[CAUT] Semantics

[David Ilvedson]

I think we all understand, Jeff...please back away from the keyboard and keep your hands where we can see them...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Tanner" <tannertuner at bellsouth.net>
To: caut at ptg.org
Received: 5/9/2009 12:16:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics


>No. You completely misunderstand.  "I and the rest of the world" have been taught 
>from early school years that the word "amplify" means "to make larger or more 
>powerful".  Applied to volume of noise, the definition becomes "to make the volume 
>of noise larger or more powerful". 

>The fact that we are bickering over this difference in semantics - and that is what it 
>is - has to do with the reality that there is a very small portion of the population that 
>uses the word differently, and rejects what we have all been taught to accept as 
>the definition of the word from early grade school.  The non-physicists of the world 
>have not been taught that, in physics in order to "amplify", energy must be 
>increased.  We all just know it gets louder.  Indeed, I have not been the only 
>technician to misuse the word in this discussion.  Obviously, we all learned the same 
>thing to begin with, and we've had someone even post to that effect.  Those of you 
>who studied physics obviously had to unlearn it and apply the word differently as it 
>pertains to your context.

>Jeff


>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com 
>  To: caut at ptg.org 
>  Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 6:12 PM
>  Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics


>  Your apology is marred by the continuing glib and facile ad hominem of "I and rest 
>of the world..." implying, I take it, that the rest of us are insane, stupid, 
>misinformed, or just pedantic sticklers for high-end communication. Just because 
>we're technicians doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't be encouraged to correctly 
>draw our language for technical phenomena from the scientific world, and attempt to 
>understand the language. If you wish to redefine for your purposes only accepted 
>technical verbiage, then the result will be as it is: we are talking different languages. 
>Your choice.

>  P 

>  In a message dated 5/8/2009 3:16:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
>tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes:
>    I apologize for using the word "amplify" incorrectly, as those of you 
>    understand it.  Here's how I and the rest of the world previously understood 
>    the meaning of "amplify":

>    Amplify: 1. To make larger or more powerful; increase. 2. To add to, as by 
>    illustration and make complete. 3. Exaggerate. 4. Electronics. to produce 
>    amplification of.  verb: to write or discourse at length; expatiate.

>    Source: American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition.

>    So, who has the correct definition? Physicists or the rest of the world?

>    Is it soccer or football?

>    Semantics.
>    Jeff Tanner
>    (I have never in 42 years and seriously doubt I will ever use the word 
>    "transduce".  Nobody else will know what it means.)

>    ----- Original Message ----- 
>    From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net>
>    To: <caut at ptg.org>
>    Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 7:47 AM
>    Subject: Re: [CAUT] Accujust and grunting fish bait


>    > David Love wrote:
>    >> Sorry to disagree but I think in this case it is a semantic issue and the 
>    >> original question has been lost on this tangent.
>    >
>    > I disagree. It's not a semantic issue. The terms are clearly defined, 
>    > regardless of colloquial usage. It's the continued use and tolerance of 
>    > fuzzy ill defined concepts that make these discussions nearly useless, and 
>    > doomed to repeat endlessly.
>    >
>    > Ron N
>    >
>    > 






>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.