>
> Once again Mike alludes to my posting on the terminology of CHAT.
>
> 1. I suggest that the time has come to attempt a source glossary for CHAT.
I
> envisage that, rather than a 'dictionary' what is needed is mini-papers on
> about 30 or 40 core terms - such as 'object', 'culture', and so on.
> Identifying the need for developing new terms - because of multiple and
> confusing uses of existing terms - would be part of the project.
Phillip,
I see what you're getting at and can see some value in the discussion stage,
but have a feeling that this will turn out to be something of a utopian
project like Esperanto. It may enable us to avoid some misunderstandings /
disputes, but create others. Who will police the use of this terminology?
I think it's clear to me from participation in XMCA that, though we see
ourselves as a community, that there are different views on what CHAT
actually means. I don't think there's a terminological resolution to that,
nor is it necessarily a bad thing - I see it as inevitable, whether one sees
it as good or bad.
Bruce Robinson
PS: Is NZ on the edge of the world? I hadn't noticed your emails took longer
to get here :).
> 2. I further suggest that such a project be carried out as a collective
> activity using xmca.
>
> 3. I suggest that the object of the activity be the presentation of a
> preliminary paper at Sevillia 2005, with the product eventually being a
> book.
>
> 4. The foregoing would suggest that xmca have a 'term of the month'
> discussion for the next 30 months, with the results being progressively
> synthesised for the Sevillia paper. This would follow an initial
discussion
> on what terms should be in the 30.
>
> 5. I am aware that this bears the risk of linguistic imperialism by the
> English language. I suggest that there needs to be a parallel translation
> process for selected key languages at least.
>
> 6. If there is support for the foregoing suggestions, I am volunteering to
> provide a coordinating function for such a project, but only if there is
> enough energy to produce a number of active participants willing to do
tasks
> as well as contribute to discourse.
>
> 7. I realise that it may be more appropriate for the coordinating function
> to lie in one of centres of thought, rather than here on the edge of the
> world. If people think that it ought to be done, but that New Zealand is
not
> the place to centre it, I will not feel offended! In fact, I would feel
> relieved. But I DO want it done.
>
> Phillip Capper,
> Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business Ltd. (WEB Research),
> Level 13
> 114 The Terrace
> (PO Box 2855)
> WELLINGTON
> New Zealand
>
> Ph: +64 4 499 8140
> Fx: +64 4 499 8395
> Mb: +64 021 519 741
>
> http://www.webresearch.co.nz
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:11 PDT