cherson@nonode.dec.com (David Cherson, WOO/D89 - 236-2229) (09/25/86)
>I was under the impression that "functionality" was a legal English word, until >I was challenged to find it in a dictionary. I could not. (Is there anyone who >has a dictionary which *does* define it?) What could I use instead (features? >functionalism???) in phrases like "a description of a system's functionality", >"this product has more functionality"? You're right, there is no such word in the English language as "functionality". But what's wrong with using the correct term - function? This industry has taken the English language and twisted it for it's own purposes. If you think that functionality is weird, then listen to a new one I heard the other day, "productization". Apparently this is being used to describe the process of a product going the developing stages to market. I don't know, I expect people who possess a college degree(even in engineering:-) to understand English. David Cherson
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (mark edwards) (09/26/86)
In article <5528@decwrl.DEC.COM> cherson@nonode.dec.com (David Cherson, WOO/D89 - 236-2229) writes: > > >>I was under the impression that "functionality" was a legal English word, until >>I was challenged to find it in a dictionary. I could not. (Is there anyone who >>has a dictionary which *does* define it?) What could I use instead (features? >>functionalism???) in phrases like "a description of a system's functionality", >>"this product has more functionality"? > >You're right, there is no such word in the English language as "functionality". >But what's wrong with using the correct term - function? This industry has >taken the English language and twisted it for it's own purposes. Are you trying to say that the English language is some how a complete language, meaning that all the words in the English language that can be defined have been ? The English language is a changing language. Some people might argue that one of the worst things that happened to the language was to freeze spellings of words when the pronounciation changed. This is what has made english one if not the most difficult language to spell. The sciences especially the new ones seem to create ( or butcher ) words for new ideas or concepts ( not everybody has studied latin these days). > >I don't know, I expect people who possess a college degree(even in >engineering:-) to understand English. > It seems they don't teach English anymore. It went out of fashion when the "New Math" came in. I know, I am a product of those schools. Of all my +'s English takes its place in the rear. I'm trying to compensate some how by getting a Master's in Lingustics. Its not that the ability isn't there, I can converse with no trouble in Japanese with almost any Native ( the almost is another story though). mark -- {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706
mike@mipos3.UUCP (Michael Bruck) (09/27/86)
In article <5528@decwrl.DEC.COM> cherson@nonode.dec.com (David Cherson, WOO/D89 - 236-2229) writes: >I was under the impression that "functionality" was a legal English word, until >I was challenged to find it in a dictionary. I could not. (Is there anyone who >has a dictionary which *does* define it?) On page 498 of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984: Functional (adj) 1a: of, connected with, or being a function b: affecting physiological or psychological functions but not organic structure <~ heart disease> 2: used to contribute to the development or maintenance of a larger whole <~ and practical school courses>; also: designed and developed chiefly from the point of view of use <~ clothing> 3: performing or able to perform a regular function -- functionality (n) functionally (adv) -- --Michael Bruck Corporate CAD, Intel Corp, Santa Clara, California UUCP: ...{hplabs,decwrl,oliveb,amdcad}!intelca!mipos3!mike CSNET: mike@mipos3.INTEL.COM Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do. The above views are personal.
steiny@scc.UUCP (09/27/86)
In article <5528@decwrl.DEC.COM>, cherson@nonode.dec.com (David Cherson, WOO/D89 - 236-2229) writes: > >You're right, there is no such word in the English language as "functionality". As one of my linguistics professors would frequently say, "balderdash." Websters dicitonary does not contain the word "fuck", but it is an English word. Dictionaries are usually a bit behind the time and they are simply lists of how people use words. People made talked and made up new words long before there were dicitionaries to catalog the words. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) (09/29/86)
> >But what's wrong with using the correct term - function? This industry has > >taken the English language and twisted it for it's own purposes. > > Are you trying to say that the English language is some how a > complete language, meaning that all the words in the English language > that can be defined have been? > > > >I don't know, I expect people who possess a college degree(even in > >engineering:-) to understand English. > > > > It seems they don't teach English anymore. It went out of fashion > when the "New Math" came in. Oh, boy, another language-flaming session! Let's get it going fast; hopefully it'll be as much fun as the last 27 of them! [Hey, did he say "hopefully"? Let's get 'im fer thet!] Probably the definitive statement on the use [usage/utilization] of English was in the musical My Fair Lady: Why, in America, they haven't spoken it [English] in years. -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{cthulhu,inmet,harvax,mit-eddie,mot[bos],rclex}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Telex: 922-443 CODEX A MNSF Disclaimer: Opinions? What opinions? Them're all hard facks, buster!
dianeh@ism780c.UUCP (Diane Holt) (10/02/86)
In article <332@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >Probably the definitive statement on the use [usage/utilization] of >English was in the musical My Fair Lady: > > Why, in America, they haven't spoken it [English] in years. My favorite has always been: "And this thing you call 'language' -- you depend on it for so much, but are any of you really its master?" Diane Holt Interactive Systems Corp. Santa Monica, CA {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ism780c!dianeh "He who has thriven, may snooze or sleep till eleven."
safern@aecom2.UUCP (Eric Safern) (10/02/86)
> > You're right, there is no such word in the English language as "functionality". > > But what's wrong with using the correct term - function? This industry has > > taken the English language and twisted it for it's own purposes. If you think > > that functionality is weird, then listen to a new one I heard the other day, > > "productization". Apparently this is being used to describe the process of > > a product going the developing stages to market. > > Real easy: "function" and "functionality" mean two different things. > > A thing's function is its purpose. Its functionality is the collection > of things it is capable of doing. I spent this summer working at Bell Labs in Holmdel. Each person there must have used the word "functionality" at least twice a day (ok, I'm exaggerating a little). Last week I was reading the latest issue of The Scientific American, and in an article on materials in communication the author used and defined "functionality". I said to myself, this man must work at Bell Labs. Sure enough, he is the vice president of Network Systems for the Labs. I think it's a pretty good word - he defined functionality as the power of it's functions. In other words, if an object does something, it has function. If it does something ***well***, it has functionality. For example, both copper wire and fiber optics have roughly equivelent functions, but the fiber has greater functionality (at least in some applications). -- Eric Safern ...{ihnp4,rocky2,philabs,esquire,cucard,pegasus}!aecom!aecom2!safern
trb@ima.UUCP (Andrew Tannenbaum) (10/03/86)
In article <6128@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > > You're right, there is no such word in the English language as > > "functionality". > Real easy: "function" and "functionality" mean two different things. Functionality is in my dictionary. (Under functional, Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster 1983 red hardcover.) If you like, you can insist that it doesn't exist. Humor yourself. I say down with sweeping generalizations (NOT generalities). To a programmer, initialize does not mean start. To initialize means to set variables to their initial values. To a programmer, a variable isn't just a parameter or an attribute. When some haughty lexicographic irregular poo-poos something she doesn't understand (technical jargon, in this instance) just because she once saw some business woman with a three piece suit and a shmatte around her neck use the word finalize, all I can do is assume that she is complaining about something of which she knows not. Here are some ize verbs from /usr/lib/w2006. authorize capitalize characterize criticize generalize initialize minimize organize realize recognize stabilize summarize utilize They all have nouns associated with them. What arbiter of style decided that it was ok to verbize these nouns, or nounize these verbs? I hate the word finalize. (Set variables to their final values? ;-) In fact, I have never heard an engineer use the word finalize, though I have heard (pompous) engineering managers use the word, along with their whole raft of silly catch phrases. Yes, I'm generalizing. So take me to mod.legal. Yes, there are engineers who are lousy writers and communicators. But I find that engineers, with their backgrounds in problem solving, are often clear thinkers and communicators when compared to people who you'd think would be better communicators - politicians, sales, and marketing people. When a person puts down "engineerlish" without being quite specific, I just chalk it up to ignorance. Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA +1 617 247 1155
evan@pedsgo.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (10/07/86)
In article <436@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >My favorite is the FAA's use of the word certificate meaning having been >authorized by a certificate meaning a document indicating that something >had been certified. > >-Ron The one that bothers me the most is 'utilize'. Yes, I know it's a word. It's in everybody's dictionary. WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'USE'???????? -- NAME: Evan L. Marcus UUCP: ...{pesnta|prcrs|princeton|topaz|hjuxa|vax135}!petsd!pedsgo!evan USnail: CONCURRENT Computer Corporation (a Perkin-Elmer Company) M/S 308, 106 Apple St., Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 MA BELL:(201) 758-7357 QUOTE: "You can call me Al." -- Paul Simon
akl@hjuxa.UUCP (A. K. Laux) (10/07/86)
() Didja ever try to count the times the word "basically" gets used in a typical speech, or even in day-to-day conversation? I had hardly heard the word used prior to my employment in the computer industry, but since then, it has earned the number one spot on my ten-most-hated words list. (Utilize is second; I agree with Evan). We used to have a running joke where I used to work - this one boss was in love with that word and used it to nauseating excess. We counted over 20 "basicallys" in one 15 minute meeting! AKL@DEC
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/09/86)
[Sorry about the massive quoting; I believe it is all relevant.] In article <235@ima.UUCP> trb@ima.UUCP (Andrew Tannenbaum) writes: >Functionality is in my dictionary. (Under functional, Webster's Ninth >Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster 1983 red hardcover.) If you like, >you can insist that it doesn't exist. Humor yourself. What does functionality mean? Specifically, what does it mean to *you*? To me it has two meanings. `Emacs has more functionality' might mean `Emacs does more', or it might mean `Emacs works better'. These are not the same thing. If you mean one, or the other, say the one, or the other. If you mean both, say both. If the context makes clear the proper meaning, go ahead and use the word `functionality'. If not, avoid it. >To a programmer, initialize does not mean start. To initialize means >to set variables to their initial values. To a programmer, a variable >isn't just a parameter or an attribute. When some haughty lexicographic >irregular poo-poos something she doesn't understand (technical jargon, >in this instance) just because she once saw some business woman with a >three piece suit and a shmatte around her neck use the word finalize, >all I can do is assume that she is complaining about something of which >she knows not. If your `lexicographic irregular' is criticising something written for programmers, she is wrong. If she is criticising something written for others, she may well be right. Intended audience is important. >[...] > >I hate the word finalize. (Set variables to their final values? ;-) >In fact, I have never heard an engineer use the word finalize, though I >have heard (pompous) engineering managers use the word, along with their >whole raft of silly catch phrases. If those managers are communicating among themselves, who cares what words they use? When they attempt to communicate with *me*, however, I expect them at least to use `common English'. Finalize is not a common English word. I understand some of those `silly catch phrases', but I would rather not have to guess at their meaning. I could well guess wrong. >Yes, I'm generalizing. So take me to mod.legal. Yes, there are >engineers who are lousy writers and communicators. But I find that >engineers, with their backgrounds in problem solving, are often >clear thinkers and communicators when compared to people who you'd >think would be better communicators - politicians, sales, and >marketing people. You are an engineer, are you not? It is then unsurprising that you understand other engineers. Chances are that each of these groups communicate best among themselves. >When a person puts down "engineerlish" without being quite specific, >I just chalk it up to ignorance. Andy is right. The language of engineers is not somehow `wrong'. It does not match common English, but this is not the fault of the language. In engineering contexts, common English is simply not appropriate. A friend of mine likes to say, `There is no good physics that cannot be explained to your average barmaid.' He is right. If you find the right words, the right analogies---in short, if you can speak the listener's language---you can say anything. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu