Signage - Sign
geo...@ankerstein.org
thing. They make signs. But the graphics (text and/or pictures)
that were on the sign were the signage. They could not make a
sign until they had the signage in hand. Thus: "We need the
signage by next Tuesday."
Do you agree with this distinction? Some people claim that
signage and sign are synonyms.
GFH
Michael DeBusk
<geo...@ankerstein.org> wrote:
> Do you agree with this distinction? Some people claim that
> signage and sign are synonyms.
To me, "sign" denotes a particular sign, whereas "signage" denotes
several signs working together.
The Facilities Manager at my hospital would say "the sign is broken" if
a sign had fallen off a wall, but if one of the signs pointed the way
from the main entrance to a particular department pointed the wrong way,
he'd say "The signage is broken".
--
The "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is
legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable.
Adrian Bailey
news:1174912826....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Exhibit Group's manager explained to me that a sign is a physical
> thing. They make signs. But the graphics (text and/or pictures)
> that were on the sign were the signage. They could not make a
> sign until they had the signage in hand. Thus: "We need the
> signage by next Tuesday."
>
> Do you agree with this distinction?
No. "Signage"="signs".
Adrian
Mike Lyle
> On 26 Mar 2007 05:40:26 -0700, geo...@ankerstein.org
> <geo...@ankerstein.org> wrote:
>
>> Do you agree with this distinction? Some people claim that
>> signage and sign are synonyms.
>
> To me, "sign" denotes a particular sign, whereas "signage" denotes
> several signs working together.
>
> The Facilities Manager at my hospital would say "the sign is broken"
> if a sign had fallen off a wall, but if one of the signs pointed the
> way from the main entrance to a particular department pointed the
> wrong way, he'd say "The signage is broken".
That makes perfect sense, but the word is still unpleasant and
unnecessary. I have never seen an example in which it couldn't have been
replaced with the ordinary word "signs". "Signage" does _not_ , however,
mean "text on a sign".
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
geo...@ankerstein.org
> <geor...@ankerstein.org> wrote in message
Then what does one call the words and/or graphics that one puts
on a sign? I have to admit that the Exhibit Group definitions do
make sense and result in a meaningful difference between sign
and signage.
GFH
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
> Michael DeBusk wrote:
> > On 26 Mar 2007 05:40:26 -0700, geor...@ankerstein.org
> > <geor...@ankerstein.org> wrote:
>
> >> Do you agree with this distinction? Some people claim that
> >> signage and sign are synonyms.
>
> > To me, "sign" denotes a particular sign, whereas "signage" denotes
> > several signs working together.
>
> > The Facilities Manager at my hospital would say "the sign is broken"
> > if a sign had fallen off a wall, but if one of the signs pointed the
> > way from the main entrance to a particular department pointed the
> > wrong way, he'd say "The signage is broken".
>
> That makes perfect sense, but the word is still unpleasant and
> unnecessary. I have never seen an example in which it couldn't have been
> replaced with the ordinary word "signs". "Signage" does _not_ , however,
> mean "text on a sign".
A sign is a discrete physical object. Signage is a system of signs.
Someone designing signage has to consider not only the individual
signs but their placement, frequency, and so forth. If I am in a
department store with many well-designed signs bearing useful
information indicating where I can find the products I desire, then
this store has good signage, part of which is good signs. If the
individual signs are well executed but there aren't enough of them, or
they are placed poorly, then it has good signs but poor signage. Yes,
there is much semantic overlap between the two forms in practice. As
a matter of style it is perfectly reasonable to prefer "sign" within
this overlap. But there are instances where "signage" is right and
"sign" is wrong.
I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
I have not seen "signage" to mean "text on a sign". It is possible
that the term has been adapted as technical jargon, but if so it
hasn't made its way into Merriam Webster.
Richard R. Hershberger
Mike Lyle
I'm almost convinced. I accept the analogous "coinage" without demur. I
suppose it's out of the question to suggest "signalling". But, jesting
apart, that hints at a clue to the objections: I wonder if my underlying
feeling is that a derivative "ought to" have its "g" sounded, as in
"assignation". This would require me to show that "signage" is formed in
some way analogously to "assignation" but not to "assignment", which I
don't think I can do. I fancy that, if had been up to me, I'd have
chosen "signing", as with "signalling" from "signal".
Adam Funk
>> No. "Signage"="signs".
>
> Then what does one call the words and/or graphics that one puts
> on a sign?
Lyrics.
Seriously, how about "words and graphics" or "content"?
> I have to admit that the Exhibit Group definitions do make sense and
> result in a meaningful difference between sign and signage.
Hmm.
--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
Adam Funk
>>>> The Facilities Manager at my hospital would say "the sign is broken"
>>>> if a sign had fallen off a wall, but if one of the signs pointed the
>>>> way from the main entrance to a particular department pointed the
>>>> wrong way, he'd say "The signage is broken".
"The signs are wrong."
>>> That makes perfect sense, but the word is still unpleasant and
>>> unnecessary. I have never seen an example in which it couldn't have
>>> been replaced with the ordinary word "signs".
"Signage" is a perfect entry in buzzword bingo.
>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
Garb -> garbage.
> I fancy that, if had been up to me, I'd have chosen "signing", as
> with "signalling" from "signal".
Wait a minute, are you saying there's something wrong with
"signallage"?
--
Why are they sotto and alto and blotto?
I do not know. Go ask uncle oTTo! [Otto Bahn]
Richard R. Hershberger
I had not previously seen the concern about the pronunciation of the
'g'. I would guess that its pronunciation in "assignation" is either
a remnant of an obslete pronunciation of the base word or (and this
seems more likely) a learned affectation that stuck. In any case, I
would not expect a modern derivative of "sign" to have the 'g'
pronounced.
I think the usual objection to "signage" is socio-linguistic. The
word is thought of as technical jargon, and therefore a Bad Thing, and
worse, it often comes through the Marketing Department, which is an
even Worse Thing. Add to this that it often can be replaced by
"signs" and it gets condemned as a useless buzz word.
Of course it can be--and often is--found as a useless buzz word, but
so what? Any word can be misused. This has nothing to do with
whether or not it can also be used well.
Richard R. Hershberger
anTonOMasia
> --
> Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
> pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
> illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
One can set their Google default language to Latin,
http://www.google.com/intl/la/
but not do a Latin translation.
What kinda free-as-in-beer interwebnet service do those pikers
think they're runnin'?
--
anTon O'Masia [ antonomasia <at> gmail <dot> com ]
Adam Funk
>> Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
>> pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
>> illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
>
>
> One can set their Google default language to Latin,
>
> http://www.google.com/intl/la/
>
> but not do a Latin translation.
>
> What kinda free-as-in-beer interwebnet service do those pikers
> think they're runnin'?
Don't make my silly mistake of proposing to render "beable" and
"doidy" into Latin. They really should be in Greek.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance. [Robert R. Coveyou]
anTonOMasia
> On 2007-03-28, anTonOMasia wrote:
>
>>> Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
>>> pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
>>> illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
>>
>> One can set their Google default language to Latin,
>>
>> http://www.google.com/intl/la/
>>
>> but not do a Latin translation.
>>
>> What kinda free-as-in-beer interwebnet service do those pikers
>> think they're runnin'?
>
> Don't make my silly mistake of proposing to render "beable" and
> "doidy" into Latin. They really should be in Greek.
Shirley, you would prefer that they were rendered into bacon fat?
mm
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
Just like baggage, boxage, tubbage, bucketage. I agree.
>
>I'm almost convinced. I accept the analogous "coinage" without demur. I
>suppose it's out of the question to suggest "signalling". But, jesting
>apart, that hints at a clue to the objections: I wonder if my underlying
>feeling is that a derivative "ought to" have its "g" sounded, as in
>"assignation". This would require me to show that "signage" is formed in
>some way analogously to "assignation" but not to "assignment", which I
>don't think I can do. I fancy that, if had been up to me, I'd have
>chosen "signing", as with "signalling" from "signal".
Signing was taken. It refers to using sign language.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Adam Funk
>>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
>>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
>>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
>
> Just like baggage, boxage, tubbage, bucketage. I agree.
Don't forget groupage, package, rummage and tonnage.
And packaging!
--
Prolog: You attempt to shoot yourself in the foot, but the bullet,
failing to find its mark, backtracks to the gun which then
explodes in your face.
Doctroid
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2007-03-29, mm wrote:
>
> >>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
> >>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
> >>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
> >
> > Just like baggage, boxage, tubbage, bucketage. I agree.
>
> Don't forget groupage, package, rummage and tonnage.
And webpage.
--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes
It's too confused to make sense, so let's make nonsense.
-- Chris McG.
Dr. HotSalt
> On 2007-03-29, mm wrote:
> >>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
> >>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
> >>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
>
> > Just like baggage, boxage, tubbage, bucketage. I agree.
>
> Don't forget groupage, package, rummage and tonnage.
>
> And packaging!
Thamx for teh lesson on aggregatage.
Dr. HotSalt
PS What to do when faced with a misspelled sign in Amislan?
David DeLaney
> Thamx for teh lesson on aggregatage.
>
> Dr. HotSalt
>
>PS What to do when faced with a misspelled sign in Amislan?
Dance about it. Duh.
Dave "ArchitectuRage" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
mm
wrote:
>On 2007-03-29, mm wrote:
>
>>>> I have never understood the opposition to "signage". It follows a
>>>> perfectly normal English pattern of forming mass noun by adding the
>>>> suffix "-age", in the standard sense of "aggregate".
>>
>> Just like baggage, boxage, tubbage, bucketage. I agree.
>
>Don't forget groupage, package, rummage and tonnage.
>
>And packaging!
Last night after I finished posting, I heard on tv a new use of -age,
but I"m afraid it's gone.
And tonight a I heard and ex-Secretary of State say usage when I would
have said use.