Terminology, the importance of

[P3D Neil Harrington <nharrington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Themelis writes:

>Professor Paul S. Boyer's second posting was much better than the first, 
>but the question of where to draw the line is still up in the air.
>
>Those who strongly object the use of words like "beamsplitter" and 
>"stereopticon", do not appear to be bothered by the tendency to 
>incorrectly abbreviate terms like stereoscopic and photograph.  "Stereo" 
>comes from the Greek word meaning "solid".  Stereoscope and stereoscopic 
>mean to view something solid, i.e. in all its dimensions, i.e. with 
>depth.  When we say "stereo camera" we are talking about a solid camera 
>(versus a liquid?)  Same with "photo" which means "light".  Photography 
>and photograph mean to "write" with light.
>
>So, "stereo photo" is "solid light" and not a picture that has depth!

Well, maybe in Greek.  

>The tendency to abbreviate is not found in other languages.  In Greek, 
>for example, you cannot abbreviate words like that just because you are 
>too lazy to say the whole thing.  Nobody says "stereo" or "photo" instead
>of the proper terms "stereoscopic" and "photographic".

And of course that's the answer to that objection.  Different languages have
different conventions.  The abbreviations you mention are perfectly correct
usage in English, whether or not they would be in Greek.

>Now, is it unreasonable to ask people to say "stereoscopic camera" 
>instead of "stereo camera"?  I think it is.  The abbreviated word 
>"stereo" is well-established in the English language.  As Marvin Jones 
>said, the language is evolving and if you want to confuse everybody, try 
>renaming "anaglyph" to something more accurate.  I will keep referring 
>to the "frame splitting device via use of mirrors" as a "beamsplitter" 

But this really has nothing to do with abbreviations.  "Beamsplitter" is not
a reasonable abbreviation for "frame splitting device via use of mirrors."

>without a better alternative so I can communicate my ideas.  Nobody says 
>"frame splitter" (that could be a film cutter too, right?) 

Yes, and I suppose "beamsplitter" could be an axe used to split wooden beams.

That's really straining to make a point.  Why _not_ call it a framesplitter,
since, as you yourself point out, that is exactly what it does?  It doesn't
split any beams, not a single one.

To me, a beamsplitter always was (and still is) a semisilvered mirror used
to pass part of a beam while reflecting the other part, or a device of some
similar function.  That is nothing whatever like what is done by a mirror
attachment designed to put a stereo pair on one frame.
  
It seems to me that to call such an attachment a "beamsplitter" is not only
inaccurate, but misleading and potentially confusing.  Wherever possible,
words, and especially words used in connection with any sort of technology,
should mean what they say.
  


------------------------------