Language, please!

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

No, of course not. Just trying to understand Like I said, architecture as a noun to describe the structure of a computer or software makes sense. Architect as a noun to describe someone who designs that structure also makes sense. It's the verb architected (presumably present tense architecting) that I find so out of kilter. Normally when a noun becomes a verb, the verb means something along the lines of 'to become [noun]' - but here it just seems to misunderstand architect as a verb in the first place. I'm also curious why the word designed was not felt to be adequate.

Labels for things/concepts don't have to follow watertight logic, and if enough people pick up a usage (however faulty others might find it), and if it replicates out there in the wild, it's no use arguing against a usage for its lack of logic.

But in this case, I can actually see the logic of having the same stem of both the noun and the verb for this specific sense, not least as the noun in itself is an anomoly.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

No, of course not. My main objection is that it is just ugly to read and to say. But beyond that I'm trying to understand. Like I said, architecture as a noun to describe the structure of a computer or software makes sense. Architect as a noun to describe someone who designs that structure also makes sense. It's the verb architected (presumably present tense architecting) that I find so out of kilter. Normally when a noun becomes a verb, the verb means something along the lines of 'to become [noun]' - but here it just seems to misunderstand architect as a verb in the first place. I'm also curious why the word designed was not felt to be adequate.

You just need to tolerate it in the way that people to do when architects talk about space.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

My main objection is that it is just ugly to read and to say.

Is 'protected' ugly to read and say too?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

No, of course not. My main objection is that it is just ugly to read and to say. But beyond that I'm trying to understand. Like I said, architecture as a noun to describe the structure of a computer or software makes sense. Architect as a noun to describe someone who designs that structure also makes sense. It's the verb architected (presumably present tense architecting) that I find so out of kilter. Normally when a noun becomes a verb, the verb means something along the lines of 'to become [noun]' - but here it just seems to misunderstand architect as a verb in the first place. I'm also curious why the word designed was not felt to be adequate.

You just need to tolerate it in the way that people to do when architects talk about space.

I have a low tolerance for it at work as well. The more theoretical side of the profession loves a neologism.

This might amuse.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/top-10-neologisms

Also on the space theme, in the Sci-Fi series The Expanse, 'Spaced' means chucked out of an airlock without a spacesuit.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

My main objection is that it is just ugly to read and to say.

Is 'protected' ugly to read and say too?

No. It's the C-tC-Td combination. Completely subjective of course.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

My main objection is that it is just ugly to read and to say.

Is 'protected' ugly to read and say too?

No. It's the C-tC-Td combination. Completely subjective of course.

Concocted then?

Yes, sorry, I can't cure you of your taste, however much logic and persuasive argument I marshal.

briantrumpet

Two more words I used amongst a group of klever kidz that only one of them recognised, and she only knew one of them: inexorable and implacable.

Munsford0

never ending and remaining calm?

briantrumpet

Munsford0 said:

never ending and remaining calm?

Rather 'relentless' and 'not able to be placated' - must admit the latter I thought was closer to your definition till I looked it up in the OED.

briantrumpet

briantrumpet said:

Munsford0 said:

never ending and remaining calm?

Rather 'relentless' and 'not able to be placated' - must admit the latter I thought was closer to your definition till I looked it up in the OED.

Hmm, that's interesting, Cambridge gives it as "used to describe (someone who has) strong opinions or feelings that are impossible to change", not specifying anger.

rjsterry

This intrigued me.

https://twitter.com/yvanspijk/status/1596837444527456257?t=cxO856rXvY3N7sn8S5hpXw&s=19

rjsterry

Which led to this madness, which I don't entirely understand.

https://neutsch.org/Starke_Verben/A

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Which led to this madness, which I don't entirely understand.

https://neutsch.org/Starke_Verben/A

It's all Dutch to me.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

This intrigued me.

https://twitter.com/yvanspijk/status/1596837444527456257?t=cxO856rXvY3N7sn8S5hpXw&s=19

Even though I read quite a bit about language and linguistics, I'm still not sure I get 'strong' and 'weak' verbs. I know that there's the pair of 'gave/given' (strong) and 'gifted' (weak), but beyond that. erm...

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

This intrigued me.

https://twitter.com/yvanspijk/status/1596837444527456257?t=cxO856rXvY3N7sn8S5hpXw&s=19

Even though I read quite a bit about language and linguistics, I'm still not sure I get 'strong' and 'weak' verbs. I know that there's the pair of 'gave/given' (strong) and 'gifted' (weak), but beyond that. erm...

Weak (regular) verbs follow the regular pattern of ending changes for past tense and past participle.

Climb, climbed, climbed.

Strong (irregular) verbs don't follow the pattern and tend to change the leading vowel on the past tense.

Ride, rode, ridden

Climb used to be strong and there's a Tennyson poem that uses "up-clomb pines" according to that thread.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

This intrigued me.

https://twitter.com/yvanspijk/status/1596837444527456257?t=cxO856rXvY3N7sn8S5hpXw&s=19

Even though I read quite a bit about language and linguistics, I'm still not sure I get 'strong' and 'weak' verbs. I know that there's the pair of 'gave/given' (strong) and 'gifted' (weak), but beyond that. erm...

Weak (regular) verbs follow the regular pattern of ending changes for past tense and past participle.

Climb, climbed, climbed.

Strong (irregular) verbs don't follow the pattern and tend to change the leading vowel on the past tense.

Ride, rode, ridden

Climb used to be strong and there's a Tennyson poem that uses "up-clomb pines" according to that thread.

Oh, thought there was more about the sense of the verb itself, not just the formation of the tenses. If you don't know it, Pinker's book on irregular tenses and plurals is a good read, even if you don't buy into his Chomskian leanings.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

I still have no idea what well-architected tool means. Does it mean well designed or well made?

As an aside, the predictive text on my new phone has now learnt architected. Previously it identified it as misspelled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_architecture

Architecture to describe the structure of a computer/software is fine and has a lot of parallels with the built version. But that page doesn't even contain the word architected.

It's also a terrible name for a product. Is it the tool that is well made or is it a tool to assess whether something is well-architected. Whatever that is.

It's the latter, it assesses your application's architecture against best practices.

AWS is full of terrible names for things.

pangolin

But they have architected themselves a very successful business.

me-109

Unlike Mr Musk who appear to be architecting his own downfall.

rjsterry

One song to the tune of another.

https://twitter.com/JoeNaConnacht/status/1688631819925626881?t=yR9I-gG_kdz4k2B9BYBkYA&s=19