The Shame Of Nibs Being Outsourced?

[Tinjapan]

I have just pulled out my copy if the Concise Oxford Dictionary. "Feasible" is on page 433. Under the entry, one will find:

 

practicable, possible, manageable, serviceable, convenient, plausible.

 

The Oxford Dictionary or Tinjapan and his buddy on FPN? It's a tough choice, but we are going to go with the hopelessly-parameterless Oxford.

 

Fowler's Modern English Usage says this of "feasible":

 

"It means the same as possible in one of the latter's* senses, and its true function is to be used instead of possible where that might be ambiguous".

 

* = OED definition "capable of being done, accomplished, or carried out".

 

I like Fowler too.

Yes they are synonmous but as "A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language." They are not the same as used in business and we are discussing the business practice of pen companies. Thus, the business use or feasible" is the one and only definition of the word feasible which concerns us here.

[Tinjapan]

I've seen a lot of roads like that. Is an impassible road still a road? Is closed road still a road? Road down the street from me got closed for a day last week; but it sure looked like a road even when it was closed ...

 

The Cambridge English Dictionary offers this:

 

impassable adjective

uk ​ /ɪmˈpɑː.sə.bəl/ us ​ /ɪmˈpæs.ə.bəl/

 

An impassable or cannot be on because of or because it is :

- Many were and impassable the .

 

 

 

No hint of "no longer a road" there and looks like a road not feasible for travel, that being impossible in the circumstances. Again, tough choice between Tinjapan and the Cambridge, but I think I will go with the latter.

Sure there is. Any stated object is to be assumed to be it its usual state. Thus we must use a modifier to express that it is not in it usual state. If being impassable was the usual state of roads, then we would have to use a modifier to express that it was passable. Thus, no modifier expresses the state of road to be that of which is normal for roads, passable.

[FarmBoy]

Is it allowed to use the word being defined in the defination?

 

I return to topic and remind the casual reader that outsourcing nibs is not new. Waterman outsourced nibs at the beginning. We should consider the implications and reasons for this as it applies to nibs being manufactured as a commodity part for pen manufacture today.

[milkb0at]

I've always used "feasible" to mean "it's possible and it's worth doing". The dictionary on my computer (don't know which source) defines it as "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are" i.e. it's more nuanced than just "possible". Plus I've grown up with a world of feasibility studies which, as pointed out, are about business economics. So I'm with Tinjapan on this one.

 

English is a funny language. Just as "literally" means both literal and figurative ("it literally blew my mind"), which are the exact opposite of each other.

 

Not that this really has much to do with fountain pen nibs, but there you go.

[FriendAmos]

Sure there is. Any stated object is to be assumed to be it its usual state. Thus we must use a modifier to express that it is not in it usual state. If being impassable was the usual state of roads, then we would have to use a modifier to express that it was passable. Thus, no modifier expresses the state of road to be that of which is normal for roads, passable.

 

If an impassible road is not a road, then you should call it an impassible something-else. If you call it an impassible road, then it is a road, because the "road" is there ... plain reading and nothing to with modifiers or whatever.

Edited April 13, 2017 by FriendAmos

[FriendAmos]

Yes they are synonmous but as "A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language." They are not the same as used in business and we are discussing the business practice of pen companies. Thus, the business use or feasible" is the one and only definition of the word feasible which concerns us here.

 

Yes, I know that, which is why, in addition to the dictionary defnition, I referred to Flower on usage.

 

For another one, the Longman Guide to English Usage has one simple entry:

 

Feasible means "able to be done".

 

That's it. Seems clear enough to me. Another tough choice, between Tinjapan and Longman, but I think I will go with Longman.

Edited April 13, 2017 by FriendAmos

[FriendAmos]

I've always used "feasible" to mean "it's possible and it's worth doing". The dictionary on my computer (don't know which source) defines it as "capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are" i.e. it's more nuanced than just "possible". Plus I've grown up with a world of feasibility studies which, as pointed out, are about business economics. So I'm with Tinjapan on this one.

 

English is a funny language. Just as "literally" means both literal and figurative ("it literally blew my mind"), which are the exact opposite of each other.

 

 

What you have always done is probably not the best possible guide. "Literally" does not mean both literal and figurative, and the fact that you might say "it literally blew my mind" does not make it so. In fact the OED definition, for example, makes it clear that the meaning does not include anything like "mysticism or allegory or metaphor ...".

 

And there is nothing special about English. In any language, people can (and do) use words to mean all sorts of things; but there are generally standard meanings, which is why people have been using dictionaries for .... how many yeas?

Edited April 13, 2017 by FriendAmos

[tonybelding]

English is a funny language. Just as "literally" means both literal and figurative ("it literally blew my mind"), which are the exact opposite of each other.

 

 

"It literally blew my mind" is not correct. It's a mistake and a mis-use of the word. Granted, it's an all-too-widespread mistake, but it's still wrong.

 

Sort of like "hoi polloi": the common people, the masses. Sometimes it's incorrectly used to mean the opposite, the upper classes. However, that usage is a product of ignorance or carelessness. It's not right.

 

If a word is used incorrectly often enough and for long enough, eventually the incorrect meaning can become accepted. For example, I've just about given up on explaining why "flammable" is not a real word. It's in the dictionary now.

[Astronymus]

Super Constellation.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/1024px-SCFA-Connie_zpskiprynlc.jpg

 

 

Flies sometimes past my window when there is a an air show at INN. Beautiful plane and the sound is unique.

[max dog]

I for one am glad there are more than just Bock and JoWo nib options and there are some making their own unique nibs. I think the common shade for all fad went out with the Mao regime.

Edited April 13, 2017 by max dog

[welch]

It's economics.

 

- Companies that had pen factories in 1960 might still produce nibs, caps, barrels, and nearly everything else. Aurora is an example. "Might", meaning a great company like Sheaffer could not keep their production in Fort Madison, and Parker could not keep Janesville and Newhaven.

 

- Small startup companies, however, cannot make the jump from making small runs of pens to revenue and profits to support mass-production machinery. Imagine how many pens Onoto would need to sell each month to afford a factory of the sort Lamy has. If Brian Gray makes barrels and caps, it is ambitious for Edison to make vacumatic and push-fillers. It's a big leap to make nibs.

[milkb0at]

 

What you have always done is probably not the best possible guide.

What?! I'm literally always right.

[milkb0at]

 

 

"It literally blew my mind" is not correct. It's a mistake and a mis-use of the word. Granted, it's an all-too-widespread mistake, but it's still wrong.

 

...

 

If a word is used incorrectly often enough and for long enough, eventually the incorrect meaning can become accepted. For example, I've just about given up on explaining why "flammable" is not a real word. It's in the dictionary now.

The second paragraph contradicts the first. Sadly (and I don't like using it either) "literally" now does indeed have contradictory meanings. It's in common usage now, plus many dictionaries have it (although apparently not the OED).

 

Funnily enough, I almost went with "flammable" instead of "literally" as my off-the-cuff example of language being weird.

[Maurizio]

IMG_2133_cut_large.jpg

 

This guy here is a Bock nib made for Nemosine. These guys are a small pen company here in Pittsburgh. I doubt they could made a pen for under a hundred bucks if they made their own nibs. As it is they make a great and unique pen and don't charge an arm and a leg for it. Throw one of these nibs on a Jinhao and she writes like a three hundred dollar pen.

 

How many fire roast nibs are out there?

 

Can you give me some direction to instructions for this? I'd love to put a nicer nib on my delightful to hold Jinhao 159s.

[dcwaites]

...

 

The DC-3 had a huge tail and rudder. Early the rudder was often damaged from wind. Then they started hooking a bungee cord to it. That bungee cord was the second autopilot.

 

...

 

The other antique I worked on...was the Super Connie....Super Constellation. With radomes the EC-121.

It had three tails in the original test model had a huge tail like a DC-3 but on a bigger plane, bigger, the DC-4&6 had such a tail, but there were no hangers tall enough then. It was also one of the first passenger planes with a nose wheel, and it stands very high off the ground.

 

The reason the Connie is so beautiful, is Howard Hughs used a different size frames for aerodynamic reasons....the DC-4&6 were made much cheaper with one size frame. DC-3 had it's framing done aerodynamically also.

 

I am a little prejudiced....I worked on a couple of the best and prettiest planes ever made. Both were working planes well into the '70's. The DC-3 and Connie having started in the @ '39-40.

Another plane I vastly admire is the the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, over 60 years in USAF service in 2007 and still being upgraded and produced. Scheduled to be replaced in 2024. I'm sure the B-52 will still be flying then. I learned navigation because of that plane in the 9 month Tec School. We all had to be able to work the navigation board on it.

 

I flew half the world on the EC-121...from Mass.&California to Iceland. From California to Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, & Korea. For 3 month TDY's. It could stay in the air 14 hours.....Depending on what the weather was on Guam, we'd stop over there or at Hawaii and fly through the bad weather.

Those P-folks in Hawaii....running around in Arctic Gear because it was 65F.

http://i1339.photobucket.com/albums/o707/boboolson1/1024px-SCFA-Connie_zpskiprynlc.jpg

 

 

 

 

The DC-3 not only had large tail and rudder, the wing area was enormous for the weight of the plane. Which made it very susceptible to turbulence. When you came in to land at Port Moresby's Jackson's Airport, you flew over large areas of lightly grassed red clay, which heated up, which caused the air to rise, which buffeted the DC-3 no end.

 

Qantas had some Connies. We flew from Port Moresby to Sydney, with a stop over in Brisbane. It took 10 hours, compared to today's 3 hours. It was then, and still is, the most beautiful plane evah!!!

Edited April 13, 2017 by dcwaites

[butchixanhdo]

 

 

I tend to call the nib the soul of the pen and the feed the heart.

 

 

Same here. I don't care about company outsourcing nibs. I am only sick at seeing nibs of the same shapes from companies to companies. Look at Edison, Franklin-Christoph.

[praxim]

When I invited tinjapan to PM me, I had intended to take a lot of definitional discussion off FPN while keeping things cool. In fact tinjapan merely wrote to me exactly what he posted in #119 so this is my response (redrafted), the point to private discussion having been removed.

 

I refer first to tinjapan's post #121, making a conveniently short definition of the word "synonym"

 

Yes they are synonmous but as "A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language." They are not the same as used in business and we are discussing the business practice of pen companies. Thus, the business use or feasible" is the one and only definition of the word feasible which concerns us here.

 

Here is the full definition of synonym (Oxford) excluding example cases

1. a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another in the same language.
2. a word denoting the same thing as another but suitable to a different context or containing a different emphasis.
3. a word equivalent to another in some but not all senses.

tinjapan apparently does not want us to consider a meaning beyond cherry-picking the one most convenient to them. Feasible is a synonym of possible used in different contexts and not being the same in all senses. You can save reading the rest by noting that FriendAmos is absolutely correct in definition and usage. However, given the attempt to move the goalposts in the final sentence of the above quoted text, I had better address business use of "feasibility" and in particular, that distinct entity the "feasibility study".

 

tinjapan in #119 relies on "possible within certain parameters" which is their own summary of the text tinjapan quotes. What is it that is possible with no parameters? It is a pointless statement meant to distract.

 

A definition of feasibility study (I will use Investopedia here) is that a thing be "market feasible" (there is a market), technically feasible, financially feasible and organisationally feasible. I could add some items about risk and resources. These are components of a feasibility study. They did not redefine the word feasibility. tinjapan has not referred to feasibility study, although now trying to imply that is the only relevant meaning of feasible. That is true only to save tinjapan's error.

 

I have experience of this. I have spent a lifetime working in design, innovation, new projects, and for some very large and international companies, as well as years as an independent management consultant covering issues of technical, financial and contractual options and viability for said clients. I know this s--t, and I heard feasibility to include cost only when that was the explicit or conversationally-implicit context. The feasibility of many things are considered where cost is immaterial. See the definitions helpfully provided by FriendAmos.

 

Here is another word: option. It means the act or instance of choosing, a choice, a thing which may be chosen or the liberty of choosing. In finance it may be shorthand for a Call or Put Option. In business it may be analysed as a Real Option. If the financial analyst says to the business person "We have the options here", then the meaning of option is the basic definition I gave, and might include both financial and real options or a choice of where to go for lunch.

 

Correspondingly, when "feasibility" is used without reference to "study" then it means what it always means. If tinjapan wished to include cost as an item of their commentary then they can say so easily and clearly without mis-applying words (it was also mis-spelled, as were other efforts by tinjapan) Why are we spending pages on that obvious misuse?

 

If I may get back to the subject, I disagree with the OP, despite my personal preference for pens with in-house nibs.

[FarmBoy]

It seems feasible to me that this post has gotten no closer to the end than when it started though I have no claim on the message herein.

[praxim]

Instead of the tl;dr version

 

"A machine has exploded at the plant."

"Is fixing it feasible?"

"Yes, but there might be a better return in buying the new version."

 

Otherwise, one does not have options.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Mostly there are two or three or meanings to a word....the first the more important, but the rest still used, and just as right.

 

Take the word Henchman, I was ever so surprised the first definition in my old Websters had to do with someone holding the stirrup for someone, instead of the way it's mostly used today....some big crook's mean menace and muscle.

And the old Websters had the stirrup holder first....it appears other dictionary's have it in different order. I'd never thought of a henchman as political.

 

henchman

ˈhɛn(t)ʃmən/

noun

noun: henchman; plural noun: henchmen

1. derogatory

   a faithful follower or political supporter, especially one prepared to engage in crime or violence by way of service.

   "the dictator's henchman"

   synonyms: follower, supporter, assistant, aide, helper, adjutant, right-hand man; More

   subordinate, underling, minion, lackey, flunkey, toady, stooge, acolyte, satellite, shadow;

   bodyguard, minder, protector;

   informalsidekick, crony, heavy, man/girl Friday;

   informalbody man

   "the local dictator arrived with a group of henchmen"

   antonyms: leader

   • historical

     a squire or page of honour to a person of rank.
   • (in Scotland) the principal attendant of a Highland chief.

     In my City Slicker Western my murderous heroine has a henchman....more the stirrup holder....just seeing what the hell she's going to do next......a two gun background menace.