I've had it with wireless air integration

[tridacna]

Aha! The authors of dictionaries are reporters, not referees - they simply describe current usage.

We have to abide by those reporters otherwise we have linguistic anarchy. DEMS DA RULES. You're a doctor. You have to abide by medical terms defined by reporters and/or referees. You would find it difficult to practice if you referred to malaria as Congestive Chills or syphilis as French Pox. The term "Scrivener's Palsy" was used for years to describe writer's cramp. Would you argue that "writing" is prerequisite for that diagnosis? Archaic usage is irrelevant in this context. You can't make up your own rules to win the argument. As a society, we agree to abide by rules set by arbiters and referees so that we can understand each other. If we were having this argument in French, it would be case closed. They have real referees - no reporters.

When Cisco sells a wireless router, they are not selling one without wires. On the contrary, there are at least two wires hanging out of the back of the device. Perhaps we should agree to use cordless. Strange how that term has not come to mean "wireless".

 

[doctormike]

Oh good god DrMike, you put it to bed. Then you stirred the pot!

Must be a quiet day at the office ? BTW, swing over to the sudafed thread - I called for some doctorly advice!

Mick

Are you crazy? I can't POSSIBLY take care of patients today, not when these guys REFUSE to understand a simple linguistic point. Hang on, I'm sure I will eventually wear them down...

We have to abide by those reporters otherwise we have linguistic anarchy. DEMS DA RULES. You're a doctor. You have to abide by medical terms defined by reporters and/or referees.

We actually do have linguistic anarchy, to some degree, and that's a good thing. There simply are no rules of vernacular - that's exactly WHY you are not writing in old or middle English right now. And while your point about medical terminology is a good one, that is a completely different thing than vernacular.

A taxonomy or other codification system used in scientific or medical writing IS actually specified externally - that's why you have standard Latin scientific names for each individual species, which are non-ambiguous. However, vernacular is not specified in the same way. For example Coryphaena hippurus is and always will refer to Coryphaena hippurus. But some people call this a dolphin fish, and some people call it Mahi-Mahi. When I diagnose otitis externa, that means something specific and non-ambiguous. But when I describe it as "swimmer's ear", that's also fine and people (parents and referring pediatricians) understand what I am talking about, even if it is in a one year old who is not yet swimming.

But all kidding aside (and obviously I am trying to have a bit of fun here, and I am enjoying our discussion), I think that you and I can certainly agree to disagree as to whether or not the term "wireless" has transitioned from the literal meaning in the context of a dive computer to some sort of generic descriptor. Certainly, dive computers (and wireless technology in general) have not been around long enough for their terms to be considered "archaic". Unless you want to have a discussion about the meaning of "archaic", which is fine with me..

If you think that THIS point has stirred some stylistic passions, then you should see the flame war that erupted when I told my friend the copy editor that I was OK with two spaces after a period in written text!

Two spaces after a period: Why you should never, ever do it.

Why two spaces after a period isn?t wrong (or, the lies typographers tell about history) - Heraclitean River

 

[agilis]

Think back to the most common uses of the term "wireless". The term achieved its greatest currency during the first few decades of the Twentieth Century. It was very widely used in maritime communication, ship to ship and ship to shore. Obviously, ships were never connected by radio transmission wires, so the mode of communication that the new radio connections replaced was flag communication. Wireless communication was never called 'flagless'.

Well into the 1920s private radios were often called 'wireless sets'. Again, this was a completely new form of mass communication. It replaced nothing; there never were 'wired' equivalents to home radios. Still, any perusal of magazines and popular literature from that era, nearly a century ago, will demonstrate that the most common term in use for the new home radio sets was 'the wireless', the same term used by ships to designate their radio communication system which also had no technological predecessor.

That 'horseless carriage' was used to designate early automobiles is more a comment on the inability of people to fully understand and accept a dramatic change in personal mobility than it is a guide for linguistic construction. In reality, 'horseless carriage' is an awkward and inaccurate term, one that developed because motorized vehicles were completely new, replacing vehicles that had been in use for thousands of years, and doing so with breathtaking speed.

The mindset involved in creating the term 'horseless carriage' is identical to that of American Indians when they first came into contact with railroad engines. They called them 'Iron Horses'. The analogy between that term and 'horseless carriage' is as precise as any analogy I know of; both are expressions that developed from profound ignorance and a lack of vocabulary adequate to more accurately describe shockingly new technology.

I'm not sure what your background is in linguistics, or cultural history. In any case, I am confident that the term 'hoseless' is a poor choice for describing a completely new technology. It's very reminiscent of the term 'Iron Horse', and reflects the same constricted perspective.

 

[doctormike]

Think back to the most common uses of the term "wireless". The term achieved its greatest currency during the first few decades of the Twentieth Century. It was very widely used in maritime communication, ship to ship and ship to shore. Obviously, ships were never connected by radio transmission wires, so the mode of communication that the new radio connections replaced was flag communication. Wireless communication was never called 'flagless'.

Right, because the term dates to 1894, when it was used to describe the first successful use of radio waves to send signals as a replacement for the telegraph. The telegraph was a thing that communicated data over wires. So the term "wireless" was used for a telegraphy system that did not have wires. Because it worked without wires. Wire Less.

You are correct that subsequently the term was applied to new applications of the same technology in the decades to follow. And those applications adopted the earlier term. So what we are discussing is whether or not the term is now a generic or a specific. You (and the vast majority of English speakers, probably) consider it a generic. I (and maybe one other poster, where are you scubadude_LA?) think that it can still retain some of it's specific aspects, and prefer the term hoseless.

I'm not sure what your background is in linguistics, or cultural history. In any case, I am confident that the term 'hoseless' is a poor choice for describing a completely new technology. It's very reminiscent of the term 'Iron Horse', and reflects the same constricted perspective.

If you needed an academic background to comment on scubaboard, this would be a quite place indeed. But I suppose that you also have disdain for the archaic but poetic term "aqualung".

 

[mike.chuanshi]

Linguistics and cultural history aside, "hoseless" sounds ridiculous. To a lesser degree, so does "cordless," unless we're talking about a phone that is getting ready to be a part of a museum display. I work in tech, build underwater ROVs, and teach to students ages 8 to 68. I never hear the terms "hoseless" or "cordless," regardless of whether we're talking about a phone or a part of a ROV. While "archaic" may not be the best term, it's not far off the mark. Language is irregular and doesn't follow rules well - which is exactly why, despite all of our complex programming algorithms, we still can't seem to come up with a halfway decent, non-human translator. What governs language is how it is used CURRENTLY - as nostalgic as some may be, the past no longer exists and their screams of desire for days long gone have very little effect on how many weird looks you're going to get when you say "hoseless."

I'm aware that my Millennial attitude may not fit the ideological paradigms of older generations very well, but hey - we're making the devices and we call 'em what we call 'em.

 

[agilis]

Right, because the term dates to 1894, when it was used to describe the first successful use of radio waves to send signals as a replacement for the telegraph. The telegraph was a thing that communicated data over wires. So the term "wireless" was used for a telegraphy system that did not have wires. Because it worked without wires. Wire Less.

You are correct that subsequently the term was applied to new applications of the same technology in the decades to follow. And those applications adopted the earlier term. So what we are discussing is whether or not the term is now a generic or a specific. You (and the vast majority of English speakers, probably) consider it a generic. I (and maybe one other poster, where are you scubadude_LA?) think that it can still retain some of it's specific aspects, and prefer the term hoseless.




If you needed an academic background to comment on scubaboard, this would be a quite place indeed. But I suppose that you also have disdain for the archaic but poetic term "aqualung".

On the contrary. As a lifelong poet, as a lover of language, as an academic who has spent decades writing and teaching in the Humanities, I find the term 'aqualung' exceptionally beautiful. 'Iron Horse" is poetically exquisite. Horseless carriage is interesting but not, I think, particularly poetic. 'Hoseless' is graceless, and objectionable since the device so described never had a hose. It's dry land technological analogs were wired, and their aquatic equivalents are consequently wireless. They are also hoseless, and Polish sausageless, but neither of these missing elements has anything to do with their essential nature, and that is the point.

 

[doctormike]

L I never hear the terms "hoseless" ... regardless of whether we're talking about a phone or a part of a ROV.

Wrong. You have heard two people use it here, unless you didn't read the rest of the thread before posting.

---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 02:53 PM ----------

On the contrary. As a lifelong poet, as a lover of language, as an academic who has spent decades writing and teaching in the Humanities, I find the term 'aqualung' exceptionally beautiful. 'Iron Horse" is poetically exquisite. Horseless carriage is interesting but not, I think, particularly poetic. 'Hoseless' is graceless, and objectionable since the device so described never had a hose. It's dry land technological analogs were wired, and their aquatic equivalents are consequently wireless. They are also hoseless, and Polish sausageless, but neither of these missing elements has anything to do with their essential nature, and that is the point.

Ah, my friend... so glad that your ear is also attuned to the muse! See, we agree on "aqualung", there's common ground, right?

Here, I wrote this for you and all the others who see poetry in the deep:

Ode to an SPG:

O gallant seer of pressured tank
You guard my life in the salty dank
Your face is true ‘neath crystal glass
Your heart protected by shiny brass
When from my hip to wrist you rose
Did you weep at the loss of your trusty hose?​

 

[mike.chuanshi]

Wrong. You have heard two people use it here, unless you didn't read the rest of the thread before posting.

---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 02:53 PM ----------



Ah, my friend... so glad that your ear is also attuned to the muse! See, we agree on "aqualung", there's common ground, right?

Here, I wrote this for you and all the others who see poetry in the deep:

Ode to an SPG:

O gallant seer of pressured tank
You guard my life in the salty dank
Your face is true ‘neath crystal glass
Your heart protected by shiny brass
When from my hip to wrist you rose
Did you weep at the loss of your trusty hose?​

A troll and a poet in a single post. You've got skills.

Just playing. I actually really like the poem.

 

[tphelps]

Ode to an SPG:

O gallant seer of pressured tank
You guard my life in the salty dank
Your face is true ‘neath crystal glass
Your heart protected by shiny brass
When from my hip to wrist you rose
Did you weep at the loss of your trusty hose?​

Love it!

 

[doctormike]

A troll and a poet in a single post. You've got skills.

Just playing. I actually really like the poem.

Hah! I always wanted to troll, actually... but this was the best that I could do.