Conference thebay::joyoflex

    To "preside" is to be or serve as president.
    
         --> to "coronide"
    
    To "chair" is to be or serve as chairperson.
    
         --> to "coron"
    
    To "officiate" is to be or serve as an official.
    
         --> to "coronate" or to "coronerate"
    
    Maybe it's already been covered in "a new verb is bornized"!
    
    Dan

    G'day,
    
    How about 'corenact'?
    
    or Quincynate?
    
    BTW, a coronor is a special case of a judge - sitting on a coronor's
    bench at a coronor's court. In which case 'preside' would appear
    to be right ie
    
    The coronor, judge thingo presided yesterday and said...
    
    Derek
    

    well,
    
    how about
    
    "coronate"
    
    or 
    
    "mortise"?
    
    :-P
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    what's wrong with "Mr/s. X, who served as coroner, stated..."
    or "Mr/s. Y, acting coroner, has discovered..."
    
    you could always use...
    
    Mr/s. Z, who undertook the case, ....
    
    -Jody
    

    I'll give some more background on this. I work in VMS development, and
    being the operating system development group, we need to take system
    crashes seriously. 
    
    Any time a system crashes, a coroner must make an inquest. The coroner
    can dismiss the crash (for example, a hardware error --  bad memory
    boards or something), but the inquest must be made. Being coroner of
    some sort or other are rotating duties. For example, I am in the exec
    group, and I am April's EXEC$CORONER -- the person who gets to look at
    dead systems that crashed in the VMS executive.
    
    Okay, normally I try to use words like Jody's -- acting as coroner,
    serving as coroner, etc. The problem is that while circumlocution like
    that is common, it's more of a normal construct for a language like
    French, not English. English speakers find it more natural to X than to
    do an X. 
    
    Also, while there are zoning laws in French, there are none in English.
    I was in a meeting yesterday in which someone said, "the mumble project
    will be setting up their own cluster, and they will be coroning their
    own crashes." 
    
    So I wrote on my note pad, next to the myriad doodles I use as
    mnemonics, "What *is* the verb for 'coroner'?" (Actually, I underlined
    "is" three times, but I digress.) If there is a better verb to use than
    "coron[ing]," then I can start using it and apply peer pressure. If
    not, then "coron" will probably stand, as there's no better term. I
    don't like it, but I suppose I'll get used to it. 
    
    	Jon

    ... and it won't be long before "coroning" is pronounced
    like "cornering."
    
    Dan

    If you are prepared to accept verbification, then how about
    "to postmortem"?
    
    Sid

    G'day,
    
    Within the context as you described it, -.a couple, how about
    'investigate'  or even 'determine the cause of' or 'arbitrate on'
    or 'delve into' or 'adjudicate on' or 'analyse'?
    
    I suspect there was an attempt to play on 'determine the cause of
    death' of the system -hence the reference to a coronor - but maybe
    the analogy is too far from the real goings-on to try and use a
    word from outside the industry? How about 'interpret'?
    
    Dj
    

    Always one for circumlocution, nay periphrasis, I'm interested
    in the assertions in .5 about what's normal and what's natural.
    OK, if you've a mind to, maybe it's easier to be long-winded in
    French; I'm not sure, but perhaps it's possible to argue that way.
    
    But - to give one tiny example - a discussion of politics
    in FRENCH.NOTE was summed up by one contribution that talked about
    a system that was wholly governed by one party or its opposite
    as `h�mipl�gique'.  Marvellous word.  I went to my SOED to see
    whether anyone had ever used its analogue in English; they had,
    but it's hardly the sort of word that crops up in political
    discussions.  Whoever said a political system was hemiplegic
    (rather than that it suffered from being all one way then all the
    other way) wasn't being circumlocutory.
    
    And I just disagree about what it's natural for speakers of English
    to do; maybe what's natural for speakers of American English isn't
    the same as what's natural for speakers of British English.
    
    But I recognize, in the circumstances you've described, the need
    to fight a verb (coron) with a verb. Have you considered the view
    that a crashed system isn't dead; it's still (electrically at least)
    live.  I've got a microVAX that's inoperative but live booked out
    to Field Service right now. 
    
    Post-cade? Post-crash? I think `post'-something has a lot in its favour
    (especially in view of DEC's `post-partum' process.) 

    Say what you want about the travesties that Americans put upon the
    language, but "coroning" was used by a Brit, and I was the one who
    winced. 
    
    I know that the French *do* create nifty verbs -- in my opinion it's a
    very human thing to do. However, the Acadamy doesn't like it. I've read
    all sorts of Acadamy edicts exaplaining how one is *supposed* to say
    "faire un X," and silently offered thanks for being an anglophone.
    According to the Acadamy, these formations are creeping Franglais.
    
    Getting rid of the office of coroner -- or perhaps the better term
    would be rename -- is simply not possible. First of all, there have
    been coroners for so long that I have no idea when it was first
    started, but it's been at least a half-dozen years. Secondly, "coroner"
    has exactly the right connotation. When one builds operating systems,
    one must take crashes *very* seriously. "Analyze" or whatever implies
    curiosity. Perhaps curiosity that is more than simply idle, but it does
    not carry the connotation that this is a duty that *must* be done.
    "Coroner" carries that connotation. I would fight changing the name of
    the office every step of the way. There is also the practical matter.
    Changing the language that people use is something that has to be done
    by correcting them a few times. If you can't change someone's usage by
    saying "not X, Y!" a few times sharply, then you can't change it. Even
    if "coroner" weren't a good term, changing it would be nigh impossible. 
    
    The problem is that while I don't like "coroning," there doesn't seem
    to be an alternative. I was hoping someone else might have one, but
    it's not that big a deal. I'd rather save my energy for "iconize." 
    
    	Jon

    You mentioned that a coroner is supposed to make an inquest.
    So, how about "to inquest" ?
    
    Btw, what's the etymology of coroner ? Of course Latin corona (crown) 
    comes to mind, which clearly gives coronary, coronation etc ... 

    But where's the link with coroner, someone who makes inquests ? 
    Did the first coroners have any sort of special relationship with 
    the Crown ?
        
    	roger    

    Coroner indeed comes from "corona," crown. The coroner is someone
    appointed by the Crown to investigate.
    
    	Jon

    Re: .11
    
    > You mentioned that a coroner is supposed to make an inquest.
    > So, how about "to inquest"?
    
    An inquest is a _judicial_ inquiry; that is, a legal proceeding.
    It would not seem, therefore, to fit the need.  Besides, "inquest"
    is not a verb!  Of the two, "inquiry" would be better.
    
    Bernie

    Not only is the judge a representative of the Crown (in fact among
    the English courts - I'd say British, but Scottish law's different and
    the courts in N. Ireland are different, but what I mean is Welsh
    and English - there's one kind called a Crown Court). Where in
    USA a legal case is called `The State versus N or M', here we
    have `Regina versus N or M'.
    
    b 

    Coroners investigate things (usually deaths) and issue findings
    which are not legally binding decisisions. In the course of their
    investigations they may order that autopsies be performed or inquests
    held so that they may obtain more accurate or varied information.
    At an inquest the jury gives its findings and recommendations, neither
    of which the coroner is bound to accept. He does take them into
    account when issuing his findings.
    
    In this case it appears that the _coroner_ is investigating crashes.
    It seems perfect to me to have him 'issue findings'. They can then
    be published as _coroner's findings_ or included with any suitable
    preliminary introduction.
    
    Just because someone _coronized_ doesn't mean we have to perpetuate
    it.
    
    Roger

>    Getting rid of the office of coroner -- or perhaps the better term
>    would be rename -- is simply not possible. First of all, there have
>    been coroners for so long that I have no idea when it was first
>    started, but it's been at least a half-dozen years. 

A customer of DEC's once exclaimed in exasperation, "That's the problem 
with you people -- you think five years is a long time!"  There is a 
term for what you are doing that is very respectable and has been around 
a lot longer than six years: crash dump analysis.

>                         Secondly, "coroner"
>    has exactly the right connotation. 

Not a chance.  "Coroner" is hoplessly and childishly anthropomorphic.  
This is one of the few places I agree with Dijkstra: it is wrong and 
potentially dangerous to use human/animal terms in reference to
computers.   While it may have started out with humorous intent, there
is no reason to try and carry the joke too far. 

					>>>==>PStJTT

    I see. The customer is always right, therefore five years is *not* a
    long time, therefore all we need to do put right the blasphemous office
    of so-called coroner is to put ninety-five theses on a Post-It on the
    dump disk. Uh huh. 
    
    My comment about time time period is meant merely to point out that
    when a term has been in use by 100+ people for a long time, you can't
    change it. If bitching about a word like "iconify" which has been known
    to make strong editors cry can't be disposed of, an arguable term like
    "coroner" certainly can't be. 
    
    As for carrying the joke too far, I don't know if it started out as a
    joke. Engineers, espcially Mr Dijkstra, are on the whole a rather
    humorless lot, so I suspect it was done in all seriousness. It appeals
    to *my* sense of humor, but I see the whole world as a joke, so what do
    I know? I'm just trying to like a few candles here. 
    
    	Jon

How about "autopsize" or "pathologize"

    re .18
    
>    How about "autopsize" or "pathologize"

    Aha ! Good lead.

    In French we have a perfect verb: 'autopsier'.
    My Harraps English-French dictionary has it:
    
    	    autopsier, v. tr.	
    		To carry out a post-mortem
    
    It's great to use this verb, rather than some long-winded, 
    circumlocutary expression.	:)
    
            	roger 

OED claims that "CROWN" is an obsolete verb meaning "To hold a coroner's inquest
on".  

A more usual verb to use is "SIT". ("The crowner hath sat upon her, and found
Christian burial" ...)

				I

    My thesauras (Roget's International) lists "autopsy" as an "informal"
    verb.  It prefers terms such as examine, inspect, and investigate
    to describe the actions performed by a coronor.
    
    Spd

    I'll second the previous reply...why is it so necessary to have a
    unique verb to describe that which is easily described with a simple
    phrase:  investigate the cause;  perform an autopsy;  analyze the crash
    dump; etc.?
    
    One of my pet peeves is the tendency for people to create new
    "in-words" when there already exists perfectly good words to describe
    the activity.  The problem with "in-words" is the risk that newcomers
    will not understand what they mean, and they have to be explained in
    more recognizable terms anyway.  Why not stick with the simple
    terms and leave it that way?
    
    
    

    re: Jon's last reply . . . so you're trying to like a few candles?
    I like a few candles myself, especially when there's champagne
    with dinner. 
    
    Seriously, I called an acquaintance of mine who happens to
    be a legal aide and asked her about the terminology.
    
    She says a coroner's job is to conduct inquests.  The correct
    verb for what the coroner does is "inquire."  That is, the
    coroner conducts an inquest into the death, or the coroner
    inquires into the death.
    
    "To autopsy" is an acceptable verb for conducting an autopsy.
     
    --bonnie

    "Inquire" and "be coroner" are intransitive. 
    
    The verb in "they will be coroning their own crashes" is being used
    transitively. I think that's one reason it sounds wrong. 
    
    					Val
    

    I saw "to autopsy" in the newspaper last night.  In reference
    to a body found in New Hampshire, which doesn't have the medical
    facilities to properly determine cause of death in difficult
    cases, the reporter said, "The body was autopsied in Maine."
    
    And if that doesn't give somebody an idea for a pun, it's a
    worse day than I thought it was going to be!
    
    --bonnie

    As one reply suggested about in-words, I'd think that "corone" would
require quite a bit of explaining and in-other-wordses.  Not to mention
"coroning" and "coroned" - these two just look wierd (but ain't English grand!).
    I have no problem coining an _appropriate_ word - one that's descriptive
in (1)appearance and (2)sound as well as (3)"etymology".
    Did someone suggest "coronact"?  This one could be transitive as well as
intransitive, in the proper context.  The -ing and -ed suffixes would be clear.
It resembles "coroner" in the three characteristics I mentioned.  It could
even take the suffix -er, referring to the one coronacting.  It does have a
few (too many?) syllables, tho.

    "Coronact" sounds like coroner's shorthand for "coronary
    infarction."
    
    --bonnie

>    My comment about time time period is meant merely to point out that
>    when a term has been in use by 100+ people for a long time, you can't
>    change it. 

That's obviously not true, since the industry as a whole has been using 
the term "analyze" for decades, but a small group of people have 
changed the term to something silly, and they've done it in only five 
years. (Which customer or no, I don't think is a long time.)


>             Engineers, espcially Mr Dijkstra, are on the whole a rather
>    humorless lot, so I suspect it was done in all seriousness. 

Caving in to stereotypes, aren't you?  If somebody cast the same 
statement as race and not profession, there'd be a cry to have him 
fired.  So you think that you're the only one sophisticated enough to 
appreciate the black humor of calling the person who is assigned crash 
dump duty "the coroner," huh?  Yeah, I guess we engineers are pretty 
stupid.  Lucky thing we chose a term that you could find amusing.

>    I'm just trying to like a few candles here. 
    
Don't you hate it when you're trying to score a point and make a typo? 
If I had a sense of humor, I think I'd find that funny.

				>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: "coronact"
        
    Yeah, but then people are going to start calling the one who
    does this a "coronactor."
        
Lew Lasher

    A "coronactor" should be a person who specializes in playing kings
    on stage.
    
    --bonnie

    re .29:
    
    	"If I had a sense of humor, I think I'd find that funny."
    
    Well, it's a real pity you don't, because Bonnie's note made me laugh
    out loud. That's something to be thankful for this late in a release. 
    
    With respect to my catty comment about engineers, let me apologize. I
    didn't realize it would sting so badly. 
    
    One of the rules about stereotypes is that one is allowed to apply them
    to any group that one belongs to. I am (or is it "I are"?) an engineer
    myself, and I know that as a lot, they're pretty humorless. Almost as
    humorless as amateur grammarians, another category I fall into. Like
    many of my fellows, I'm under enough pressure that I'm pretty humorless
    these days, as some of my missives here (and some of my QAR answers)
    will attest to. Not only that, but I haven't been able to type a
    sentence without typos in it to save my life for the past few weeks. My
    fingers make all sorts of interesting left/right transposes, and I
    sometimes pull a completely different word than I wanted to out of the
    ol' mental dictionary. When I do a good one, I figure it's just my
    subconscious's way of saying "lighten up, you're working too hard." I
    figure that if I mistype while being incisive, I may get a few tongue
    clucks for not being up to my usual style, but a point's a point and
    even Wilde stuttered. 
    
    re .25:
    
    I'm looking for a nice transitive verb. I'll settle for a good one.
    "Analyze" and "look" are two good ones. "Analyze" is even blessed with
    being the DCL command that one types to look at a crash dump. In the
    epic eternal battle between the forces of good and the forces of nice,
    I side with good. But not everyone does. "Coron," I suppose, is a
    reasonable back-formation, but I don't think it's either good or nice.
    My foraging through the OED came up with nothing new nor nothing old to
    add to the trove. 
    
    The intransitive verbs don't seem to be a problem. "Be coroner" is the
    obvious one. "Inquire" is both good and nice. 

    The reason I'm going to the trouble of finding a different word is that
    with all of us on edge, I'd rather not hiss about something as
    downright trivial as a word like "coroning." If there's an accepted
    word for that, then I can introduce it. It's dissappointing that there
    doesn't seem to be one. 
    
    	Jon

    What is this preoccupation with having someone's job come from the
    same word as his or her title?
    
    Do doctors doct?
    Do lawyers loi?
    Do carpenters carpent?
    Do morticians morticize?
    Do musicians musicate?
    Do architects architect?  (This is another peeve of mine.  Ever
    since the computer industry found a use for the title, architect,
    "design" and "build" haven't been good enough verbs to apply to
    what they do.)
    
    If you don't think the job has any significance beyond the title,
    maybe it's the wrong title, eh?  
    
    Spd
    
    p.s. Some of the engineers around here are hilarious.  Do we have
    a bad crop?

    Re .32 (Jon):
    
    >I side with good. But not everyone does. "Coron," I suppose, is a
    >reasonable back-formation, but I don't think it's either good or nice.
     
    Besides, it's used in nuclear engineering.
    
    Example:
    
    Power plant manager:  "What's the state of the reactor?"
    Operating Engineer:  "Coron."  [It's up and running.] :-) 
    
    Re .33  (spd):
    
    >Do doctors doct? 
    Well, many vets have doct Boxer_dog tails.
    
    >Do lawyers loi?
    Begorrah, some do.  Through their teeth.
    
    >Do carpenters carpent?
    Haven't you ever heard of wall-to-wall carpents?
    
    >Do morticians morticize?
    Well, they mortify, often when you ask what seems a simple question.
    
    >Do musicians musicate?
    Only at dinner gigs.
    
    >Do architects architect?
    Well, they can talk archly; it's easy to 'tect in their inflections.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.             

    My cousin, who is a pharmacist, pharms.  
    
    In fact, he and his sister co-pharm about 40,000 acres of prime
    Montana wheat ranch.
    
    --bonnie

    G'day,
    
    I still think 'interpret' is the nice answer... Crash Dumps may
    as well be in a foreign language for most of us! :-)
    
    
    BTW, if a marine marries a woman-marine, do they get Marinated?
    
    Derek

    
    > BTW, if a marine marries a woman-marine, do they get Marinated?
    
    No, but if a mariner marries a woman_mariner, they could probably 
    have a stormy marriage and frequently get sloshed! :^p

    I suppose it would be unnecessarily picky to object to the
    implicit sexism of these two very good jokes. 
    
    But since both mariners and marines can be of either sex, it
    would have been more appropriate to simply say "If two Marines
    marry each other," or something on that order.
    
    --bonnie

    Re: Marines and mariners.
    
    I don't believe that there was intended sexism, but rather to make
    sure that we weren't marrying off two individuals of the same sex...a
    situation that could create its own implications.
    
    Perhaps you would be happier if I had said that a man-mariner and a
    woman_mariner...  Or a male-person mariner and a female-person
    mariner...  But let's not get started on the sexist kick again!
    

    I don't see how "Two Marines" would adversly affect the joke however,
    if you must make it clear, how 'bout "If a marine and a man-marine...".
    It makes just as much sense.
    
    Spd

    G'day
    
    re -.1 Not so,,dear friend....
    
    In the Uk there are, to the best of my knowledge, NO female marines.
    Indeed, when I first stayed at Cherry Point NC, I was amazed (and
    delighted ;-) )to find there were female marines. Now to say 
    ... two Marines...wed...' invites the conotation that BOTH are Male
    and that surely would spoil the macho image of the Marines...
    Djw

    While we're on subconscious sexism, it took me a long time to see
    through the following:
    
    	A man and his son were involved in a car accident, in which
    	the father was killed.  The son was taken to [the] hospital,
    	and prepared for an emergency operation.  The surgeon took one
    	look at him and said "I can't operate - that's my son".

    Jeff.
    
    PS: The [the] is optional depending which side of the Atlantic you
        are :-)