Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Arent there better words? > I have addressed this question here before, from the point of view of linguistics. It does not matter what you call something. People will know what you mean. See Wittgenstein's discussion of meaning: "Don’t ask for the meaning, ask for the use." This is the basis for Google's translation tools, which work better than most linguists predicted was possible. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/10/google_translate_will_google_s_computers_understand_languages_be.html Terminology is often inaccurate and usually a generation behind. We often pick a word for something new that describes the older object better than the new one. Because there isn't a word for the new thing. For example: A collection of files in a computer is called a folder, even though it does not fold. It is represented by a manila folder icon, even though many people have never seen an actual folder. My daughter visited my office years ago, saw a folder, and said, "ah, so *that's* what the thing on the screen is." Ae call a semiconductor replacement for a hard disk a "solid state disk" even though: It isn't disk shaped. A hard disk is in the solid state too. In fission reactors, they talk about "burning" the fuel, even though combustion does not occur. That does not matter. No one is confused by the term, any more than they are by the expression "burn rate" to describe the use of start-up funds in venture capital. No one thinks the people starting a company are actually igniting piles of cash money . . . although I suppose they might have at the height of the dot-com boom. In scientific disciplines, terminology is more likely to be adjusted to reflect underlying physical reality than in other disciplines. But it often starts out wrong, or drifts into being wrong as new discoveries are made or technology changes, yet it remains in use. - Jed
