The Ford Barn - View Single Post

alexiskai · 05-14-2025, 05:01 PM

The parallel use of a formal and a vernacular language for the description of some set of objects or ideas is pretty common.

Sometimes the vernacular term arises because the formal term is unwieldy or unintuitive. For example, the rear cabin window is usually called the rear light in technical documents, but who calls a window a light?

Another reason for a vernacular term to arise is to distinguish something that the formal language doesn't distinguish. For example, if I say "the #8 stud," most of you know that I mean the longer cylinder head stud to which the ignition cable is clamped. But of course that term relies on a numbering system that originated in the hobbyist community decades after production ceased.

Lastly, vernacular terms arise because the formal term is not commonly known or accessible. Because technical diagrams and factory descriptions, particularly of subassembly parts, are sometimes not available or were not available until recently, the community sometimes has to invent names for them. I'm thinking of the collar that sits on the shaft of the Model B distributor and is pivoted by the counterweights to advance the cam. I'm not really sure what the official name for that is, in part because it was always sold as a full assembly with the shaft, weights, and springs, and I don't have access to the drawing for that assembly.

However, because of the fragmentation of the hobby, it often happens (as seen in this thread) that there's no consensus on what the vernacular nomenclature for some things is. In addition, everyone has to learn all the words as they go, and there's often a tendency to re-use terms for things that have a similar function if no one is around to tell you the exact name. For example, there are a lot of things commonly called "control rods" that are very different from each other but are similar in being a component in a linkage. So I think it's reasonable to offer corrections when it appears that the use of vernacular terms is engendering confusion, but if a vernacular term is doing its job of signifying a particular thing (e.g., "RPU") then I don't think people should be chastised for using it.

05-14-2025, 05:01 PM	#16
alexiskai Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Mebane NC Posts: 3,179	Re: Part ID The parallel use of a formal and a vernacular language for the description of some set of objects or ideas is pretty common. Sometimes the vernacular term arises because the formal term is unwieldy or unintuitive. For example, the rear cabin window is usually called the rear light in technical documents, but who calls a window a light? Another reason for a vernacular term to arise is to distinguish something that the formal language doesn't distinguish. For example, if I say "the #8 stud," most of you know that I mean the longer cylinder head stud to which the ignition cable is clamped. But of course that term relies on a numbering system that originated in the hobbyist community decades after production ceased. Lastly, vernacular terms arise because the formal term is not commonly known or accessible. Because technical diagrams and factory descriptions, particularly of subassembly parts, are sometimes not available or were not available until recently, the community sometimes has to invent names for them. I'm thinking of the collar that sits on the shaft of the Model B distributor and is pivoted by the counterweights to advance the cam. I'm not really sure what the official name for that is, in part because it was always sold as a full assembly with the shaft, weights, and springs, and I don't have access to the drawing for that assembly. However, because of the fragmentation of the hobby, it often happens (as seen in this thread) that there's no consensus on what the vernacular nomenclature for some things is. In addition, everyone has to learn all the words as they go, and there's often a tendency to re-use terms for things that have a similar function if no one is around to tell you the exact name. For example, there are a lot of things commonly called "control rods" that are very different from each other but are similar in being a component in a linkage. So I think it's reasonable to offer corrections when it appears that the use of vernacular terms is engendering confusion, but if a vernacular term is doing its job of signifying a particular thing (e.g., "RPU") then I don't think people should be chastised for using it.