|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
Speaking strictly from my own point of view as a semi-evolved simian, I do think that in the context I saw it used, a non-technical newsletter designed for lay consumption, some consideration ought to have been given to linguistic aesthetics.
Yes, I often get the feeling that when this stuff is re-hashed for the mass media, the reporters spout stuff back form news releases that they don't understand...they can't easily replace words because they're not sure what the heck they mean! That's too bad, because a good science reporter would be able to rephrase things so that everyone could understand. And there are good science reporters out there!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
That's too bad, because a good science reporter would be able to rephrase things so that everyone could understand. And there are good science reporters out there!
Oh, dear Bean, thank you for that last sentence.
Some of us do try very hard to understand and report accurately. Too often competent young reporters get discouraged by being tarred by the "gossip press" brush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,289 |
jargons
It is regrettable, but jargons have been with us since the tower of Babel and will no doubt be like the poor.
I have to say that I can not get greatly exercised over the existence of specialized vocabularies in various disciplines, trades, societies, etc. Those who are involved in a particular field or study, trade, or society, need to be able to communicate in very precise terms with others in the same, and each needs to know exactly what the other is talking about. Definition and mutual understanding of terms is the first step in communication. If a word with a precise technical meaning is not available, then it is necessary to re-tool an existing word, use an existing word with a special meaning, or invent a new word. It may be unfortunate if a specialized vocabulary, not understood by an outsider, develops, but what if it does? It serves its purpose for those who use it and if outsiders want to know what the nuclear physicists, the coopers, or the Freemasons are talking about, let them study that field and learn the mysteries, just as the members had to do. Of course, there is no excuse for deliberate verbal mystification, which used to be practiced in former times to keep out the rabble, or to keep out competition, but I really don't think much of that goes on anymore, except maybe by social workers and others in like fields.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
As a tongue in cheek suggestion, there ought to be a science dictionary, with each word having definitions numbered, so that "compacted" could have a list of numbered definitions, with,say, number 12 having the meaning needed by the superstring people. Then compacted12 would have the meaning currently assigned to "compactified".
Now if I can only get my tongue out of my cheek.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Dear Bob, I was going to say that you made a very good post and that I agreed with it, until I got down to the part about social workers. Was that a dig, my friend?  'S'ok if it is--I'll just have to marshal some arguments... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Bill, Want a crowbar? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
Can I just point out that the entire passage is complete gibberish from beginning to end. It has the journalist's inky thumbprint all over it. No scientist could write that. The word "compactified" is the only clear part of it, because at least that is obviously a technical term that has some definite meaning.
It wouldn't last the first three minutes submitted to a science journal. Science writing is clear, grammatically transparent, and easy to see the structure of: "We analysed the X using Y. We found it had Z with W. Further U revealed V." -- Where perhaps X = "nuclear resonance magnetic spectroscopy", but that's okay, that's some technical term lack of understanding of which doesn't impede understanding of the text as a whole.
Whereas this (with all those explanations in brackets) about the whole shooting match and shebang (with all the hard words taken out and replaced by vague hand-waving so you know exactly what they're talking about), with its piling-up of the belief that here is a premise of some abstract idea of another generalization that some people think (we could put another bracketed clause in here to point out that by this stage you no longer have any idea of who is claiming or believing what), with its multitude of nested (including bracketed) clauses, shows a reckless disregard of every maxim -- every principle that good writers observe (such as not interrupting themselves constantly) -- that there is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
And what is wrong with the word compactified? We have rectified, vilified, intensified. We have intensification and rectification. Compactification seems to me to be the ordinary and natural word for the process of rendering something compact.
There is, I suppose, a word 'compaction', but that has images of large dustcarts eating cardboard boxes: I'd prefer a new coinage, for clarity. Compaction might falsely give images of gravitational compaction, as in a neutron star: in fact it might even already be in use in that context, now that I think of it. Yes, neutron matter is compacted, topological spaces are compactified.*
As for verbs, we have both 'compact' and 'compactify'. Certainly, all other things being equal, it's a tenet of good usage to prefer the shorter word to the longer. But the existence of 'compactification' means that analogy weighs on the side of 'compactify'. And preference for short words is a very bad principle if it's made to outweigh all other considerations.
It's a natural formation, in accordance with English usage, whose structure is transparent, whose meaning is clear, which violates no logic, and presents no phonetic awkwardness. It is useful in its context, and makes it clearer. I can't see anything wrong with such words.
* Assuming the word does have any relation to the topological process of furnishing with a finite covering of open sets. I haven't heard of that in the context of string theory. It would be amusing if the word was just a journalist's error after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
And what is wrong with the word compactified? The uneducated reserve the right to reject words wot just look ugly, 'k?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
* Assuming the word does have any relation to the topological process of furnishing with a finite covering of open sets. I haven't heard of that in the context of string theory. It would be amusing if the word was just a journalist's error after all.
When I Googled it, all my hits were scientific papers and topology tutorials, not news articles. So the people in string theory really do seem to use it among themselves. (You could check with emanuela to be sure.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> And what is wrong with the word compactified?
What's wrong? Cut it out! It achieves exactly the inverse of its apparently flimsy meaning and lengthens the word from which it stems.
There's a difference between the verbs in N.W. example too:
'to compact' > compactified
'to ???????' > rectified
As for ugly MQ, yep, your damn right, it is just that, and will therefore feature in my up-coming essay 'How Science Abuses Language'.
I'm all for the coinage of new language in order to better understand and explain the world around us, but come on, let's add a tad more interest. This word can be registered as bona fide and will just go to prove the your average science buff has not one iota of imagination. Still thumbs down.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,333
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
773
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
