ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: PA-a misnomer?  (Read 5283 times)

Ian Hunt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2008, 11:47:15 pm »

Thank God for that  Smile
Logged
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Scott Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2008, 10:43:50 am »

Scott Van Den Elzen wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 23:25

Words mean whatever the people who say them and the people who hear them think they mean...


This is a pretty dumb topic.  Words meanings change with time.  "Gay" in the 40's is not the same as "gay" it today.  Many in today's culture equate "sound system" with car audio or home theatre...so be it.  Call it whatever works for you.  "PA system", "sound reinforcement system", "FOH", "stacks and racks", ...whatever.  Public Address seems appropriate enough, even if you address the public with music...   Rolling Eyes
Logged
"Percussive Maintenance" - Bang on it until it works!
Scott Smith, South Florida - MIXING OLD SCHOOL WITH NEW

Jake Scudder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1395
    • http://www.jakescudder.com
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2008, 01:44:48 pm »

Just be careful not to take it too far . . . .

index.php/fa/13549/0/

From http://www.xkcd.com
Logged
Website: http://www.jakescudder.com

480.262.7742

Bennett Prescott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8924
    • http://www.adraudio.com
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2008, 02:04:16 pm »

Good one, Jake. One of my favorites.
Logged
-- Bennett Prescott
Director of North American Sales
ADRaudio d.o.o.
Cell: (518) 488-7190

"Give me 6dB and I shall move the world." -Archimedes

_______

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2008, 02:14:35 pm »

Quote:

Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 23:14

Who on earth did you marry?

Ian, I believe he is talking about a dog.


I got the impression Mr. Donohue was talking about a baby girl.  I don't know too many folks that feed their canines pureed apples and sweet potatoes.  Those types of foods tend to irritate a dog's PA (poop activator).

Peace out,
Matt
Logged

Vince Byrne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2008, 03:02:24 pm »

Matthew Whitman wrote on Thu, 10 January 2008 13:14

Quote:

Ian Hunt wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 23:14

Who on earth did you marry?

Ian, I believe he is talking about a dog.


I got the impression Mr. Donohue was talking about a baby girl.  I don't know too many folks that feed their canines pureed apples and sweet potatoes.  Those types of foods tend to irritate a dog's PA (poop activator).

Peace out,
Matt


Dog's PA = Poop Actuator. Illiterate.  Cool
Logged

Walter Wright

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2008, 03:31:38 pm »

the only time i ever hear a p.a. called a "sound system" is by someone who doesn't know the difference between home stereo stuff and live sound stuff.

ironically, when i hear the term "public address" spelled out is when i think of paging speakers and horns mounted on poles.
Logged
Professional Guitar Repair Tech,
Semi-professional Sound Guy

Patrick Tracy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2344
    • Boulder Sound Guy
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2008, 04:38:58 pm »

Scott Van Den Elzen wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 21:06

Matthew Whitman wrote on Wed, 09 January 2008 10:44

Quote:

Words mean whatever the people who say them and the people who hear them think they mean. Your "distinguished instructor" doesn't get to decide what "PA" or "SR" or "Sound System" mean to everyone who says these things or hears these things.



This reply makes absolutely no sense.  Perhaps you might change your mind when your doctor asks for a tongue depressor and the nurse hands him an anal probe.
 "Oh, sorry doctor, but to me tongue depressor means anal probe."
 "No problem, I actually needed a stethoscope, but I refer to it as a tongue depressor."

That's called reductio ad absurdum, by the way.  I learned it from my high school debate teacher.  Would you like to discredit her, too, while you're at it?

-Matt

One of the reasons communication is a lot of work is that the same words mean different things to different people.  We all have different context that causes us to interpret language differently.

My point is that sticking to a rigid definition for a term like "PA" is likely to make things more difficult for yourself.  Meanwhile, those who don't take such things too seriously can live in blissful ignorance.

When describing your "PA/Sound System," is it better to be "right" or understood?  If it's up to me, I choose to be understood.

Yes, language is constantly evolving new meanings for old words, but without some degree of stability the effectiveness of communication suffers. If language changes too fast then you have a situation in which people only a few years apart can't understand each other. There has to be some resistance to definition drift. In recent decades drift has accelerated to the point that I can barely understand someone a decade younger. Written language has suffered horribly as a result of computers and the internet. I'm not saying those are bad things, I can hardly live without them, but they have had some bad results. It's been over twelve hundred years that things like capitals, punctuation and spaces between words have been serving us well and I don't see any advantage to throwing that all away.

Language is based on rules. This allows a speaker to have a reasonable expectation that his listener will consistently interpret the message. If the rules are not at least somewhat rigid then they are not rules and communication will suffer. There's a big difference between periodically revising the rules to reflect dominant modes of usage and simply making them up ad hoc.

The United States comprises fifty states, it is not comprised of them. A bus is a shared mode of transportation or a shared electrical connection. Buss is a company that makes fuses. You're is the contraction for you are and your is the possessive of you but ur is not a word unless it's capitalized in which case it's the name of an ancient city. Alot is not a word. Allot means to distribute in an organized fashion. A lot is some bulk quantity of things. Setup is not a verb, it's a noun or adjective. Everyday is an adjective meaning common or casual, not to be confused with the phrase "every day". Think of the song lyrics, "I am everyday people" and "Every day I write the book."

In my opinion it the people who initiate and propagate needless changes in language who are to blame for miscommunication, not those who insist on following the rules.

Walter Wright

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2008, 05:55:20 pm »

stfu n00b lol

language is sort of like genetics. populations naturally drift over time to new variations, and eventually populations isolated from each other can no longer interbreed (or understand each other, to follow the metaphor).

written language tends to help "hold the line", but it's always a tug-of-war between what's "correct" and what's actually used. for example, my understanding is that in the term "short-lived" the "i" in "lived" is correctly pronounced like "drive". but if i were to say "short-lived" like that in conversation, the person i was talking to would likely say, "what?", halting the conversation. i would therefore be "wrong" in what i was saying.

dictionaries are properly "descriptive", not "prescriptive". they follow the language, not enforce it.

(i still try my damnedest to write grammatically, even if i do allow myself the internet convention of not using caps.)
Logged
Professional Guitar Repair Tech,
Semi-professional Sound Guy

Patrick Tracy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2344
    • Boulder Sound Guy
Re: PA-a misnomer?
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2008, 07:52:57 pm »

Walter Wright wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 15:55

stfu n00b lol

language is sort of like genetics. populations naturally drift over time to new variations, and eventually populations isolated from each other can no longer interbreed (or understand each other, to follow the metaphor).

But if genetic drift happened too fast even individuals of roughly the same generation would be unable to interbreed. It doesn't bother me that I can't speak with someone on the opposite side of the planet or from a millennium ago, it bothers me that I can't speak with people here and now.

Walter Wright wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 15:55

written language tends to help "hold the line", but it's always a tug-of-war between what's "correct" and what's actually used. for example, my understanding is that in the term "short-lived" the "i" in "lived" is correctly pronounced like "drive". but if i were to say "short-lived" like that in conversation, the person i was talking to would likely say, "what?", halting the conversation. i would therefore be "wrong" in what i was saying.

Conversational language is naturally less rigid and more about getting it done. But even then such a mispronunciation might be best viewed as a temporary variance after which one reverts to the correct use. Linguistic conservatism is retained because of its utility. If it were not useful it would have been discarded like tails on humans.

Walter Wright wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 15:55

dictionaries are properly "descriptive", not "prescriptive". they follow the language, not enforce it.

Then why do words have definitions rather than descriptions? Definitions are, by definition, definitive. They are intended not only to be inclusive but also exclusive, implying that anything not included in the definition is excluded. Why do we need dictionaries at all if whatever is current in spoken language determines correctness? Dictionaries do in fact enforce, or at least reinforce, the rules of language derived from how it is spoken at a given time in a given place. I'm not advocating total rigidity, I'm saying that the rate of change in language has become high enough to threaten reliable communication.

Walter Wright wrote on Sun, 13 January 2008 15:55

(i still try my damnedest to write grammatically, even if i do allow myself the internet convention of not using caps.)

I think the internet convention regarding capitals is all or nothing.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 20 queries.