Re: Re[2]: Bizarre verbs

[Len Olszewski <saslpo -at- UNX -dot- SAS -dot- COM>]

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
an
|>      architecture for a technical system to refer to that process as
|>      "architecting"?
|>      <<
|>
|>      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.)

        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.
--
Len O.                    EXISTENTIAL SODA:
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-