I have given up the fight against the word “learnings”.
Err… sorry. It seems I haven’t given up the fight yet, after all.
Now, while my defences are still weak, I am being assaulted by the next word in the series: “adder” – as in, something that has been added.
Let me try to help people out.
“Adder” is an unusual word that has two definitions – (1) something or someone that adds; (2) a type of viper.
“Addition” is a common word that has two definitions – (2) the act of adding; (2) the quantity that was added.
It ain’t hard to pick the right one.
I don’t mind the English language evolving; I just wish we could focus our attention on adding words to describe new concepts, not addering wordings because we disremember our Grade 2 Englishical learnings.
Comment by Alastair on December 9, 2005
All of these bugs will be fixed in English 2.0
And anyway, “Learnings” was a word used by Shakespeare. How much more authoritainairical do you want?
Comment by Julian on December 9, 2005
Was it Terry Pratchett who first explained that Shakespeare was a writer back before they had invented spelling?
I discussed the word “adder” with a friend, and he explained it was probably a derivation from the equally frustrating term “value-add”.
He also objected to the idea that English words had “definitions” rather than “meanings”. Fair enough – I wouldn’t want to be outed as a prescriptivist.
Jeffrey McManus wrote a similar article, ‘Learnings’ Is A Stupid, Stupid Word, and I leave the last word to one of his commenters:
Comment by Sunny Kalsi on December 10, 2005
I don’t understand when “adder” is being used incorrectly.
Comment by Julian on December 12, 2005
Sunny,
First, I was going to give an example like this:
“Web 2.0 has a number of important adders to Web 1.0, based on our learnings.”
Then I decided to search the web for a real example. I didn’t find what I expected.
What I found was a definition from an unofficial IBM jargon guide:
1980? I guess I am a bit behind the time here. I’ve not heard it before the last few weeks, when I have heard it several times.
Comment by Sunny Kalsi on December 15, 2005
Oh. I guess that is wrong. Coders use “adders” all the time, but we’re using them in the nounical sense 😉
Comment by Julian on December 15, 2005
Sunny, if you are referring to a piece of electronics that is capable of performing the addition operation, this comes under the “something or someone that adds” definition.