 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2007Reparability/repairability
The spell-checker made me question this. It is, I think, usual to distinguish between "reparable" and "repairable" (the former to do with reparations, the latter with physical repair). But what about "repa(i)rability" (which I need to use in reference to a derelict building in Manchester)? The spell-checker choked on "repairability", and neither Collins or M-W On-line list it as a form. ("Reparability" is sanctioned by all sources.) So what's the assembled view? Is it: reparable > reparability repairable > repairability or should "reparability" be used for both?  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed >The spell-checker made me question this. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >or should "reparability" be used for both? How about "do-uppableness"? (Proper answer: I'd go with "repairability". "Reparability" had me automatically thinking along the lines of "state of qualifying for legal remedy or compensation" rather than what's physically fixable.) SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. On 27 Feb 2007, Archie Valparaiso wrote >> So what's the assembled view? Is it: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > qualifying for legal remedy or compensation" rather than what's > physically fixable.) Thanks; that was my view, too. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed [snip] > So what's the assembled view? Is it: > > reparable > reparability > repairable > repairability > > or should "reparability" be used for both? [snip] OED2's entry for "repairability:" The state or quality of being repairable. 1969 Jane's Freight Containers 1968-69 464/1 The ship lines are worried about repairability, particularly in foreign ports. Not many cites there, but sufficient IMO for recognition of the word. The parallelism you discussed would then work, as a side benefit. Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego On 27 Feb 2007, tinwhistler wrote > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 1969 Jane's Freight Containers 1968-69 464/1 The ship lines are > worried about repairability, particularly in foreign ports. > > Not many cites there, but sufficient IMO for recognition of the > word. The parallelism you discussed would then work, as a side > benefit. Thanks; I didn't check OED -- I was sort of brought up short by the spell-checker's rejection of it. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed >The spell-checker made me question this. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >or should "reparability" be used for both? Perhaps you could use "renovate" instead of "repair". "Renovatable" can be found at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/renovate "Renovatability" might be suitable in writing. In speech it might be more tricky. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> The spell-checker made me question this. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Perhaps you could use "renovate" instead of "repair". Hmmmm...not really. It all involves conservation jargon, where "renovate" implies less intervention than "repair". (Which is turn is a lighter touch than "rehabilitate", which defers to "reconstruct". That sort of stuff.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed >On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> Perhaps you could use "renovate" instead of "repair". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"rehabilitate", which defers to "reconstruct". That sort of >stuff.) Ah, jargon. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Ah, jargon. Doesn't "renovate" also involve (or at least suggest) upgrading, not just repairing or replacing -- by installing double-glazing, central heating, and things like that, Harvey? SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. On 27 Feb 2007, Archie Valparaiso wrote >>> On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not just repairing or replacing -- by installing double-glazing, > central heating, and things like that, Harvey? I don't think so; I'd see it as renovate: decorate, and upgrade fittings and furnishings repair: renovation, but with structural works as necessary rehabiliate: repair, but with works on a larger scale reconstruct: rehab, but also replace what used to be there rebuild: start at ground level to replace what was there redevelop: tabula rasa; start over SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ah, jargon. My use of the word was technical; it wasn't pejorative. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed >On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >My use of the word was technical; it wasn't pejorative. That is what I understood you to mean. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That is what I understood you to mean. Apologies; I missed that. I guess 'jargon' is very nearly a skunked word. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote > > >> On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote [...] > >>>> It all involves conservation jargon, where "renovate" implies > >>>> less intervention than "repair". (Which is turn is a lighter [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Apologies; I missed that. I guess 'jargon' is very nearly a > skunked word. Interesting that skunking it, in that sense, would merely return it to the starting-point. Not only was it originally pejorative (meaning, first, "gibberish" and such-like, and then something not too far from our "gobble-de-gook"), but OED, I find to my surprise, hasn't yet caught up with the value-neutral sense we seem to be recognising here. It has: < 6. Applied contemptuously to any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons, as the language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession.> SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 28 Feb 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >> Apologies; I missed that. I guess 'jargon' is very nearly a >> skunked word. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > surprise, hasn't yet caught up with the value-neutral sense we > seem to be recognising here. Very surprising. Collins -- which orders is entries by current usage rather than chronology -- has the neutral sense as its first definition: "specialised language concerned with a particular subject, culture, or professsion". (It follows that with the sense of "pretentious syntax, vocabulary, or meaning", then "gibberish".) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Feb 2007, Mike Lyle wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Very surprising. Perhaps I should expand that. OED hasn't updated its _jargon_ entry since the '89 second ed. I find it just as surprising that the neutral sense wasn't recognised in 1989, as I'm sure I was using it that way long before that. > Collins -- which orders is entries by current usage rather than > chronology [...] How I hate dictionaries doing that! Rips the guts out of a word. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 28 Feb 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >> On 28 Feb 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >>> Interesting that skunking it, in that sense, would merely >>> return it to the starting-point. Not only was it originally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the neutral sense wasn't recognised in 1989, as I'm sure I was > using it that way long before that. I think I was aware of the neutral meaning by then -- maybe even fo some time. >> Collins -- which orders is entries by current usage rather than >> chronology [...] > > How I hate dictionaries doing that! Rips the guts out of a word. I don't think I'd want *all* dictionaries to be ordered etymologically (as long as I have access to an OED-style "historical principles" one). I sometimes want to know which sense the compilers have found to be the current "most common" one, as that sometimes doesn't agree with what I'd have expected them to find. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed >> On 27 Feb 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or >art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession.> For some reason I have a clear recollection of being congratulated by my English teacher at school when I defined jargon as "overworked technicalities". And this can't have been much less than 50 years ago. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.