This discussion has tried to define "jargon" in the abstract. Perhaps that can't be done. Separated from particular domains and illustrated by arbitrary examples, it just wobbles too much.
Incidentally, my memory on this is vague, and I don't know whether the OED or a good dictionary of slang would help or not - but I think I remember hearing that the origin of the term was on the race track, where those in the know would use a special vocabulary in talking about the next race so bystanders couldn't catch on. It's race-track lingo. And what about that word -- "lingo"?
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of shag carpet bomb Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 6:40 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Jargon in Science
At 03:30 PM 3/1/2012, Alan Rudy wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM, shag carpet bomb
<shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
>
> > answer is too vauge to understand.
> >
> > insurgent as vocabulary where? what discipline? profession? social
> > movement literature? as social movement participants use them? media?
> >
>
>That's exactly the point. In common usage these days, I think, "insurgent"
>implies terrorist opposing our will, power and society. It is obfuscatory
>because, in common usage (usage strategically set by particular gov't and
>media talking heads/writing hands), the diversity and specificity of the
>various uses of the term are bracketed.
I guess I don't understand how it is jargon, obfuscatory or otherwise.
Common usage? I mean, who's using it? Because I don't usually hear non-journalists use it. I mean, consumers of news don't seem to refer to people as insurgents.
> >
> > state's rights? out of context, i don't understand how to is jargon.
> >
>
>Is the problem that you have a specific definition of the word jargon that
>doesn't jibe with applying it to a short phrase most often used to veil
>racist, sexist and classist intent? Is jargon different from code, I
>guess, is the question. I see them as overlapping. Codes and connotations
>are part and parcel of the strategic situatedness of the use of all jargon
>as I see it.
i'm asking *you* because you offered a claim - there is jargon that is appropriately technical terminology specific to a field, and then there is jargon. you didn't provide examples. I asked for examples as you would use with your students b/c you said you drew on conversations with your students about jargon in sociology.
So, I'm a student and I'm asking you a question because I don't understand you and would like to pass the test, 'k?
> >
> > what is id, ego, superego an example of? properly used technical
> > language or obfuscatory jargon.
> >
>
>All three were obfuscatory jargon, I should have been more clear. The Id =
>The It, The Ego = The I, Superego = The Super I ... the traditional
>translation only serves to get in the way of everyday English language
>readers... as it did me the first time.
again, I don't understand how they are obfuscatory. what are they obfuscating? who is doing the obfuscating. why do they do it, if there's a who involved? is this something that is theorized in sociology? if so, wondering what the theory is about obfuscatory jargon.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk