Re[2]: Bizarre verbs

Subject: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs
From: Iain Harrison <iharrison -at- SCT -dot- CO -dot- UK>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:40:28 GMT

Fred Rudder says:

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

I don't want to get into the rather pointless discussion about semantics,
but want to focus on what exactly we are naming: The task or the product.

If an architect designs a building and calls it designing, why isn't is
valid for an engineer why designs a system to call it designing?

If we start to define the function by the product, the architect isn't
designing, she is 'walling', 'roofing', or to take a more generic view, she
is 'building'. (And yes, most of the architects I know are female.)

The engineer in your example is devising or defining, not architecting.

A comment to the whole of this subject: Here in the UK, the architect
doesn't just draw the plans. The architect is generally also responsible
for overseeing the building works, as far as I know.


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: Re[2]: Project X-long relpy, and more questions
Next by Author: Re[3]: Project X-long relpy, and more questions
Previous by Thread: Re: Bizarre verbs
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs

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

Sponsored Ads