 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / January 2006Acoustic vs Acoustical
Hey All, I'm sure this has been discussed before (a Google search didn't term up anything relevant), but is there a rule-of-thumb for the usage of the word "acoustic" vs "acoustical"? I did find a reference to a JASA article "Acoustic vs Acoustical" (F.V. Hunt, 1955, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp. 975-976), but without an abstract I don't know if this article is on point. Herb If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it is ANSI S1.1) you may find some guidance there but I am not sure. I do not have it with me right now. As I remember it, acoustic is used in reference to actual acoustic properties such as acoustic impedance and acoustical is used when the subject described is not itself an acoustic property, such as an acoustical consultant or an acoustical ceiling panel. If you are a member of ASA, the JASA articles are available online. > Hey All, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Herb > If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it > is ANSI S1.1) you may find some guidance there but I am not sure. I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> I >> don't know if this article is on point. Is then electrical resistance correct as you find here? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance Or do you use electric resistance? Jens "Jens Rodrigo" <Jens.Rodrigo@gmail.com> ???????:dq5299$3ho$03$1@news.t-online.com... >> If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it is >> ANSI S1.1) you may find some guidance there but I am not sure. I do not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jens Hi, I also mix up the usage of terms "acoustic" and "acoustical". Once I read this thread, I was looking up textbooks. I found that sometime usage of these two words is similar e.g.: "Acoustic Wall" and "Acoustical Wall", "Acoustic barrier" and "Acoustical barrier". In Oxford dictionary, I can only find "Acoustic Guitar" but not "Acoustical Guitar" (definitely Guitar is not an acoustic property). But sometimes they are different such as "Acoustic impedance" and not "Acoustical impedance". Perhaps only ONE standard term can be accepted in special terminlology and cannot totally explained by gramma. Also, We could not compare the terms "Acoustic" & "Electric" directly. Such as we can say "acoustic impedance" and "electrical impedance" ( not electric impedance). Could it be due to the difference of "Britain English" & "American English" ?? Actually, I am not an English speaker, so I am not sure the above explanation is valid or not. CSL >>>>I'm sure this has been discussed before (a Google search didn't term up >>>>anything relevant), but is there a rule-of-thumb for the usage of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ?? Actually, I am not an English speaker, so I am not sure the above > explanation is valid or not. That's close, but I think it goes like this: A good test is whether a compound word can be made (as is often the case in German for instance) for the term. We have "uplift", "crossroad" and "cross-stitch" as acceptable English compound words for instance. "Acousticimpedance" makes some sense or might find acceptability in the future, as is also the case for acousticguitar, while acousticalimpedance or acousticalguitar seem less likely to be so. IMHO, the difference lies in the uniqueness of the entity being represented. Early or uncommon entities (e.g. acoustical paint, familial resemblance) would have the "-al" suffix, while familiar and repetitively used terms (e.g. family tree, acoustic emission) should not. Another determinant is the narrowness of the term's meaning and applicability. Thus, "family tree" has a very specific meaning, as does "acoustic guitar". Not all guitars are are of the acoustical type (no amplification), while all acousticguitars are guitars. Not all trees are lists of persons, but familytree was a very special and well recognized meaning. Angelo Campanella. > If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it is ANSI > S1.1) you may find some guidance there but I am not sure. I do not have it > with me right now. Thanks, I'll add it to my reading list. Herb >> If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it is >> ANSI [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks, I'll add it to my reading list. Under the heading "-al", the relevant part of the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary says: "as adj. suffixes, -acal, -ical, -oidal occur earlier in E. than the simple -ac, -ic, -oid; when the two co-exist, as in comic-al, tragic-al, historic-al, that in -ic, etc. means ‘of or belonging to’ the thing, that in -ical ‘relating to, dealing with, indirectly or remotely connected with’ the thing, as a historic answer, a historical treatise, a comic paper, a comical idea." On that basis you would say "acoustical consultant" (the consultant deals with acoustics). Not the usage I personally am most used to, but that's English! The OED is a few years old, and I think there is an increasing general tendency to drop the -al where possible, so "a comic idea" now seems a reasonable thing to say. This is in line with the general development of English, which didn't get where it is today by tenaciously holding on to its suffixes. I am very relaxed about such things so long as there is no possible confusion of meaning.  SignatureTony Woolf My e-mail address has no hyphen - but please don't use it, reply to the group. >>> If you have the ASA ANSI acoustical terminology standard (I think it is >>> ANSI [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > suffixes. I am very relaxed about such things so long as there is no > possible confusion of meaning. I believe this is consistent with the original guidance I gave. For example, an historical treatise would be one that discusses history, but a treatise that discusses some groundbreaking new discovery could be an historic treatise. OK.. I think we have sufficiently trounced this -al tread. How about another tack: What published spellings, wrong or thought to right, have you seen, any age, any time? Ang. C. > OK.. I think we have sufficiently trounced this -al tread. > > How about another tack: What published spellings, wrong or thought to > right, have you seen, any age, any time? farenheit, farenhiet, fahrenhiet, faranheit ... Poor Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736). >>OK.. I think we have sufficiently trounced this -al tread. >>How about another tack: What published spellings, wrong or thought to >>right, have you seen, any age, any time? > farenheit, farenhiet, fahrenhiet, faranheit ... > Poor Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686-1736). Interesting, but I really meant "acoustic". English is troubling in this regard. I have seen "accoustic", and something like "akewstic" in a 19th century newspaper. > Interesting, but I really meant "acoustic". English is troubling in this > regard. > > I have seen "accoustic", and something like "akewstic" in a 19th century > newspaper. I gave up trying to keep track of all the variations long ago but occasionally see one that I do not remember seeing before. Of course the most common is to simply add the extra c at the beginning. An interesting statistic. Over a 10 year period of two meetings a year, I tracked the spelling used by meeting facilities to welcome our local chapter of the acoustical society. 19 times out of 20, the various facilities got it wrong one way or another. >> Interesting, but I really meant "acoustic". English is troubling in >> this regard. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > chapter of the acoustical society. 19 times out of 20, the various > facilities got it wrong one way or another. Here comes an interesting list of often mis-spelt words. Grammar for Journalists - Correct spelling is a "must" http://www.unt.edu/writing_center/spelling_packet_2.htm There you find 'acoustics' but not much more special. > Here comes an interesting list of often mis-spelt words. > Grammar for Journalists - Correct spelling is a "must" > http://www.unt.edu/writing_center/spelling_packet_2.htm > There you find 'acoustics' but not much more special. At least it made the list! Another vaguely related problem; pronouncing the word, "Nuclear", which or president fully trips up on. The mispronounced form is "newcular". This is extremely pervasive and difficult to erase unless one is very careful as follows: Think of the word "NEW", pause, then think of the word, "CLEAR" (as in 'clear water'). Pronounce 'new', pause, then pronounce 'clear' in any dialect you please. Repeat such pronunciation out loud and very slowly several times that way. Within a few cycles, you will perceive and pronounce the whole of the compound sound 'Nuclear', and it will be correct. Let that always be the template you use to pronounce nuclear. Angelo Campanella > Another vaguely related problem; pronouncing the word, "Nuclear", which > or president fully trips up on. Aluminium seems to come in a lighter US version. Same basic pronounciation issue. Probably is prolly next to get a new versioning. Elementary latin still can be helpful as a part of the curriculum. > Angelo Campanella Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
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
|
©2009 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.