a-few-terms.tex

Linguists usually refer to informal language as `slang' and reserve the term
`jargon' for the technical vocabularies of various occupations. However, the
ancestor of this collection was called the `Jargon File', and hacker slang is
traditionally `the jargon'. When talking about the jargon there is therefore no
convenient way to distinguish it frmo what a \textit{linguist} would call
hackers' jargon -- the formal vocabulary they learn from textbooks, technical
papers, and manuals.

To make a confused situation worse, the line between hacker slang and the
vocabulary of technical programming and computer science is fuzzy, and shifts
over time. Further, this vocabulary is shared with a wider technical culture of
programmers, many of whom are not hackers and do not speak or recognize hackish
slang.

Accordingly, this lexicon will try to be as precise as the facts of usage permit
about the distinctions among three categories:

\begin{itemize}
	\item `slang': informal language from mainstream English or non-technical
		subcultures (bikers, rock fans, surfers, etc).
	\item `jargon': without qualifier, denotes informal `slangy' language
		peculiar to or predominantly found among hackers -- the subject of this
		lexicon.
	\item `techspeak': the formal technical vocabulary of programming, computer
		science, electronics, and other fields connected to hacking.
\end{itemize}

This terminology will be consistently used throughout the remainder of this
lexicon.

The jargon/techspeak distinction is the delicate one. A lot of techspeak
originated as jargon, and there is a steady continuing uptake of jargon into
techspeak. On the other hand, a lot of jargon arises from overgeneraliztion of
techspeak terms (there is more about this in the
\citechapter{Jargon Construction} section below).

In general, we have considered techspeak any term that communicates primarily
by a denotation well established in technical dictionaries, or standards
documents.

A few obviously techspeak terms (names of operating systems, languages, or
documents) are listed when they are tied to hacker folklore that isn't covered
in formal sources, or sometimes to convey critical historical background
necessary to understand other entries to which they are cross-referenced. Some
other techspeak senses of jargon words are listed in order to make the jargon
senses clear; where the text does not specify that a straight technical sense
is under discussion, these are marked with `[techspeak]' as an etymology. Some
entries have a primary sense marked this way, with subsequent jargon meanings
explained in terms of it.

We have also tried to indicate (where known) the apparent origins of terms. The
results are probably the least reliable information in the lexicon, for several
reasons. For one thing, it is well known that many hackish usages have been
independently reinvented multiple times, even among the more obscure and
intricate neologisms. It often seems that the generative processes underlying
hackish jargon formation have an internal logic so powerful as to create a
substantial parallelism across separate cultures and even in different
languages! For another, the networks tend to propagate innovations so quickly
that `first use' is often impossible to pin down. And, finally, compendia like
this one alter what they observe by implicitly stamping cultural approval on
terms and widening their use.

Despite these problems, the organized collection of jargon-related oral history
for the new compilations has enabled us to put to rest quite a number of folk
etymologies, place credit where credit is due, and illuminate the early history
of many important hackerisms such as \citeentry{kluge}, \citeentry{cruft}, and
\citeentry{foo}. We believe specialist lexicographers will find many of the
historical notes more than casually instructive.