Re: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs
From: Len Olszewski <saslpo -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:12:43 GMT

In article <9608048418 -dot- AA841859377 -at- sctepsc2 -dot- sct -dot- co -dot- uk>, Iain Harrison
<iharrison -at- sct -dot- co -dot- uk> writes:
|> 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
|> architecture for a technical system to refer to that process as
|> "architecting"?
|> <<
|> I don't want to get into the rather pointless discussion about
|> but want to focus on what exactly we are naming: The task or the
|> 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,
|> is 'building'. (And yes, most of the architects I know are female.)

Then what is someone *really* doing when he or she is
"populating" a database? Hmm?

I'm sorry, that was self-indulgent. I'll go now.
saslpo -at- unx -dot- sas -dot- com Have young, drink fun, be Pepsi.

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: career advice...
Next by Author: Re: Respect or no/Manuals by the inch
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs
Next by Thread: Improving your editing

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads