[Discuss] Programming vs Engineering

[jc at trillian.mit.edu (jc at trillian.mit.edu)]

Richard Pieri wrote:
| On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:18 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
| > Says who?  People who are PEs?  Look up the word engineer on dict.org.
| > None of the definitions say *anything* about licensure.
|
| Says the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
| http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/licensee/dpl-boards/en/

Well, I suspect that most dictionary makers would say that  Massachusetts  is
defining "professional engineer", not "engineer" (or "professional" ;-).

An ongoing semi-problem that dictionary makers have always had is that people
routinely  try to use them as authorities for what a word *should* mean.  The
actual function of a dictionary isn't to decide what words mean,  but  rather
to  tell the reader how a word *may* be used.  So they routinely include most
of the "wrong" uses of words, sometimes marking them as variant or  slang  or
dialectal or obsolete or whatever.  This is to provide a service for a person
who may not speak the language too well, or  has  run  across  a  word  in  a
context where it doesn't make sense. So you pull out your dictionary, look it
up, and expect to find an entry that in effect says "X can mean  ...,  or  it
can  mean ..., or sometimes it even means ...".  Purists might object to some
of the uses, but dictionary makers aren't trying to provide reinforcement for
the  purists'  views.   They're trying to tell their readers how words may be
used, so that users can make sense of a usage that they've run across.

Larger dictionaries often give definitions for phrases.  I  wonder  how  many
unabridged  dictionaries  define  the  phrase  "professional engineer".  That
definition should include "licensed" (perhaps preceded by "usually" ;-).


--
Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day.
Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime.
   _'
   O
 <:#/>  John Chambers
   +   <jc at trillian.mit.edu>
  /#\  <jc1742 at gmail.com>
  | |