Re: Bizarre verbs

Subject: Re: Bizarre verbs
From: "Ridder, Fred" <ridderf -at- DIALOGIC -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:53:28 -0400

Arlen P. Walker wrote on August, 30:

>Can anyone offer a logical reason why this atrocity <"architecting">
>has been created?
>Architects have been in business for centuries, and never felt that
>"designing" was insufficient for their needs. Why do non-architects feel
>the need to perpetrate something so hideous?

If the only meaning of the word "architecture" were the art and science
of building structures--as practiced by architects--I would agree that
"architecting" is an unnecessary and ugly coinage. But since it is
common and valid usage to refer to "the architecture" of something
(e.g. a computer system or network), I think the coinage is both
inevitable and useful. If an architect devises a design for a building
and calls that process "designing", why isn't it valid for an engineer
who devises or defines an architecture for a technical system to refer
to that process as "architecting"?

Fred Ridder ridderf -at- dialogic -dot- com
Dialogic Architecture Labs Technical Publications Group
Dialogic Corporation
Parsippany, NJ

**Everybody has an opinion, and this one is mine alone**

TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-

Previous by Author: Reorganization Questions
Next by Author: Re: READING AN .EPS FILE
Previous by Thread: Re: Bizarre verbs
Next by Thread: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads