Re: "Visibility"

["Lynda Simons" <lynda.simons@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tom:

As you went so far as to say, "Further, I would take to task any other
interpretation and have the errant interpreter provide a cogent argument as
to how any other idea as to its meaning could be, even for one moment,
entertained," as the "errant interpreter", I had better explain. Here's what
I wrote to another person who was "taken aback" by my interpretation. (My,
my, but it's easy to ruffle some people's feathers!)

If you only ever use words literally rather than metaphorically then you
will have no problem with the word "visibility". However, most of us speak
metaphorically most of the time: for example, we say things like, "Perhaps I
should shed some light here. You all seem a little foggy about this
project." This is why "visibility" is ambiguous. It can have two almost
opposite meanings depending on whether you are using the word literally to
mean "able to be seen", or metaphorically in the weather sense, "the
possibility of vision as determined by the conditions of light and
atmosphere" (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). It was certainly being used in
both senses in the environment I was referring to. Sometimes which meaning
was intended was clear from the context and both meanings were used.

signed

Errant interpreter sans shame!

==============================
Lynda Simons
Technical Communications Consultant
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Voice (Algonquin College): (613) 727-4723; ext. 5902
Voice (home office): (613) 526-0899
Fax: (613) 526-2179
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Regner <tom_regner@net.com>
To: Lynda Simons <lynda.simons@sympatico.ca>
Date: April 29, 1999 2:51 PM
Subject: "Visibility"


>Lynda Simons wrote:
>
>> I'm not at all sure about "hitability" and "selectability" because this
is
>> the first time I have seen these words, I think,  but I have given
>> "visibility" thought as it was a popular buzzword at a place where I used
to
>> work.
>
>The word "visibility" is in the dictionary and is clearly defined.
>
>> The problem with "visibility" is that it is ambiguous. Does it mean "able
to
>> see" or "able to be seen"?
>
>1. The fact, state, or degree of being visible.
>2. The greatest distance under given weather conditions to which it is
>    possible to see without instrumental assistance.
>[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]
>
>1. The quality or state of being visible.
>2. a. The degree of clearness of the atmosphere; specifically: the greatest
>    distance toward the horizon that prominent objects can be identified
>    with the naked eye.
>    b. Capability of being readily noticed.
>    c.  Capability of affording an unobstructed view.
>3. A measure of the ability of radiant energy to evoke visual sensation.
>[Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary]
>
>You might also check out the various similar definitions from several
>online sources at:
>http://www.onelook.com/
>
>> I would come out of meetings puzzling over what I
>> had just been told when the message was, "The problem with this project
is
>> lack of visibility." Was the problem that we couldn't see where we were
>> headed or that no-one know the project existed? Often it was both...but
>> that's another story.
>
>I would most definitely take from this that the project has not been
>promoted in a fashion that would make it visible to concerned parties.
>Further, I would take to task any other interpretation and have the
>errant interpreter provide a cogent argument as to how any other
>idea as to its meaning could be, even for one moment, entertained.
>
>> I suspect the same applies to the other two nominalizations.
>
>Untrue.  The other two have no authoritative definitions that could
>be used to settle the argument either way.  They are highly contextual
>in nature, and should therefore be avoided.
>
>> I have no problem with invented words if they make the meaning crystal
>> clear. Shakespeare did it all the time. However, not too many of us have
>> Shakespeare's talent.
>
>Inventing words is a necessary function of technology.  Re-inventing
>words at the expense of our language borders on the criminal, in my
>view.  I offer the word "acronym" as an example.  It has come to be
>used in such a broad sense that there is no longer any word in the
>English language that is synonymous with its original meaning.  This
>is "dumbing down" the language.
>
>MY two cents!
>
>-- Tom
>
>
>


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **