real-time

Tue May 3 18:37:06 UTC 2011

It seems to me that there is a clear distinction between "at this
point in time" (maybe not earlier, maybe not later) and "going
forward" (implied comparison to some different past "then"). If now
can't clearly make the distinction, it is ineffective.

I don't like "real-time" but disagree with the alternatives that have
been offered. For the POTUS watching the operation, I would go with
"as it happened".

DanG

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: real-time
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Time is funny. During the Watergate hearings, Edwin Newman (I think) and
> others jumped on people for saying repeatedly "at this point in time" when
> they meant "now."  That didn't bug me because I was young then.  But at
> *this* point in time, when they don't say "at this point in time" nearly as
> often as they did at that point, people in sound bites try to say "going
> forward" or "moving forward" instead of "now" or even "in the near future."
>
> I'm not saying there's no distinction; only that it doesn't justify
> the mad rush to say "going forward" instead of "now" and/or "in the near
> future."
>
> JL
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>> Subject:      Re: real-time
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Does it make a difference if one says "watched the *mission* in real
>> time" vs. "watched the *video* in real time"?
>>
>> I don't object to the former, so I must be further left than Jon.
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> At 5/2/2011 09:20 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> >I understand your point.  But there's only one kind of time in this neck
>> of
>> >the cosmos.  Suppose they were watching it on a video recording. Forget
>> what
>> >the %0^^2#* video is doing - they're still *watching* the video in *real*
>> >time. The clock is ticking away as they watch. Time doesn't get any realer
>> >than that. It would make as much sense to me to have said, "In the White
>> >House, they watched the raid and breathed real air."
>> >
>> >Not to mention that given the *real-world* context and who's watching
>> what,
>> >the default assumption would be that they are indeed watching it as it
>> >happens. If it were a tape or a classic rerun, *that's* what would require
>> >explanation.
>> >
>> >Now, if the genius of Inglish wishes to replace meaningful phrases like
>> "as
>> >it happened" - or "as it unfolded," "on a live feed," "on live TV" (or
>> just
>> >plain "live," since that's short for the preceding and even shorter than
>> "in
>> >real time"), or even "glued to their closed-circuit TV monitor" - with an
>> >idiot phrase like "in real time," you'll have noticed that I can't stop
>> it.
>> >
>> >But I will resist its use.
>> >
>> >JL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> > > -----------------------
>> > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> > > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>> > > Subject:      Re: real-time
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > I don't remember who was speaking when I heard "watching the mission
>> > > in real time", and it was in the afternoon.  So you could very well
>> > > have heard what you reported.  That leaves me with only the
>> > > speculation that CNN erred in the morning (either the script said
>> > > "launch" or Starr misread it) and had corrected itself by the
>> afternoon.
>> > >
>> > > Jon, I'm not clear on something else.  Did you mean to say "watching
>> > > in real time" is silly for this ... er, situation?  It seems quite
>> > > sensible to me -- they were watching the events as they occurred, not
>> > > later via a recording.
>> > >
>> > > Joel
>> > >
>> > > At 5/2/2011 08:43 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> > > >Joel, this is not inconceivable. I saw exactly the segment you
>> describe as
>> > > >well and didn't hear anything unusual. The quoted ex. was uttered
>> earlier
>> > > >this morning by Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.
>> > > >
>> > > >I suppose I could have misheard it, though I was listening
>> attentively.
>> > > >(Uh-oh.)
>> > > >
>> > > >However, "watching in real time" would be less ambiguous than
>> "launching"
>> > > in
>> > > >real time. It can only mean they were watching as it happened. In that
>> > > case
>> > > >it's plain silly. "Real" time is the only time available.
>> > > >
>> > > >JL
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> > > > > -----------------------
>> > > > > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> > > > > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
>> > > > > Subject:      Re: real-time
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jon, are you sure CNN didn't way "The White House *watched* the
>> > > > > mission against Bin Laden in
>> > > > > real time."?  I'm sure I heard that at least once, accompanying the
>> > > > > still photo of Obama, Biden, et al. in ... a situation room?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Joel
>> > > > >
>> > > > > At 5/2/2011 06:42 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> > > > > >CNN reports that "The White House launched the mission against Bin
>> > > Laden
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > >real time."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >It seems to mean "using super electronic devices that allowed for
>> > > > > >instant communications between people in Washington and others in
>> > > > > >helicopters, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, at sea, and God knows
>> > > where-all
>> > > > > >else."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >That may be. But it's only a guess.
>> > >
>> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the
>> truth."
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------------------
>> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org