|
David O'Neil wrote: Brevity often coincides with clarity
But when it doesn't...
|
|
|
|
|
Especially as a non-native English speaker, I will say that it often doesn't!
I do not get used to it! I learned 50 years ago that in US newspaper headlines, "and" is written as "," (no matter how much empty space there is at the end of the line), but it still gives me chills. In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them. And then you come across those going to the other extreme, not only expanding the abbreviation in a parenthesis, but doing it on every single use of it throughout the article, and also expanding (at every use) abbreviations so familiar to everyone that we no longer think of it as an abbreviation - such as FM, DAB, TV, DVD, USD, UTC, Basic and Fortran.
If you think brevity coincides with clarity, you should start programming in APL 
That is not just a joke: Conciseness may work well in a tribal language (such as the APL programmer tribe), but you should be aware when you move outside the tribe, and know how to handle that. Sticking to your tribal language is rarely the best alternative. Ignoring well known terms in the non-tribal language is not a good alternative, either.
Any professional should have a period as an instructor, teaching a non-tribal audience his profession, to discover what is easily understood and what is not. Too many professionals think the solution is to teach the tribal language to the non-tribal society; usually it is not. The solution is for the professional to learn to speak in a non-tribal language. That includes avoiding tribal abbreviations and tribalisms such as verbings and nouning. Yes, that is frequently an element of tribal language. An example: I had a motor that wouldn't work, and mentioned to a friend of mine that I suspected that the fuse was blown. His immediate response: "Ya ohmed it, didn't ya?"
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You speak like a true USAtian!
I guess that you really are joking. In case you are not: Have you heard about HD Radio? That is the US "Certainly Invented Here" attempt to create a US alternative to the international digital radio standard adopted by Europe, Australia, a lot of Asian countries and a few African ones.
If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up). In that context, DAB is as fundamental as AM and FM.
Asking "What is DAB" is like if you had asked "What is GSM" at the time when four different "Certainly Invented Here" mobile phone standards where fighting to kill each other in the US. They did, and the NIH GSM system took over. US authorities tried to avoid the same to happen with the three (or was it four?) competing digital FM radio replacements. So before they had all killed each other, FCC declared HD Radio as the winner based on battle points. HD Radio did not have enough going for it to make it an overnight success, and from what I have been told (I haven't visited USA for quite a few years), HD Radio can be described as 'marginalized' in the US radio market of today. So maybe you are not much aware of HDR.
Even though NIH, DAB was considered in the USA, although reluctantly. However, channels at the outer end of the DAB frequency spectrum was so close to frequencies used by US Armed Forces that there was a theoretical possibility that a badly tuned broadcast transmitter could cause interference with military communication. Of course it would have been possible to declare the DAB band to not go that high (in fact, some European countries do!), sacrificing a small fraction of the total capacity. More important: It was a good excuse for rejecting the international standard, replacing it with something Certainly Invented Here.
From a technical point of view, HD Radio is somewhat closer to DRM, rather than DAB. DRM is the primary radio technology in India. If you haven't heard of DAB, I assume that DRM is even more unfamiliar. DRM shares a lot of technological elements with DAB (so making a combined DAB/DRM receiver is quite simple), but some lower layers differ: DAB multiplexes a great number (typically 12-20) of audio channels on a single transmitter, requiring a coordination of the sources or those channels. DRM transmits from a single audio channel up to four, so it is much better suited for an independent 'husband-and-wife'-type radio station. DRM can (re)use an existing FM or AM transmitter. The 'single source' and (to a limited degree) reuse of old transmitters is a trait shared by HDR. But DRM is another NIH international standard, so I guess it is not a viable alternative in the US.
(One trait that HDR does not share: DAB and DRM can extend the coverage by adding transmitters on the same frequency. There is no need to allocate another frequency to a station, no matter how many transmitters it needs to cover its area.)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: I do not get used to it! ... In technical media/literature, you too frequently read articles that use an insane amount of abbreviations, often rather obscure ones, without explaining a single one of them.
And then you violate your own desire:
trønderen wrote: If you read and article where "DAB" comes up, it must be because you are interested in broadcasting, not limited to the US of A (where DAB probably would not come up).
I, in the USA, have never heard 'DAB' before, and I've heard a lot of acronyms. I'm guessing it means 'Digital Audio Broadcast.' And then you violate your desire a couple more times: 'DRM,' 'NIH' - no clue what those are, although DRM is almost always Digital Rights Management in our news, but obviously not per your usage.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler” - the best expansion of 'brevity's meaning, as I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: I, in the USA, have never heard 'DAB' before
Have you heard of FM? AM? HDR? If you never had any interest at all in radio, I guess all of those are unfamiliar - as well as DAB.
I guess that it is related to 'NIH' - no clue what those are From inside the US of A, you may not know how the rest of the world view USA self confidence. That any technology "Not Invented Here" has no value, is of no interest to the US of A. I honestly thought that USAtians generally knew the term, and I deliberately used "Certainly Invented Here" as somewhat ironic reminder of the NIH attitude, expecting "Not Invented Here" to be well known. When you prove me wrong, that sort of makes my point even stronger
I did use DAB and DRM without de-abbreviation, as I used FM and AM without de-abbreviation. That fits into my line of argument: These are everyday, general concepts. If I mention an LP (if you are old enough to remember those ), I need not expand it to "Long Play" to make you ponder "How long?", or the 10" EP discs, "Extended Play", making you ponder in which way they are "extended", or how much. I guess that it Europe, maybe half the population couldn't provide the de-abbreviation of DAB without hesitation, just like only a small fraction in the Western world knows the de-abbreviation of DVD. They are technology names. If you never heard names of the technology, you never heard of the technology.
After reading my post, you were certainly not in doubt that DAB and DRM are names of different digital broadcasting technologies. Sure, DRM is also the name of other technologies. If the context doesn't give you a clue, you may look it up in Wikipedia: Currently it lists no less than 23 different de-abbreviations of DRM. My previous post didn't give any hints towards 22 of them, but did suggest a digital radio broadcasting standard named DRM, didn't it? If I had referred to a radio standard named "Charles", would it have made a big difference for your understanding? Would it have been easier or more difficult to accept it as a technology name?
OK, I will admit it openly: I deliberately used "DAB" and "DRM" without de-abbreviation to tease the "Not Invented Here" readers. In Europe, Australia and many countries in Asia and Africa, DAB is as well known today as FM is. ("AM" is fading; few Norwegian youth would know what an AM radio is, and might ask me to de-abbreviate and explain that!) You do not point out that I use "HDR" as an abbreviation of "HD Radio", and you do not ask me to de-abbreviate the "HD" part, so maybe you are among the relatively few, if I understand it right, who actually own a HD Radio.
A couple entries up in this thread, I referred to "tribal language". I guess that your post illustrates it clearly. "Not Invented Here" is a tribal language term used in most of the world but USA to describe how USA relates to non-US technology, and we cannot assume that USAtians are familiar with the the term. "DAB" and "DRM" are tribal language terms commonly understood in Europe, Australia, large parts of Asia and parts of Africa - but again, USAtians are not part of the tribe; they need to have the names explained. They may be unable to grab it from context. It may take more than an explanation; a deconstruction of the name may be required as well.
I did not refer to common basic technologies of DAB and DRM (such as OFDM modulation, or (x)HE-AAC sound compression - but you might ignore those terms; I will not de-abbreviate them for you). As a casual listener they are insignificant. That is another deliberate choice I made: You ought to know DAB and DRM as names of digital radio technologies, just like Europeans and other non-USAtians do. I use them freely, as names. OFDM and xHE-AAC are not intended for a non-technical audience, so I avoided referring to those.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Concisely! 
|
|
|
|
|
They have not heard of the word favoured (favored in US)?
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't "verbing" itself a good example of exactly the same abomination?🙄
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that exactly the reason why it is used in this context?
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Verbing nouns and nouning verbs makes my toes curl.
"Learnings" 😱
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Let me think about that and revert back to you
P.S. It's my pet hate misuse of a word, and now that I've done this thing I need to lie down in a darkened room and reconsider my life choices
|
|
|
|
|
I literally died when I read that! 
My kids use phrases like this, makes me cringe. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
It's ok, I speak only English, pretty much and favorited sounds like an abomination to me too.
|
|
|
|
|
Some constructed languages, such as Esperanto, have far simpler grammars than most natural grammars. E.g. verbing a noun, or nouning a verb, is certainly not wierding the language - it is the way it is done. Always.
Disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto (nor other spoken constructed languages), but people who have tried to make me study it, says that's roughly how Esperanto is. Correct me if I have a wrong understanding.
As a programmer, I feel a certain attraction to highly regular, simple grammar languages. Maybe they are not as well suited for, say, poetry - but Esperanto people will say that it certainly is, both for poetry, love stories and everything else. Let's see it from a programmer's point of view: A programming language with a complex grammar and lots of irregularities does not make it more suitable for providing workable software solutions. Yesterday's New Old Thing blog, How to convert between different types of counted-string string types[^] lists 8 (eight) different counted string classes (excluding NUL terminated). It gives me shivers; I look the other way and use the C# string type instead ... (or even 1970 vintage Pascal strings ). "Richness" doesn't always correspond to "valuable".
If you dislike verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs on principal, language independent grounds, then by implication you reject Esperanto. (Maybe you do for other reasons as well!). For English in particular, overusing it can be used for funny word play, such as the C&H "wierding" example mentioned by another poster. But as lots of fully established verb/noun pairs are related that way, I will never be able to draw a clear line: These verbings are fully acceptable, while those are condemnable, when they are created according to the same pattern.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is the beginning of a long answer 
I see languages as vessels for human ideas and sentiments. For that purpose, they need a proper balance between stability and adaptability. If English would have evolved too rapidly we wouldn't be able to appreciate Shakespeare's poetry and playwrights while a frozen language would not be able to capture new concepts and ideas. Live languages do evolve and that is, in itself, a whole field of study in which I'm just a mere dilettante. It's interesting to compare the change from thou to you with the Spanish change from "tu" to "Usted". More recently, I find fascinating that in English, the language with a million words, people would find interest in creating new ones. Look at the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows and the strange words it has created. Anemoia is probably one of my favourites.
To summarize, I'm not against creation or adaptation of new words, but in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness. There would have been many ways (my suggestion was just the first thing that popped to mind) to express the same idea without forcing a noun into a verb. However, as @David-ONeil has pointed out, the microsoftian who did it was not the first one and Oxford dictionary has recorded that use.
As for programming languages, it's very difficult to compare them with human languages. They are so much in their infancy that it is like comparing animal vocalizations with human speech. Not only the number of "words" in a computer language is ridiculously small compared with the number of words in any natural language, but their expressive power is very, very limited. Don't get me wrong, computer languages are perfectly adequate tools for interacting with a computer but not much more.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot of truth to your post. And the video at the Anemoia link is great!
For us non-native English speakers: Mircea Neacsu wrote: in this particular case I think this is just intellectual laziness
We have the additional problem of scientists (and others) not caring to look for the established Norwegian word for some phenomenon, even when there is a well recognized one, based on a hundred years or more of traditional use. They rather try to cast an English word into a Norwegian shape.
If you confront them, ask them what is so much better with the English based word, the answer is usually that is is much more "exact", more "well defined". That is because they know the term only from some very limited, specific context, and think that is the only, and well defined, narrow meaning of the word. They do not know it as an everyday, general and often vaguely defined term, but believe (from their limited knowledge of English) that it has a very specific interpretation. Sometimes, the Norwegian term is much more specific, if they would only think of it!
I know two major professions of that kind: Computer people, and doctors. I guess that I understand more Latin terms that the majority of patients, but even when I understand it, I frequently stop in my steps, asking the doctor: Does that mean <norwegian term="">? I do the same with my coworkers, when there are 'ordinary people' around - I stop them: 'That is <so-and-so-in-norwegian>, isn't it?'. My coworkers usually nod, but in annoyed way: They don't like their professional talk to be interrupted that way.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: not caring to look for the established Norwegian word for some phenomenon
Exactly same thing happening with Romanians. I admit I'm often guilty of the same crime but at least I have the excuse that I lived many years immersed in other languages. It annoys me when I see people that can barely master the English language yet they use English words when Romanian ones would do just fine.
Maybe it's a sign we are moving toward a universal language that will be 80% English with other stuff sprinkled in. I'm sure in this language will be at least one Italian word: Ciao!
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Well said.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I've favorited the verbing of nouns 
|
|
|
|
|
From CP newsletter
https://www.codeproject.com/News.aspx?ntag=19837496582598984&_z=2928472[^]
A study that they did based on California data that compares accidents versus autonomous and humans.
Autonomous was better except is two cases. Although 'turning' was one of those which seems kind of important.
But at any rate I would think in California you are going to want to know how well the autonomous cars do when they have to drive down a road with raging wildfire on both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
They can't work in an open environment.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: a road with raging wildfire on both sides
like this one?[^] That's a fire truck at the bottom, with a firefighter standing on the road. My colleagues.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: how well the autonomous cars do when they have to drive down a road with raging wildfire on both sides.
Unlike human drivers, an autonomous car wouldn't go into a panic.
But then, it might get itself burnt to a crisp before a human does.
I'd be more impressed seeing autonomous cars doing well in a snowstorm, or after a heavy snowfall. I guess there's not much of that sort of testing going around in California.
|
|
|
|
|
What about Corpus Christi? Is it going to be able to find the lane under a foot of water?
Although maybe a good thing? Because it will just refuse to drive unlike the people that think they can get through 4 ft of water.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
