Re: Terminology, the importance of

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

All true, but it isn't that simple.  The definition of what was said *is* what
was meant if that expression of meaning is the prevalent one (whew!).  In
other words, if what is called a beamsplitter is suddenly called (by majority) a 
"frimastat" (free'ma stat) then the word for those things *is* frimastat.

There was an interview some years ago with the fellows in charge of updating
that huge extremely complete and prestigous English dictionary in the U.K..
Their job was to see what words people *use* -- and update the dictionary to 
reflect that usage.  In other words, the dictionary is the follower, not the
leader in word definition (in English anyway).

Another example:  the word "hacker" changed meanings completely and suddenly on *one*
day a few years ago.  It now means a generally crooked and dishonest person who 
breaks into other's computers.  That isn't even close to what it meant the previous
day.  What happened is that someone broke into a computer, and he was described
as a hacker, and the reporter, dumb as he was, took that to mean the meaning it has
now and ran a story that a hacker had broke into a computer.... etc.  Had that person
been a stereo photographer, "stereo photography" would now mean breaking into computers.

A Word means what the majority of people think it means.  It's the definition of
language.  Dicionaries document it.

Back to stereo... I agree about framesplitters, and have attempted to use that
phrase unless I get a blank stare, then I say beamsplitter -- and get a 
resultant smile of understanding.

As to which word *should* be used, probably framesplitter from a technical point
of view.  From a language point of view, probably beamsplitter is correct because
people know what's being talked about -- so long as it's not used in the context
of optical engineer talk.  Being an engineer, people contort "my" words quite a bit,
but I've learned not to be bothered by it (much).  There really is no point in correcting 
someone where conceptually they don't understand, want to understand, or need to
understand -- so long as you knew what they meant.

I believe this in principle ...whether I really do in practice is something
else again.  :-)

Mike K.

P.S. - How about "mirrored stereo attachment"?  Don't talk about splitting at all.

P.P.S. - Does a "splitting headache" mean only half the head hurts or that the
         head has been cut in two and hurts as a result?  English is fun.



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