3 ms·

To clear this up once and for all, we can refer to the much-respected Oxford English Dictionary (OED) [1]. The current definitions are: "1.a. Constraining, imp

To clear this up once and for all, we can refer to the much-respected Oxford English Dictionary (OED) [1]. The current definitions are: "1.a. Constraining, impelling; powerful, forcible."; "1.b. esp. Having power to compel assent or belief; argumentatively forcible, convincing."; and "1.c. [as part of certain] dependent [phrases]." A historical definition of "cogent" was: "Of persons: Employing force or compulsion, peremptory. Obsolete. rare," which includes an example phrase from 1672 that demonstrates this usage as a descriptor for people. This confirms that "cogent" is no longer a strictly valid descriptor for people according to the OED, though this usage was once valid in the past. However, I agree with other readers that this doesn't take away from the article's substance, which draws from the author's experience in software. [1] (Paywalled) https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cogent_adj?tl=true https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cogent_adj?tl=true

tptacek 3y ago
The OED can say whatever it likes, but if it invalidates "cogent" as a description for an actor rather than their actions, it disagrees with modern usage, and is thus itself, in a word, wrong.
- jyunwai 3y ago
  It turns out that your point is part of a fair criticism of the OED, as critics such as Oxford linguist Roy Harris [1] claim that dictionaries should be descriptive instead of prescriptive. The OED itself has also varied on its presentation of itself across its history as a resource that describes versus prescribes proper English usage. I still believe that OED definitions are reliable for checking usage in formal writing, though its definitions are less important for personal articles such as the author's. But in any case, the author still makes a good point that clear writing is useful when solving engineering problems in a team. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary#Reception_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary#Rece...

tptacek 3y ago

The OED can say whatever it likes, but if it invalidates "cogent" as a description for an actor rather than their actions, it disagrees with modern usage, and is thus itself, in a word, wrong.

jyunwai 3y ago
It turns out that your point is part of a fair criticism of the OED, as critics such as Oxford linguist Roy Harris [1] claim that dictionaries should be descriptive instead of prescriptive. The OED itself has also varied on its presentation of itself across its history as a resource that describes versus prescribes proper English usage. I still believe that OED definitions are reliable for checking usage in formal writing, though its definitions are less important for personal articles such as the author's. But in any case, the author still makes a good point that clear writing is useful when solving engineering problems in a team. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary#Reception_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary#Rece...