Jul 14, 2008 16:18
15 yrs ago
English term
France
PhD, ATA-certified En-Hu, sci-tech-IT
Native in: Hungarian 
Works in: English to Hungarian, French to Hungarian, Hungarian to English, and 2 more.
superconduct (verb)
English
Science
Science (general)
I would like to hear mostly native opinions about this verb. The meaning (= exhibit superconductivity, behave as a superconductor) is, of course, perfectly clear, and I am well aware of the fact that it appears in a lot of articles on superconductivity. However, I am interested in the register: since this verb is the back-formed derivative of superconducting / superonductivity, I feel that it is still considered as jargon.
For example, "to catch the eye" is an idiom that is used with confidence practically anywhere, "eyecatcher" is perfectly understandable and is used - but it is much more informal. Or, to give a more technical example: "scope" for "oscilloscope" (or "microscope or telescope) is widely used in the laboratories - but should be avoided in a textbook.
The two sentences below are for a solid-state physics textbook, the audience is undergraduate and graduate students. The style is therefore rather formal.
"Nonetheless we are still very far from finding materials that behave as superconductors at room temperature."
"It was discovered in the early 1990s that some alkali-metal-doped fullerites exhibit superconductivity."
Would these sentences be less/equally/more acceptable if "behave as superconductors" and "exhibit superconductivity" were replaced by "superconduct"?
For example, "to catch the eye" is an idiom that is used with confidence practically anywhere, "eyecatcher" is perfectly understandable and is used - but it is much more informal. Or, to give a more technical example: "scope" for "oscilloscope" (or "microscope or telescope) is widely used in the laboratories - but should be avoided in a textbook.
The two sentences below are for a solid-state physics textbook, the audience is undergraduate and graduate students. The style is therefore rather formal.
"Nonetheless we are still very far from finding materials that behave as superconductors at room temperature."
"It was discovered in the early 1990s that some alkali-metal-doped fullerites exhibit superconductivity."
Would these sentences be less/equally/more acceptable if "behave as superconductors" and "exhibit superconductivity" were replaced by "superconduct"?
Responses
| 4 +2 | not a verb for use in formal contexts |
Ken Cox
|
| 3 +3 | Well, it IS in the dictionary |
jccantrell
|
| 5 | Do not change it |
Gary D
|
Responses
+2
7 mins
Selected
not a verb for use in formal contexts
I agree with your feelings here. IMO the formulations you suggest are perfectly OK for a formal context, while 'superconduct' as a verb would not be -- if only because 'conduct' is normally a transitive verb in English, so 'superconduct' should also be transitive, but 'xxxx superconducts electricity' would be deplorable English.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you. As my question was concerned with the register, this was the most helpful answer."
+3
13 mins
jccantrell
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
United States
Was nicht ist, kann noch werden.
Native in: English (Variant: US)
Works in: German to English
Related KudoZ points
:
12
Well, it IS in the dictionary
Merriam-Webster says:
superconduct
Main Entry:
su·per·con·duct Listen to the pronunciation of superconduct
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-kən-ˈdəkt\
Function:
intransitive verb
Date:
1952
: to exhibit superconductivity
— su·per·con·duc·tive Listen to the pronunciation of superconductive \-ˈdək-tiv\ adjective
However, I do agree that *I* would not use it, but I "never say never!" Languages change, evolve, embrace and discard terms on a daily basis. Having this one in a reasonably recognized dictionary here in the USA would support the use either way.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2008-07-14 18:14:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. It may be that in the USA, formality is less of a constraint. As I said, *I* would not use it, nor would I use 'impact' as a verb either, but that has been used. So ....
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2008-07-15 01:18:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing, I googled 'superconducts" with the S at the end and there seemed to be quite a few uses in technical articles. Just another data point.
superconduct
Main Entry:
su·per·con·duct Listen to the pronunciation of superconduct
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-kən-ˈdəkt\
Function:
intransitive verb
Date:
1952
: to exhibit superconductivity
— su·per·con·duc·tive Listen to the pronunciation of superconductive \-ˈdək-tiv\ adjective
However, I do agree that *I* would not use it, but I "never say never!" Languages change, evolve, embrace and discard terms on a daily basis. Having this one in a reasonably recognized dictionary here in the USA would support the use either way.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2008-07-14 18:14:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. It may be that in the USA, formality is less of a constraint. As I said, *I* would not use it, nor would I use 'impact' as a verb either, but that has been used. So ....
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2008-07-15 01:18:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
One more thing, I googled 'superconducts" with the S at the end and there seemed to be quite a few uses in technical articles. Just another data point.
Note from asker:
| Yes, I also checked MW. It also contains scope in the quoted sense. Both without any comment on the level of technical (in)formality. |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Shera Lyn Parpia
2 hrs
|
| agree |
Liam Hamilton
: while I have never heard of "superconduct" (verb) it seems an obvious development of English deriving from such neoligisms as 'superconductor'
3 hrs
|
| agree |
orientalhorizon
8 hrs
|
16 hrs
Do not change it
Would these sentences be less/equally/more acceptable if "behave as superconductors" and "exhibit superconductivity" were replaced by "superconduct"?
Generally superconductors are alloys or coppers in the electrical field, Ie most power lines are alloy and cables are copper, When they heat up they don't have large losses in conductivity. so these metals exhibit superconductivity,
Other products may behave like superconductors at room temperature, but when they are heated or cooled they have no resemblance to superconductors, so during a period they did look like they could have been, but when tested they failed.
Don't change the original wording
Generally superconductors are alloys or coppers in the electrical field, Ie most power lines are alloy and cables are copper, When they heat up they don't have large losses in conductivity. so these metals exhibit superconductivity,
Other products may behave like superconductors at room temperature, but when they are heated or cooled they have no resemblance to superconductors, so during a period they did look like they could have been, but when tested they failed.
Don't change the original wording
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Rachel Fell
: I am reliably informed that this explanation, esp. the 2nd paragraph, is flawed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductor
2 hrs
|
|
I was trying to explain it in laymans terms, if you read your article you will be confused. the point is Atilla should not change the wording as the meaning of the sentence will totally change and the information message will be different.
|
Something went wrong...