Large Scale Central

Amazing brick train sculpture

General Discussion
#21

Fred Mills said:

Sorry for stealing into your thread, Ray…it just hit on a sore point for me, about people using the name TRAIN, in the wrong way, leading to misinforming the great unwashed…

I should really have started a new subject line…I’ll try to be good, from now on.

BTW those were nice pictures; thanks everyone for posting them

Fred Mills

No problemo, Fred. I think most of us just use “train” as shorthand for anything railroad-related, especially when trying to fit it into the limited space of a topic heading.

#22

While I agree with you Fred, I am not sure what exactly set you off. Ray’s thread is clearly of a train. There is a locomotive and a caboose and the caboose has markers. So it is depicting both the front and rear of a train.

As for the brick locomotive, since it is a sculpture and is subject to artistic license, it is likely also of a train. It shows a locomotive under full steam and heading at high speed. Therefore it is artistically understood that the the sculpture is depicting the front portion of a train and not simply a stand alone locomotive. The train is inferred to be the rest of the un-sculpted bank.

Also there is in our language, and I would assume in all languages a formal and informal usage. A train is exactly as you describe in its formal usage. However there is a informal usage of the word. Like it or not, in language, words are defined not by only by a dictionary, but also by the communicating parties understanding of the term. Case in point, the word pop. Nowhere in the dictionaries I reviewed is the word defined as a carbonated beverage. However if your living in the west a very real definition of the word is such a beverage. Is the word being used incorrectly or has the dictionary not caught up with the new evolution of the word.

I don’t mean to be argumentative. . .OK yes I do. I do respect your command of the language and in 99% of the cases, including the use of train, I agree with you. However I also believe that slang and informal word usage is as distinctively real as is the formal usage of the language. Language is meant for effective communication between parties, and if both parties are in agreement and understanding on word usage then language is doing its intended job. At least in my opinion it is fluid and not a strict science like math. It is artistic, poetic, and dynamic.

#23

Devon yes and no. I agree that slang and colloquialisms are part of our language, but constant improper use of terms tends to confuse the issue, especially with someone not familiar with the subject. Case in point, too many people use scale and gauge interchangeably, when the words are clearly defining different attributes of the model. And, I am like Fred, when it comes to people defining an open circuit (a loose connection) as a “short”. They are polar opposites and I have frustrated myself many times trying to explain that to folks. So while I may not have a sore nerve when it comes to the misuse of the word “train”, I do have have similar sore spots when it comes to misusing other words. So Devon, I have to stand with Fred on this one, even though its not one of my pet peeves, it is a peeve that is related to ones that I do have as pets.

#24

OK,

I can agree that terms must be defined between the parties communicating on a particular subject. And in that case if we are talking on an agreed subject, and even more importantly a technical subject, then correct terminology must be used. An electrical short is a very good example. This is a technical term almost always used between two people to convey a technical problem. In a model railroading forum the word train should be used in its technical and correct form, I totally agree. . .well actually other than talking to a two year old about Thomas the Tank Train, I can’t think of any good reason not to use the term correctly.

However country, regional, and local dialects, not to mention slang and other language derivatives such as Creole, mandate for effective communication that words be used as defined in that setting. My case in point, a carbonated beverage in N. Idaho is “pop” and “soda” refers to NaHCO3 or baking soda. This is a regional word usage in common understanding and to effectively communicate one refers to their soft drink as pop. Now this is oversimplified obviously because I can order a soda and people will know what I am talking about. But I can ask many people where the “loo” is an they won’t have a clue that I want the washroom/restroom/bathroom.

So I absolutely agree with Fred as well. There are certain aspects of the English language which are an exact science; grammar and spelling have hard defined rules. Also between the people communicating there needs to be an agreed upon definition of terms. However, the definition of those terms is not an exact science. Some may not like that and believe words are not open for redefinition. However that is not reality. Word usage in the UK, is not the same as it is in the USA, or in Australia, or any other English speaking language. There is not a universal dictionary. It gets even more complicated when you have regional and local dialects, slang, English derivatives and not to mention generational issues. Words will be redefined and used to communicate between individuals effectively once they agree on the definition. These words are all around us and in every generation.

Where would you have us draw the line as to a rigid definition of terms. do we say that word usage in 1462 England is where we call it and all words must be defined that way. I don’t think any of us would agree to that. So I say word usage can be fluid and must necessarily be defined and agreed upon by the communicating parties.

This is one I love to use on my dad, because he is in agreement with you two. I ask him, when he was a teen in the 50’s and someone said let’s “smoke a fag” what would it mean? We had better define our terms because for a teen in the new millennium we would be talking about a hate crime not having a cigarette. So do we stand on our soap box and declare tat the way we define words is correct and all other uses are wrong? Or do we accept that word usage is fluid and adapt our conversation to the audience at hand.

Now before we go off and get a rope to hang Devon. I will say there is absolutely nothing wrong with educating people on alternate word usages, especially technical terms such as train, and make them aware that it has alternate and likely a more specific definition that is perceived to be more correct among certain circles. My case in point, telling a two year old when we are playing with Thomas the Tank Train that really Thomas is a locomotive and that when he is pulling cars and a caboose then Thomas and his friends are a train. Tain’t nuttin’ wrong with dat.

OK I am ready to be struck down by a high voltage arc of static electricity from the sky. BTW nothing but love and respect. Not meaning to belittle or berate anyone. It a friendly educated debate, one which I am likely ill prepared to win.

#25

Peeves as pets.

OMG am I a horder?(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-yell.gif)

#26

There are obviously two ways to think about this, as has been ably pointed out. However, I firmly agree with Fred. The word “funky” comes to mind. I haven’t heard or seen it used for several years now, but there was a time when it was used to mean whatever the user wanted it too. I doubt many people know what it meant originally. Misuse of terms erodes their meaning. Misuse of terms is also mental laziness, which sadly is rampant in society now. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I feel strongly.

#27

I was watching a newly released prime time documentary on the much heralded return of the “Flying Scotsman” locomotive on a popular TV channel a couple of days ago. There was a discourse between the celebrity (“gob on a stick” as they are known here) presenter and a respected UK railway historian regarding the confusion the presenter was making between the locomotive “Flying Scotsman” and the train service known as the “Flying Scotsman”. The historian, while he chided the presenter on making the confusion, pointed out that if they were in the US this would be acceptable as there the term “train” was a regularly used term for a locomotive alone. Obviously not it would seem. Max

P.S. Lovely pictures, thanks for posting. In the first for all we know the loco is pulling a train and the caboose is on the end of one in the minds eye. In the other, well it depicts the Mallard record breaker (see the link I posted earlier). And it did that pulling a train, not “light engine”.

#28

Bill Ness said:

There are obviously two ways to think about this, as has been ably pointed out. However, I firmly agree with Fred. The word “funky” comes to mind. I haven’t heard or seen it used for several years now, but there was a time when it was used to mean whatever the user wanted it too. I doubt many people know what it meant originally. Misuse of terms erodes their meaning. Misuse of terms is also mental laziness, which sadly is rampant in society now. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I feel strongly.

Respectfully then,

what time frame and in what country of origin do we fix the definitions? Linguistic anthropology is an interesting subject. At its root this is the exact conversation we are having. Language is and always has been determined by its context. Linguistic Anthropolgy is a sub study of cultural anthropology. It studies language and it various usages in culture. How effective would communication be between someone who speak the Queen’s English and someone from the deep south that speaks Creole. Both are English derivatives that are vastly different based on cultural context. Are the people who speak Creole lazy?

That’s a drastic extreme. But when someone today says they can not “fathom” why someone one would do, or not do,something, are they lazy? The word fathom has changed and I would argue that the user of the word is not lazy at all. The word’s meaning has changed due to cultural context. Language is part of culture and cultures change.

Laziness comes when grammar and spelling have been thrown out the window. I am lazy in much of my writing. Not because of my improper word usage but because I use words spelled incorrectly or in grammatically incorrect ways. Using your when I should be using you’re is a grammatical error. That is much different than using a word in a context that is different than one person’s cultural definition of the word.

If I were to concede the point, then most all American (yes this includes our Canadian friends to the North) English word usage wouldneed to be thrown out as lazy and the American cultural language rendered incorrect. After all English is from England. Even then today’s Queen’s English should be thrown out because over the last how many ever centuries England has been around the language has changed dramatically.

Again there has to be a common definition of terms between parties for effective communication. But I think the vast majority of people, when it comes to word usage, not spelling and grammar, and without thinking, consider their cultural dictionary to be the correct one. In reality the vast majority of their words would be nonexistent or used differently than originally intended.

#29

I apologize.

I guess we found yet another one of Devon’s soap boxes. At one time, and only briefly, I considered becoming an anthropologist, and Linguistic Anthropology was very intriguing to me. I love how diverse cultures can be and the human language is an extension of who we are as people, as a culture. I find it fascinating how cultural subsets use language so distinctively as part of their identity. There is no better example of that right here in the USA. We are a blending of so many cultures that have developed in to very unique cultural subsets. Each has a distinctive variation of the English language. I think it is a travesty to expect these cultural subsets to drop the very language that helps identify them.

Are people lazy with word usage, yes. Are words used incorrectly, yes. This is Fred’s point and in that he is right and I agree with him. However, and I am not accusing anyone here of it, we can not define word usage only by our own cultural standard and thus rob other cultures of their distinct adaption of language.

#30

Methinks that you did not choose wisely when you chose “fathom,” to illustrate your point. Fathom has been used in that context for a long time, probably since Shakespeare’s time. A better choice might be the use of “gender,” when the user really means “sex.” Gender refers to the case of a word, whether masculine, feminine or neuter. Sex refers to a biological difference in the plant and animal kingdom, male or female. The two words, gender and sex are not interchangeable, yet the ill educated, or the lazy continue to make the mistake. Perhaps they are afraid of sex. Who knows?

OK, rant off.

#31

No me thinks “Fathom” is exactly a great choice. As you know “fathom” is a measure of depth. It was at one point strictly defined as a very technical term. When someone said “I can’t ‘fathom’ it” they very specifically meant that they could not measure the depth of the body of water they are sailing on; their rope wasn’t long enough. This gave way to a meaning of depth to mean depth of thought or anything else. Know it simply means understanding. I would go a step further and say that only in select circles is the word used in its original meaning. Its common accepted usage is understanding and not the depth of a body of water.

And Steve in your case of “gender” the dictionary has embraced the alternate definition. The word has taken on new meaning, you call it incorrect and lazy, I call it linguistic evolution. Just as in Shakespeare’s day I am sure the grizzled old sailor would agree that them “kids” were lazy and incorrect int their cavalier usage of the language.

#32

And those dictionaries are very recent, in the last ten years or so, written by the very people I accuse.

#33

WOW

I need some aspirin!

What was this post about … O Ya the brick wall

#34

Steve Featherkile said:

And those dictionaries are very recent, in the last ten years or so, written by the very people I accuse.

OK,

Time to admit defeat. As I said earlier I would not likely win this debate for which I was ill prepared to fight. I could carry this argument on forever and never get anywhere. And I have already derailed this thread way farther than it should be.

#35

Sean McGillicuddy said:

WOW

I need some aspirin!

What was this post about … O Ya the brick wall

It was? Is this the third page yet? It is a nice wall, isn’t it? (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)

#36

It is a lovely wall, and its even a sculpture of a train. . . or at least the front and rear ends of a train. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)

#37

Devon, I when I drink too much pop, I have to go potty. Cigarettes being called “fags” is actually British slang, and many American solders brought that expression home with them.

I agree that language does evolve and change. Originally light bulbs were called electric lamps, and the photocopying process was called electrostatic photography. And many examples can be found everyday of the evolution of the language. In fact, for a while, I was doing some research to figure out when the letter U was added to the alphabet. Old buildings around here use the letter V for the letter U in their stonework lettering.

When I worked on the other side of town, I had to learn a dialect that is called Ebonics. It is the way a certain race tends to speak American. My opinion, and it is just my opinion, is that its a lazy way of speaking American, with syllables slurred together or not pronounced at all.

But Devon, despite your rant, I do think that if words are misused, then it leads to misunderstanding and miscommunications. So I try and use words properly, even though I do not always use them that way. I am a product of my environment as other people are products of theirs. I do find it interesting to research the use, and misuse of words. Here in Pittsburgh we have a type of slang that includes words like “Yunz” for you (plural), an at, (and that), and red, (clean up) as in " I need to red up my workshop. I use those words in fun, but they are not part of my everyday speech and writing, because, to me, they seam like linguistical laziness.

#38

Has anyone been to the train station in Lincoln and seen this sculpture?

edit…okay then.

#39

#40

John Passaro said:

Has anyone been to the train station in Lincoln and seen this sculpture?

edit…okay then.

John, is this bas relief, or paint/stain? Whichever, it is beautiful.