Episode?

[vinteuil]

Ah yes, the argument by reductio ad absurdam...

... the word you are seeking is absurdum, not absurdam.

I suspect one could mount a plausible defence of reductio ad absurdam , taking an implied 'res' - reductio ad [rem] absurdam ...

Don't know whether any of the more advanced classicists here might have a view??

[french frank]

That's a lot of fuss over a typo...

I think the typo was disposed of very rapidly. VC's main point related to your argument.

But we're all making choices here. You and FF cleave to the etymological root meaning of "episode" because it suits your preferences and your perception of usage.

It certainly conforms with my perception of usage since I've never come across that use of episode before. But looking up the etymology and seeing how widely it could be interpreted is not 'cleaving' to some original meaning. It has nothing to do with preferences at all.

When episode is used for part of a TV serial it certainly is "the main action"

And that use seems absolutely standard in current parlance. It isn't quite the same as it normally refers to a segment arbitrarily chopped up to fit a time slot rather than an organic self standing part of the whole. But it is standard usage.

you should look again at how the term is generally used on the iplayer ...

Isn't that the same point? It's to do with the BBC 'ontologies' which mean that they have to choose the word closest in their vocabulary to what they want.

Compare this with the comments made about Radio 3's beta homepage where people (cluelessly ) said that some of the layout didn't really fit what Radio 3 listeners would want. But this is part of the BBC's 'ontology for programme pages' (i.e. one size fits all) which means there are all sorts of inappropriate categories.

All you're actually saying is : Get used to it...

[french frank]

Don't know whether any of the more advanced classicists here might have a view??

Well, I imagine it's either/or. Either you use the neuter as an abstract noun or you use res + the adjective in agreement (e.g. res publica).

[Vile Consort]

My classical scholarship extended as far as looking it up in Collins Latin Dictionary.

The year of Latin I did in the second form was not a great success.

[Vile Consort]

In order to defend her position, Jayne needs to show that either:

a. people were already calling the parts of a broadcast concert "episodes" before the iPlayer did, and the iPlayer is reflecting that usage, or
b. since the iPlayer started using the term "episode" in this way, the usage has become widespread, in the same way that the term "song" has been taken up to mean any piece of music.

If neither of those is the case, it's just a word used wrongly in a piece of software. It surely can't be Jayne's position that any word used ineptly in a piece of software becomes a correct usage, can it?

[jayne lee wilson]

I don't need to show that at all, I only remark the present use in context, and the possibility that it may be so used in future in another context. That a bit clearer? Mistakes can be very creative, even if you don't like the result. (Or take the destructive - uninterested/disinterested:many people aren't aware of the difference, but do they suffer much because of it? I'm not sure they do.)

You're too selective, FF and VC, in your responses - neither of you addressed my critique in msg 29 of VC's inaccurate use of reductio ad absurdum which is an umbrella term. VC was referring to the mathematical "proof by contradiction" or "reductio ad impossibilem", not at all what I was invoking. So I didn't ignore the rest of his response at all! Reducing something to absurdity by an exaggerated comparison (episode/cord tetrad), wiki now reveals to me is more precisely called the "straw man" fallacy. Which I'm now very pleased to know! But it could still be argued that your "cord tetrad" is an absurd result following your ad ridiculum representation of the perceived meaning and implication of "episode" in the iplayer context. (i.e. "If "episode" then "cord tetrad" etc.)

To use "bug" to describe the use of "episode" is very inaccurate indeed and technically ignorant.
With "episode" I'm not saying get used to it, but be open to the possibility. None of us like to see symphonic movements listed as songs, but does it really annoy anyone much now? It's just a part of the scenery (which you wouldn't see if you didn't buy lossy, low-quality downloads...)

[Vile Consort]

Your position seems to have changed from "it was the right word all along" to "OK, it was the wrong word but, you never know, it might catch on". In that case, you can't legitimately say I am wrong until sufficient time has passed for us to see whether it does.

As to reductio ad absurdam, I really am not sure what you were invoking. I took it you meant what you said and pointed out that it was wrong in more than one way. You can't slither out of everything by saying "when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean"

It's not "straw man" at all, it's "slippery slope". You should have been able to work that out that from the fact I told you in post #25. Straw man is putting words in your mouth and then showing that they are wrong.

I believe I did address your post #29 by saying yes, context is important, and in the context, it was wrong.

Technically ignorant? How funny, considering what I do for a living and how long I have been doing it.

[jayne lee wilson]

Goodness me, you fail to address a single point of mine and misrepresent me wilfully.

Straw man, slippery slope? These are all metaphors - images of varieties of misapprehension. The "straw man" fallacy has a clearer definition than the concept of the slippery slope. But if you insist on inaccurate paraphrase of what I say it becomes impossible to debate further; pity, as I enjoyed what sometimes felt like a move-a-day chess match with a distant computer.

Thankyou for the debate; I hope you find more Proms to enjoy, and don't allow the iPlayer to spoil that enjoyment with its Naming of Parts (cf. Henry Reed).
Finally Mr Eliot himself, quoted in full. I don't think either of us would find this inaccurate...

"WORDS STRAIN,
CRACK AND SOMETIMES BREAK, UNDER THE BURDEN,
UNDER THE TENSION, SLIP, SLIDE, PERISH,
DECAY WITH IMPRECISION, WILL NOT STAY IN PLACE,
WILL NOT STAY STILL. SHRIEKING VOICES,
SCOLDING, MOCKING, OR MERELY CHATTERING,
ALWAYS ASSAIL THEM."

[Tapiola]

Wise up, the pair of you.

One of the reasons I left this forum was the petty sniping and the one-up-(wo)manship of those who think they always know better.

It's boring and stupid.

Grow up and get back to the music.

[Flosshilde]

When I were a lad it was "Track" (or "cut" if you were really hip). Made sense on vinyl,

Not really, unless you were talking about a 'single' - the 'track', or groove, on an LP was continuous, so each seperate piece of music was part of the track/groove - or perhaps an episode in it.

[IRF]

Not really, unless you were talking about a 'single' - the 'track', or groove, on an LP was continuous, so each seperate piece of music was part of the track/groove - or perhaps an episode in it.

Ooooo, good point!

[heliocentric]

My apologies for not wading all the way through this thread to find out if this point has already been made, but, going back almost to the start:

So many of today's linguistic changes are a result of incompetence and general lack of understanding. "Evolution" in this context is merely the result of people copying the people with the loudest mouths.

And the difference between this example and the ways in which language has evolved throughout history would be what?

[Rolmill]

And the difference between this example and the ways in which language has evolved throughout history would be what?

Probably not much, but the fact that language development has often been via the taking root of errors and misunderstandings doesn't mean that they weren't errors in the first place. Stretching the meanings of words to fill gaps is one thing, but doing so to usurp the role of a perfectly good existing word as a result of ignorance is an error - and this conclusion is not altered by the retrospective legitimacy of future usage, in my view.

[french frank]

And the difference between this example and the ways in which language has evolved throughout history would be what?

As yet the usage can hardly be said to have 'evolved' unless there are other examples besides BBC Digital using the word in that way. It's used by the BBC because - genuinely - it fits its own website/new media 'ontology'.

It's similar when they use the same software programme across various stations to link playlists to Wikipedia. The software is largely ignorant of classical music which is why it only knows one Engelbert Humperdinck.

But the significance is the same in both cases: classical music doesn't fit into the template, so they pick the nearest thing. Unless we start hearing presenters, or even concert-goers, talking about the 'second episode' it can't be considered a linguistic development.

Beyond these generalities I don't have any further feelings about it. It's the way of the world.

[heliocentric]

Stretching the meanings of words to fill gaps is one thing, but doing so to usurp the role of a perfectly good existing word as a result of ignorance is an error - and this conclusion is not altered by the retrospective legitimacy of future usage, in my view.

As FF says it's the way of the world, and always has been (I expect in the past there would have been complaints about the redefinition of words like "nice" and "silly" on exactly similar grounds), and it could be that the reason English has become such a lingua franca is that (unlike in the case of French for example) there's no "language police" to decide what belongs in the language and where, so that it's much more mutable and adaptable. (Whether that's a good thing is another question of course.)