for latterday lexicographers -- it is estimated now that around 40% of W3 and college dictionaries is scientific or technical. The growth of our language has been disproportionately in these areas of vocabulary and, perhaps more profoundly, the greater space provided technical terms in our dictionaries mirrors the cultural view that science and technology are of paramount importance. http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
#62918
03/29/2002 7:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428 |
To make the question more clear, "Phospholes" are a class of Phosphorus containing compounds. A related set of Arsenic containing compounds is sometimes jocularly referred to as "Ars(e)holes" by chemists.Great post, and a good question. This really comes down to a conversation the Board has had several times, in differenct ways -- the joys/evils of jargon. To many people, specialized, arcane language seems elitist and closes off discussions to non-initiates, but others realize that there are a great deal of benefits to be gained by developing a sort of linguistic shorthand -- much easier to say "phospholes" than "a class of blah blah blah" every time you want to talk about them. I expect we will never all agree on whether jargons are good or bad, but it seems to me they are very necessary in certain fields. And regarding your name, I have been to the midwest, and the winds are strong out of the west there, so much so that it feel like the entire state is blowing at you, and I, too, have been known to say, "Indiana, u gust!"  Welcome to the Board, August!
|
|
|
#62919
03/30/2002 5:12 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> much easier to say "phospholes" than "a class of blah blah blah" every time you want to talk about them.
In one sense, I agree. It is of course more succinct to say 'phospholes', 'compactification', 'tcpip', or 'scsi interface' etc, rather than start at Adam and Eve - and that's fine if you have some idea of the knowledge that the person listen to you, or reading your material has. In the end though, how many people, even those working in the respective fields really know what their talking about, exactly. A great field to just jargonize your way through is philosophy. All you have to do is mention nominalism, instrumentalism and a handful of posteriori truths, and sure enough, most people think you have some idea what your talking about. Dropping a few names of some respected, but a tad obscure composers often has a similar effect when chatting to people about music.
Jargon is dangerous in the hands of a good blagger!
|
|
|
#62920
04/01/2002 1:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 866
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 866 |
We were taught the term "foss-holes" on a palaeontology excursion at uni. I don't think it's in wide usage - even among academics, just a Sydney Uni thing.
Foss-holes are the holes one sees when looking at a fossiliferous layer side on - thus indicating where you should split the rock to collect the fossils....
stales
|
|
|
#62921
04/02/2002 3:28 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 477
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 477 |
Hmmm, consuelo hasn't been here, I can see... WELCOME  indianaugust!
We have groups of things at my work which we commonly refer to as arseholes ... didn't realise it was jargon though.
Hev
|
|
|
|
|
