Terminology

[P3D Paul S. Boyer <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

3-D Usage (3)

George Themelis is right, that we haven't resolved where to draw the
line in accepting imprecise terminology.  That's not so bad: we don't
need to draw a strict line, just so we
have termonology that makes some sense, and avoids confusion.  He has
a point
that sometimes abbreviation may be objectionable.  Out of context,
one
doesn't really know whether "stereo" refers to "stereophonic" or
"stereoscopic."

"Stereo camera" by context would not be expected to be a solid camera
(really, a solid chamber), as opposed to a liquid one.  Context
helps.

We have terminological problems even with the designation "3-D",
which most
of us would take to mean something referring to stereopsis, or
binocular vision.
But notice how the term 3-D is used in the computer field: it is
often used
as a synonym for various forms of perspective illustration.  To me,
that
is not true 3-D, and I object -- but usually in vain.

Which causes me to wonder if the (misnomer) term
"stereopticon" ((mis)used for stereoscope or stereo-viewer) clings to
its popularity partly because it has such a rhythmic, lilting
quality.

In English we accept many terms which were originally misnomers.
"Brachiopod" means "arm-footed," yet that animal has neither arms
nor feet -- and there are many other examples.  Still, it's not
confusing to zoologists, because the name has taken on its own
meaning,
and never was applied to anything else.  We use the term
"manufacture," but seldom in its literal sense, "made by
hand."

Just as important in terminology is the practice in English of
adopting foreign words and giving them specific, technical
meanings.  It reaches the point where someone speaking the foreign
language may not even recognize the English usage.  In this way
English has "plundered" other tongues to accumulate the largest
vocabulary of any language in the world.  One of my favorite
examples is the term we use to describe a low-altitude attack,
with guns blazing, by a fighter plane: strafing.  This comes from
the German word "strafen," to punish.  Yet the Germans don't even use
"strafen" in this sense themselves, as far as I know.  As I recall,
they refer to the tactic as "Tieffliegen" or "deep flying."  Thus
the English language grows, with something of a cheerful disregard.

But the main point is to be clear and avoid confusion.  Abbreviations
or shortenings can help by preventing sentences from getting so long
that you forget what was being said.  The risk is that one might
shorten
terms to the point of incomprehension, like the "alphabet
soup" which sometimes threatens computer jargon.  There is no
clear line here, either.  All we can do is attempt some sort
of happy balance. 

--Paul S. Boyer   <boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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