Semantics, Syntax, and Understanding

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by redsky49

While this comes from a thread on Solar Charge Controllers, when I finished writing it I thought it might be more apropos in a more general setting.



Oh, come on! Surely you can add more jargon/abbreviations to make this post entirely unintelligible!

Your fingers can't be so tired such that you are unable to provide actual complete words. And that goes for the rest of you, with your high-falutin' idioms, vernacular and argot!

Seriously, in both written and oral communication, if you wish to be understood by your audience, use commonly understood terms - even if that means "dumbing it down".

As a young engineer many years ago, I learned such a lesson, much to my chagrin, when dealing with an automation system in a school in West Virginia. I couldn't understand why there were continuing issues regarding a "Sequence of Operations" (a narrative describing how various equipment would systematically start, run, interact, etc.), when I had so clearly described this on the blue prints.

After several written responses to the school/custodian/principal to no avail, I personally visited the school to address the problem(s). It turned out that the head Custodian in charge of the school (who originally had been hired many years before to shovel coal into a boiler) could not read!

I then spent the afternoon going over the system in a hands-on manner with the gentleman. Though he could barely read, he was smart and quickly picked up the operating details of the various systems. Problem solved.

As a technical writer, I have also tried to tailor my communications to the intended audience. You write in a different manner when addressing a church building committee, than you do for the Morbidity and Mortality Committee at say, NIH. Occasionally you have to put the hubris aside. I can hurl jargon with the best of them, but if it requires a simplified version, so be it! Know your audience.

And another favorite bit of advice for communicators:
"Eschew excess verbiage"
Mark Twain

What is this "high-falutin' idioms, vernacular and argot!" ?? You yourself flagrantly violate Mark Twain's advice"!

I have better advice than Mark Twain because we now have the internet: if you don't know what something means, just *"look it up"*.

[sdj]

Originally Posted by redsky49

Your fingers can't be so tired such that you are unable to provide actual complete words. And that goes for the rest of you, with your high-falutin' idioms, vernacular and argot!

Engineers dont care to be understood by non-engineers because we don't care to enter your world. If we did, we'd ask, but we aint, so we don't.

If you care to enter OUR world you are most welcome, but these are the rules ;

1.) You google it FIRST and spend at least 4 hours reading before asking verrrry cleverly worded and insightful questions.

2.) We're not even interested in OUR feelings so we sure as hell aint interested in yours. Any large display of annoyance will put you on our ignore list immediately.

3.) We don't think about what you say, so don't bother. We're fully preoccupied solving the next crisis - probably for your benefit, so phone a friend.

4.) Your brain will fry at our level, so live with it or stay away.

5.) Say thank you.

[surf_km55]

Originally Posted by sdj

Engineers dont care to be understood by non-engineers .....

5.) Say thank you.

Thank you for the Hindenburg, the Quebec Bridge, the Titanic, Chernobyl, the Charles DeGaulle Airport, the St Francis Dam, theTacoma Narrows Bridge.....


ROTFLMAO

[sdj]

Originally Posted by surf_km55

Thank you for the Hindenburg, the Quebec Bridge, the Titanic, Chernobyl, the Charles DeGaulle Airport, the St Francis Dam, theTacoma Narrows Bridge.....


ROTFLMAO

Thats right, because you didn't make anything like that.
"LMAO" is what you do well, so looking down on us with your best tools on display is a little lightweight.

[surf_km55]

Thats right, because you didn't make anything like that.
"LMAO" is what you do well, so looking down on us with your best tools on display is a little lightweight.

Sorry, but my post was funnier than all get out, no matter who you are.

You are, however, correct...I've never engineered anything famous; but I did help engineer & deploy the single largest migration of mainframe users to PCs in the world [at the time], circa 1997-2001. 58,000 PCS and 18,000 servers for SSA. And when someone asked me a question, I answered politely, without so much as a toothpick up my a$$. Best of all, nobody died.

Retiring @ 54 was an added bonus. Thanks for playing.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by surf_km55

Thank you for the Hindenburg, the Quebec Bridge, the Titanic, Chernobyl, the Charles DeGaulle Airport, the St Francis Dam, theTacoma Narrows Bridge.....


ROTFLMAO

Let's just consider the most appropriate sailing example here - the Titanic - and consider the purpose of the thread title - Understanding!

The sinking of the Titanic had absolutely nothing to do with the engineering or the design engineers.

It had everything to do with the foibles of arrogant ship owners.

It departed on its maiden voyage with a major fire in one of the coal bunkers that remain alight right up to the sinking. Among other things the intense heat of the fire significantly weakened one of the structural bulkheads.

The owners considered the highly published departure date was more important than extinguishing the fire before sailing let alone taking the time to repair any fire damage.

It is also been determined that at the time of entering the reported iceberg area, the vessel was significantly low of accessible coal from the other bunkers. The captain had to choose between slowing down (safe option) and certainly exhausting the coal supply before making landfall or push on at full speed and take his chances with the ice. In other words take the enduring embarrassment (and delay) of running out of fuel on the maiden voyage or hoping he could make it at full speed through night of low visibility with ice around. He already knew what the owners expected from him.



Engineers delve into the details and discover the facts!

[surf_km55]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Let's just consider the most appropriate sailing example here - the Titanic - and consider the purpose of the thread title - Understanding!

The sinking of the Titanic had absolutely nothing to do with the engineering or the design engineers.....

The Titanic wasn't an engineering disaster because it sank. The Titanic was an engineering disaster because it had lifeboats for a mere 1/3 of its total human capacity. This was by design. Don't blame the bean counters...at the end of the day, the final plans are stamped by certified engineers, not the bean counters.

BTT:
ICYMI, I was joking.
And FWIW, TBH IDC...at all.
NNTR.

See:
https://www.smart-words.org/abbreviations/text.html
https://medium.com/digital-vault/do-...e-da45c367b8e3

[StuM]

Originally Posted by surf_km55

The Titanic wasn't an engineering disaster because it sank. The Titanic was an engineering disaster because it had lifeboats for a mere 1/3 of its total human capacity. This was by design. Don't blame the bean counters...at the end of the day, the final plans are stamped by certified engineers, not the bean counters.

Engineers don't have free rein in a commercial/industrial environment, they are very much forced to design within the parameters set by the bean counters.