Horological Meandering

pplater
5432

• Show profile
• Show other posts

A second mouthful of the elephant...

The second mouthful:

"Have we to be so considerate of everyone, in every stripe and color, that even among "enthusiasts" (which we are, as a group, if ever there was one) we still have to tip toe around and avoid terms like "tourbillon" and "beat stability" or have to define what a Guillaume balance is, or heat bluing, every time we use the term or refer to the specific, lest some newbie not follow or understand?"

No. There is no need to tiptoe around the terms to which you refer. These terms are not examples of  'lingo', 'jargon' , 'slang' or shorthand'. These are horological or watchmaking 'standards': what we would be entitled to describe as 'terms of art', as that phrase is generally used. A person coming to this table might reasonably be expected to know many of the terms of art, so it is not impolite to use them. As an aside, though, it may be polite to describe or define them if it is thought that it may assist in a broader understanding or if the term, although a term of art, is infrequently used or commonly misunderstood - the propositions are not mutually exclusive.

This particular mouthful is pre-masticated: when last we scratched our heads on point, it was vis-a-vis terms which were are obviously 'jargon' or 'shorthand', and we threatened to return to it (as we now do). We were talking, for example, about acronyms - "IMVHO", "LOL"; neologisms, shorthand and the like. As written then:

"If it is a ‘closed shop’ of a particular species (be it a species of professionals, a species of hobbyists, a species of scholars…), then probably, however large the audience, ‘no harm, no foul’. It is convenient and uncontroversial for one doctor in a hospital to tell another doctor to send the MI patient to ICU for full bloods and an ECG. It is convenient and inoffensive on PPro to advertise your Pt JLC MMR in the CM FSOT as LNIB. It is convenient (and almost obligatory) for Stephen Hawking to write a treatise on quantum physics in an arcane language that no mere mortal can hope to comprehend, for consumption by a few salivating and doubtless envious Nobel laureates each of whom wish they had thought of it first.

This, as you say, TM, is shorthand for specialists; signals to other specialists and insiders which, you imagine, can be (mis) understood [implicitly; by ‘outsiders’] as exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, and rude. Why mis understood? If part of the intended audience is not within the magic circle of insiders, then can it not fairly be said that the use of that shorthand is indeed one or more of: exclusionary, elitist, snobbish, show-offy, or rude? Is it not tantamount to speaking to some guests at the dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests?"

On that occasion you commented thus (in response to Park):

"Yet the ultimate yardstick, for me, is whether or not common understanding and intended communication is achieved".

Respectfully, that is a worthy yardstick. You have now returned to that question in this thread:

"On another track, I understand the concept of using a language at a dinner table that everyone at the table can understand, and avoiding one that even one person doesn't. This is basic courtesy ." [Emphasis added!].

In the context of the current topic (but please feel free to demur) this seems tantamount to agreeing that the use of watch-related 'terms of art' [intended communication concerning common understanding] is not discourteous on a specialist watch-related forum such as this whilst the use of acronyms, jargon, neologisms etc might (not must ) be lacking the basic courtesy to which you refer: poor etiquette; bad form.  

Equally respectfully, what you then go on to write (whilst stimulating in its own right) seems to strike off in a different direction, somewhat:

"The funny thing is? It's more a problem for Westerners who don't speak Japanese or Chinese, than for Chinese or Koreans or Persians who have a hard time speaking English. That is, the one's who complain the most and loudest are the one's who make no effort to learn or appreciate other languages than their own.

Americans traveling to China -duh! They speak Chinese in China, get over it.  I wonder how accomodating those same Americans are to the visiting Chinese who don't speak a word of English...

I'm in Geneva 8-15 times a year; I appreciate the effort of those I am with to speak English with me. I look at it as a courtesy , not a right, and I am not offended in the least if they, on occasion, resort to French or German in order to communicate among themselves more completely and deeply. The onus is on me to learn French and German..." [Emphasis added].

As for the nature of the courtesy, we are agreed. As for the balance? Maybe so; maybe so. Whether or not one group complains more than another, whether or not one group is more gracious or polylingual than another, the basic tenet remains unaltered: it is, generally speaking, impolite to converse with some guests at a dinner table in a language other than the language shared by all guests.

To extend the metaphor, at this PPro table there is a common language (the language of watches, expressed in English on this forum, inclusive of watch-related terms of art) and there is a language which may not be common (the acronyms, jargon and neologisms which are perhaps not watch-related, not terms of art and perhaps for that matter not English). Do we not owe the guests at this table the 'basic courtesy' of conversing in the former, but not the latter?

As you might say: "Scratch, scratch, scratch"....

Cheers,

pplater.