Conference thebay::joyoflex

    I thought that "facsimile" was a noun, and would have said
    "send a facsimile" rather than "send a facsimile message."
    However, I don't have a dictionary at my desk suitable for
    checking how badly I might have been thinking.
    
    In a formal letter, I would spell out the words "telephone"
    and "facsimile."  The words "phone" and "fax" are certainly
    informal, though perhaps no longer colloquial.

'Fax' is probably just short for 'facsimile', but the original phrase is
'fac simile'--two words.  'Fac' is a noun and 'simile' looks like an
adjective.  You would NOT send a fac simile message; you would send a
fac simile of a written message.  I would say, then, that you could send
a fax or you could send a fax of a message or of a menu or of anything
else on paper.  'Fac simile' means roughly "like copy".   (In the old
days of radio, the phrase was often used in this context:  "If you want
one of these gadgets, send the coupon cut from the side of a box of
Blue Blivots, or a reasonable fac simile, and just one thin dime, to
...")

Of course, the transmitted stuff resulting in the production of a fac
simile at the destination IS a message, in the same sense that any
electronic transmission is a message (so you COULD send a fac simile
message), but it is not the message of which a fac simile is being made.  
The message could result in the fac simile of a blank piece of paper.

Dave C.

.0>               ... do you think it is acceptable to say "send a fax", or
.0>        should it be "send a fax message"?

From "working on a fax/facsimile product", I assume that you're asking whether
it is acceptable to use this in internal and/or user documentation.  In this
case, it generally is best to stick with the terminology most widely used by
the intended audience.  If they commonly use "send a fax" when speaking at a
professional level, then so should you.


.0>        Also, if you agree with "fax" as a noun, how about as a verb as in
.0>        "fax a message"?

I don't like it, but again I'd suggest that you follow current usage.

    Re .2: Dave, I might be wrong, but I thought that in "fac simile"
    fac was a verb (shortened [? Help Roger, my Latin is too rusty]
    imperative form of facere -do or make-) and simile an adverb
    (similarly). Does anyone know for sure?
    			Denis.

    You're right, Denis; fac is an imperative. In the mists of time I can
    just make out a list of four irregular forms: `dic',  `duc', `fac' and
    `fer' (I'm not sure what I remember them _as_, except that I remember
    them as a set).
    
    The form `fac' may well have been abbreviated at some very early stage
    (pre-classical?) from something like *FACE; I'd have to look it up in
    an historical dictionary to be sure.
    
    It's conceivable that some writer of Latin coined a noun on the basis
    of words meaning `do likewise'; it seems to me more probable that
    an English writer did.
    
    b

"Facsimile" is directly taken from "fac simile," the singular imperative
of "make similar."  It is a noun, and means either an exact copy or the
*process* of transmitting a copy by wire or radio.  It is *not* an old
Latin word per se.

"Fax" is common colloquial usage, and appears either as a verb or as a
noun.  I would not, were I an editor instead of a mere writer, sanction
its appeaarance in official Digital documentation.  I would, however,
allow it in advertising copy.

-d

> "Fax" is common colloquial usage, and appears either as a verb or as a
> noun.  I would not, were I an editor instead of a mere writer, sanction
> its appeaarance in official Digital documentation.  I would, however,
	
				why not?

    Because Digital's corporate documentation standards tend rather to the
    formal.  Colloquial language is actively, and in some cases quite
    relentlessly, discouraged.
    
    For example, a writer might find notations like:
    
    o   Contractions are right out
    
    o   The ULTRIX(tm) manpages are referred to in all ULTRIX documentation
        as "reference pages" despite the fact that virtually the entire
        UNIX(r) world calls them manpages (or, in some instances, man
        pages)
    
    in the copy s/he gets back from an editor.
    
    In the preceding material there are two violations of the Corporate
    Documentation Style Guide's rules:
    
    1.  The use of "s/he" is not permitted.  Language is to be phrased
        in such a way that no indication of sex is given.  Usually, this
        goal is achieved by writing in the second person.
    
    2.  Placing a list in the middle of a sentence as is done above is not
        allowed.
    
    The preceding sequential list is not allowed because it is not a list
    that indicates a sequence of operations or events.  It should be
    bulleted.
    
    See?  Stiff standards, and "fax" doesn't fit in.
    
    -d

    Re .8
    >The ULTRIX(tm) manpages are referred to in all ULTRIX documentation
    >as "reference pages"
    
    % man 1 man
         Name
              man - displays manual pages online
         Syntax
              [...]
         [rest deleted]
    %
    [whoa, what's this       ^^^^^^
                             manual??????     OK, let's continue]
    % reference 1 reference
    reference: Command not found.
    %

I stand corrected.  

    >I stand corrected.
    
    Aw, you were probably sitting when you typed that.
    Besides, the only people who can really say that are
    those who wore certain types of braces as children.
    (Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I like to fac puns.)

Look in any of the ULTRIX docset *other* than the manpages, which are
actually imported essentially verbatim from the BSD kit, and you will
find the term "reference pages" used, not "manpages."  From the _Guide
to Sharing Software on a Local Area Network_:

	Conventions

		The following typographical conventions are used in
		this manual:

		cat(1)	    A cross-reference to a reference page
			    includes the appropriate section number
			    in parentheses.  For example, a
			    refernce to cat(1) indicates that you
			    can find the material on the cat command
			    in Section 1 of the _ULTRIX Reference
			    pages_

	.
	.
	.

	2.5.2  Registering Clients' Host names and TCP/IP Addresses
	       with Servers

					 ... The netsetup utility is
		described in the _Introduction to Networking and
		Distributed System Services_ and in the netsetup(8)
		Reference Page.

Shall I go on?  :-)

-d

    % man comsat
         [...]
         Restrictions
              The message header filtering is prone to error.
         [...]
    %
    
    The word "Restrictions" is most definitely not copied verbatim.
    Somehow we have the opinion that Documented Bugs were not part
    of the contract with the customer, and therefore have to be fixed,
    and we can't afford to fix them, so we can't Document them as Bugs.
    And somehow we have the opinion that Restrictions (whether Documented
    or Undocumented) are not part of the contract, and therefore do not
    have to be fixed.  So we Document some Restrictions, we leave other
    Restrictions Undocumented, and we rarely fix them.
    
    Nonetheless, the importation is non-verbatim in some essential respects.
    And I wonder why we don't just put a Restriction on each entire contract,
    Documenting the Restriction that the products are prone to error.
    
    (And if a lawyer sees this, I'll bet the comsat reference page will be
    changed before the next release, but my questions will never be answered.)

    Norman, we could nitpick back and forth forever on this.  The section
    title "Restrictions" is, as you say, not copied verbatim from the BSD
    manpage.  When the BSD manpages were ported to ULTRIX we ran a script
    that changed section titles.  Some titles, like this one, which was
    originally "BUGS," were altered, and all were changed form uppercase to
    init-cap.
    
    The fact is, however, that for the most part, the wording of manpages
    is as it was when we got them, regardless of their individual sources. 
    One of the ongoing tasks of *every* writer in our group is to own some
    certain number of manpages, but the pages get changed textually only
    when they are QARed, and there is too the fact that not all writers are
    equally proficient with language or equally concerned with literary
    merit.  I am one of the few who go through an entire manpage looking
    for ways to improve its wording when making technical changes.
    
    Returning to the original question, I will restate that the corporate
    style guidelines stress the need to avoid colloquial language like
    "fax" in technical manuals.  There are always exceptions that prove
    [determine the quality of by testing] any rule.
    
    -d

	Ah yes ... but is "fax" still considered "colloquial"?  The replies
	here seem to suggest yes.  But has anyone got a newish dictionary
	that doesn't list it as colloquial?

	Lynette

Sorry for the nitpicking.  Perhaps we need a separate topic on the matter
of Digital's corporate lexical rules.  (However, probably not a separate
conference, because there are enough non-JOYful base notes here already,
including .0 in this topic.)

My general impression is that corporate policy picks nits in a manner that
does not do what it claims to do.  (Sorry to add this to this topic, but I
didn't want to start a new topic yet just for one sentence.)

-- Norman Diamond

    IMHO, "fax" is better understood than "facsimile".  This was not true
    five years ago; it is true today.

    So the question is how long will Digital hold on to a formalism
    that gets in the way of a reader's clear and rapid understand.

>	Ah yes ... but is "fax" still considered "colloquial"?  The replies
>	here seem to suggest yes.  But has anyone got a newish dictionary
>	that doesn't list it as colloquial?

	fax \'faks\ n [by shortening & alter.] (1948): FACSIMILE 2

		-- Webster's Ninth New Collegiate (Merriam-Webster), 1986

P.S.  Here's a better question though.  What do you think is going to change
quicker: Digital standards or language?

	For those who are interested, I've decided that I will use "fax" (as
	a noun or adjective at least), regardless of a "Digital standard".
	I'm not sure about using it as a verb.

	From everyone's comments here and in other conferences, I think
	a case for using "fax" over "facsimile" can be argued either way.  
	However, I think my readers will use the word "fax" when they are 
	using the product, so that's good enough for me.  

	Thanks for your thoughts.

	Lynette

	Re .18:
           
    >	fax \'faks\ n [by shortening & alter.] (1948): FACSIMILE 2
    >
    >		-- Webster's Ninth New Collegiate (Merriam-Webster), 1986

    
     	The 1990 edition of WNNC end the above line with:   -- fax vt
    
    	So it seems fax as a verb should be just as valid as the noun.
    
    	Hans
    
    	

     A sign in the hall in HLO2 leads to the Fac's machine.

Re:   A sign in the hall in HLO2 leads to the Fac's machine.

I saw a printshop advertising for "Zerox" copies.  :-)

    Here's an entry into this debate on the side of "people power"
    or perhaps, some might say, pure anarchy, but to the point; no matter
    what Digital or any dictionary editor says, "fax" has entered 
    the language as both a noun and a verb. It has a crystal clear
    meaning used either way, and I see copy center windows with
    three foot high signs in red saying FAX IT HERE, and there's
    no doubt about what is for sale. If I were an editor for Digital
    I would encourage the use of the word wherever the meaning is
    to copy paper-based information over a phone line or a piece
    of paper output from a machine on the receiving end of that process.
    
    To enter the debate on the issue of the Latin origins, isn't the
    imperative of facere, "face"? In any case the root meaning is
    "make" and the root meaning of simile is "same" or "like".
    
    Regards
    Bruce 

    ... just for the record:
    �    To enter the debate on the issue of the Latin origins, isn't the
    	 imperative of facere, "face"? 
    
    No, it's `fac'; but the point stands.
    
    b

    I recently saw William Safire's usual article in the NY Times Magazine.
    He used the word fax (in its plural form, actually: "faxes") without
    so much as quotes, italics, or comment.
    
    So here we have an educated and published example to be cited by the
    usage panels and dictionaries.

>    I recently saw William Safire's usual article in the NY Times Magazine.
>    He used the word fax (in its plural form, actually: "faxes") without
>    so much as quotes, italics, or comment.
    
	Well, if it's good enough for Safire, then it's good enough for
	me.  Hmmm, on the other hand, though, I wonder if we can find 
	"fax" in Fowler.  Too bad he's dead, eh?

		-- Cliff

    All this talk of spell-checkckers has maid me soup or sensitive.
    
    Thanks muchly...  :-)

I've heard fax used by itself as a plural.  I typically use faxes myself.
Someone is bound to try faxen in informal conversation, particularly between
techno-weenies who use the term VAXen.

Wook

    Oh, no!  Somebody is going to post the anti-"VAXen" diatribe again! 
    Anything but that!  Anything!  Mr. Moderator, please don't let it
    be inflicted on us again!