[net.nlang] and still more surprising words

pds (02/13/83)

     May become allowed through popular use?  Check the "New World
Dictionary of the English Language" under "comprise".  Definition 3 says:

     to make up; form; constitute [a nation comprised of 13 states]:
     in this sense regarded by some as loose usage.

Popular usage wins again (please lets not reopen the argument about
whether the dictionary definition is correct or just popular).
Point is the misuse is recognized.

     Don't misunderstand my position--I dislike the incorrect use
as well.  While we are at it, let's hear some discussion of computer
sciences' new favorite buzzword: METHODOLOGY (a.k.a method).

                              Dave Stotts, Univ. of Virginia

	                      uucp:  ...decvax!duke!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!pds
                              CSnet: pds@uvacs

gh (02/15/83)

What can one say about "methodology"?  It is used (or utilized, in their terms)
to mean "method" by clods for whom length is a more important criterion in
word choice than correctness.  These are the people who also use "technology"
when they mean "techniques":
  "This compiler utilizes double-reverse LALR(1) peephole technology."
  "We are engaged in an effort to apply this technology to compiler validation."
That reminds me of two more pet peeves:  A recent trend to use "effort" for
"project"; and the all-purpose "in terms of" to mean "with regard to" or
simply "in".

	Graeme Hirst
	Brown University, Computer Science
	...!decvax!brunix!gh      gh.brown@udel-relay

benson (02/15/83)

There are many words like "methodology" which grate on my ears:

	orientate
	phraseology

I'm sure we could create a list of buzzwords to avoid.

Peter Benson
ittdcd-west

mac (02/16/83)

	"compactify" -> "compact"	?

crs (02/18/83)

I hope the predecessor to this really did abort.  Sorry if it didn't.

To "orientate", add

				degradate

I have really heard it used.

Charlie Sorsby
...lanl-a!crs

leichter (02/19/83)

One of my complaints - while we are on this topic - is the (over)use of
"reference" as a verb.  "The article referenced on page 5" could just as
well be "the article refered to on page 5".  "Refer" has been there as the
verb for a long time; "reference" is a "nouned" form.  Why "verb" it?
(Now some etymologist will discover that "refer" is actually a "verbed" form
of the original "reference", in which case I will hide my head in shame.)

I say "overuse" because there is a subtle difference between "refer to" and
"reference" - "refer to" is more general - I can "refer to" a book without
giving you enough information to find it - but when I "reference" a book,
there seems (to me) to be an implication that a full bibliographic reference
is in there.  In most cases that I've seen "reference" used as a verb, though,
this writer is not making use of this distinction.
							-- Jerry
						decvax!yale-comix!leichter

paul (02/26/83)

We use compactification here.