P3D Re: What is the abbreviation for abbreviation?

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>From: fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)

>I understand your desire to defend your language and find this butchering
>(a.k.a. "abbreviation") of words useful and acceptable as normal evolution
>of the language, but the fact is that it is not characteristic of other
>languages/cultures, 

We didn't write the Greek language - don't blame us for its deficiencies. :-)

>it does not have any logic behind it 

It has lots of logic - maybe you don't agree with the valuations used...

>and it leads to confusion and loss of information.

Yes, sometimes it does. The alternatives (forbidding new terms, forcing
new terms to grow in length indefinitely, and extensive overloading of
existing terms) can be even more confusing, and lead to even greater loss
of information (in terms of useful information per kilobyte of text), in my 
opinion. A reasonable *balance* is what's needed.

>There is no logic in taking a two part word like stereo-scopic (to view
>in 3 dimensions) and cutting of one part (to view) to make it shorter.  

Somebody's sold you a bill of goods. "Stereoscopic" refers not specifically to
viewing things in three dimensions, but to viewing things that are *solid*. So
my 3D photographs of mist rising above a pond and of rushing water *are not* 
stereoscopic, even though SIRDS and holograms *are* stereoscopic. (Unless you 
want to admit that definitions of Greek words *can* shift after all. :-)

>If we accept that words are established by common usage then we should
>accept words like "stereopticon" because more people say "stereopticon"
>than the proper "stereoscope" and we all know what a person means when he
>says he collects "stereopticon views".

Possibly, but the problem is that stereopticon refers to a specific technical
device in a closely-allied field, a number of which still exist, and which
are still cherished by various organizations. 
(Example: http://www.magiclanterns.org/ - Magic Lantern Castle Museum.)
Recommending the avoidance of "overloading" of technical terms in areas that
are closely related (or where there could otherwise be particular confusion)
is a longstanding tradition. For example, "astronomers" do a lot more than
just *name* the stars, but "astrologer" had already been taken. There may
have been a similar consideration for "telescope" and "television".
[Note: a stereo slide projector is one kind of stereopticon.]

>There is a certain charm and satisfaction in knowing what the word is
>coming from and what it really means, like telephone (voice from a
>distance),  photography (writing with light), automobile (moving by
>itself), synchronize (occur at the same time), microscope (an instrument to
>look at small things).  This charm and knowledge is lost when we say TV to
>save ourselves a few sounds.

If you speak Greek as your native language it is - that's less English to
have to learn! :-) But that way lies danger - terms have often evolved beyond
the original foreign word from which they were derived. For example, French
people often often misinterpret what a "chase plane" is, because the primary
definitions of the English word "chase" differ considerably from the French
verb "chasser".

An important factor that you miss in your desire to keep words from changing
is that not only language but also society have evolved dramatically. We still
use many words that once had major definitions that are very different from
the current major definitions, and in many cases which we have little use for
now. If someone says they were "enchanted" by your 3D photos, that doesn't
mean their mind was literally overpowered by a magic spell. Some of the
negative connotations of "common", "ornery", "churl", "vulgar", etc. are a 
faint echo of the strong class structure that once pervaded the 
English-speaking society.  Many words that are widely used today in complete 
innocence were once considered crude or indecent. The history of language
is of considerable historical interest, but to insist that all words be
tied irrevocably to their original definitions would greatly harm modern 
communication. For contemporary application, the contemporary usage is
a better definition than the original meaning.

Some early terms - dates and definitions from the OED:
- stereo [1876] - abbreviation of stereoscope, stereoscopic
- stereogram [1868] - a diagram representing a solid object on a plane
    (especially with contour lines or shading)
- stereograph [1859] - a picture or pair of pictures that appears solid,
    e.g. stereoscopic photograph
- stereography [1700] - the art of delineating the forms of solid bodies
    on a plane [so the 3D -> 2D version of "3D" popular among many 
    computer graphics enthusiasts would qualify as stereography by 
    the original definition!]
- stereoscope [1838] - (pretty much the modern definition)

>From Oxford Dictionary of Modern Greek, 1982 (with possible spelling errors):
E: stereoscopic; G: stereoskopikos [word imported from English???]
G: stereos; E: firm, strong, solid; fast(colour)

Final note: in our field, "stereo" is usually used as an adjective, where the
meaning is made clear by context, i.e. "stereo photo". [Do you object to photo?]

John R


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