3 ms·

In my opinion: If a term is starting to be mis-used, the correct solution isn't to invent a new term that means what it originally did. The correct solution is

In my opinion: If a term is starting to be mis-used, the correct solution isn't to invent a new term that means what it originally did. The correct solution is to teach people not to mis-use it. We have had plenty of words that have drifted in meaning, only to be replaced by a new word that means exactly the same thing as the original word originally meant. There are several circumstances that cause this to happen. One is if the meaning of the word is mis-understood. There isn't any reason to believe that the replacement word will be any better-understood, so it will likely drift in meaning as well. Another is if the word becomes seen as offensive in some way. Then a new word replaces it with the intention of meaning the same thing, but in a non-offensive manner (which the original word originally had anyway). The new word will also soon afterwards become seen as offensive, and another replacement will have to be introduced. It would be much less confusing if words just kept meaning the same thing.

jasode 6y ago
>The correct solution is to teach people not to mis-use it. [...] It would be much less confusing if words just kept meaning the same thing. Your recommendation is impossible to implement because language usage is decentralized. The growing number of humans that can mis-use a term outpace the smaller force of volunteer "language police" that try to correct people. E.g. It didn't matter that quad-copter enthusiasts kept trying to educate the public that DJI toys should not be called "drones". That battle has been lost and the the term "drone" has won over alternatives such as "remote quadcopter" or "UAV". It's like shouting into a hurricane. Even very well-educated people mis-use terms. Alex Stepanov inadvertently misused "vector" when creating STL. C++ std::vector should have been called "vararray" and std::array should have been called "vector": https://stackoverflow.com/questions/581426/why-is-a-c-vector-called-a-vector#:~:text=It's%20called%20a%20vector%20because,fixed%2Dlength%20sequence%20of%20numbers https://stackoverflow.com/questions/581426/why-is-a-c-vector....
finnthehuman 6y ago
>The correct solution is to teach people not to mis-use it. I like where you’re coming from, but much of the time leveraging ambiguous terms is exactly the point. People prioritize results over clarity of communication. Most of it is done unconsciously rather than maliciously. Spend a few days carefully watching everything you hear and ask yourself if the speaker/writer is prioritizing clear communication or just using concepts as magic incantations for “I’m right”.
pydry 6y ago
People get very attached to their meanings and very resistant to having redefinitions "imposed" upon them. Inventing new terms avoids all that baggage. There is also reason to believe that a replacement term will be less misunderstood if it is more precisely defined than the original. The words that have the most "drift" are ones with emotional baggage attached. "Socialism" or "Capitalism" has baggage and drift. "Technical debt" does too. "Carbon" and "differential equation" do not. "Coupling" does not.

jasode 6y ago

>The correct solution is to teach people not to mis-use it. [...] It would be much less confusing if words just kept meaning the same thing. Your recommendation is impossible to implement because language usage is decentralized. The growing number of humans that can mis-use a term outpace the smaller force of volunteer "language police" that try to correct people. E.g. It didn't matter that quad-copter enthusiasts kept trying to educate the public that DJI toys should not be called "drones". That battle has been lost and the the term "drone" has won over alternatives such as "remote quadcopter" or "UAV". It's like shouting into a hurricane. Even very well-educated people mis-use terms. Alex Stepanov inadvertently misused "vector" when creating STL. C++ std::vector should have been called "vararray" and std::array should have been called "vector": https://stackoverflow.com/questions/581426/why-is-a-c-vector-called-a-vector#:~:text=It's%20called%20a%20vector%20because,fixed%2Dlength%20sequence%20of%20numbers https://stackoverflow.com/questions/581426/why-is-a-c-vector....

finnthehuman 6y ago

>The correct solution is to teach people not to mis-use it. I like where you’re coming from, but much of the time leveraging ambiguous terms is exactly the point. People prioritize results over clarity of communication. Most of it is done unconsciously rather than maliciously. Spend a few days carefully watching everything you hear and ask yourself if the speaker/writer is prioritizing clear communication or just using concepts as magic incantations for “I’m right”.

pydry 6y ago

People get very attached to their meanings and very resistant to having redefinitions "imposed" upon them. Inventing new terms avoids all that baggage. There is also reason to believe that a replacement term will be less misunderstood if it is more precisely defined than the original. The words that have the most "drift" are ones with emotional baggage attached. "Socialism" or "Capitalism" has baggage and drift. "Technical debt" does too. "Carbon" and "differential equation" do not. "Coupling" does not.