A Little Rant About Language
As someone who edited a magazine for four years, allow me to digress with a brief rant about language. I have two pet peeves.
First, “digital” is an adjective. As in “digital video” or “digital audio” or “digital acquisition” or even “digital divide.” It is not a noun — it modifies a noun. So, for example, it would be incorrect to say something like, “we’re going to shoot it on digital,” (how many times have you heard that?) or, “that was before I started editing on digital.” On digital WHAT? There’s a word missing — the noun.
Second, and more important for us, “editor” is a human being, not a machine. I am getting very tired of the recent trend of calling an editing system, a piece of software, an editor. We don’t call Microsoft Word a “writer,” even though it would be quicker and easier to use that word, and we don’t call Quark Xpress a “desktop publisher.” We never called our Moviolas and KEMS editors, either.
There is simply no logic for this usage — no good reason to confuse two totally different things by giving them the same name. It’s totally disrespectful and frankly, it’s just plain wrong. The machine does not edit — it allows a human being to edit. The hammer doesn’t build the house — and we don’t call it a carpenter, either.
We need to find another word for the device that allows people to edit. And for want of something better, maybe we should stick with the term that worked just fine for the first decade and a half of the digital revolution — “editing application.”
Technorati Tags: edit, film, video
Explore posts in the same categories: Quality of Life, Workflow
Splice Now 
May 28, 2008 at 10:38 am
With regard to digital, I think that the English language evolves. I think that as culture changes, the language MUST evolve to reflect those changes and better facilitate communication. I think that the phrase “We are going to shoot it on digital.” will be a tough one to fight. I think its inevitable. But I could be wrong :)
May 28, 2008 at 11:21 am
Sadly, RED is also an adjective, so “Shooting on RED” will be no better for you, Steve. ;)
On the same tip, I was always puzzled that “Avid” became a singular noun itself. As in “The new Avid’s really running well”. (Particularly when “avid” is an adjective!) Curious…
Anyhoo, I’m off to edit digital on my Final Cut Pro.
May 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Instead of “editing application,” we use “NLE” pretty regularly.
May 29, 2008 at 5:33 am
Yea, I guess I’m okay with “NLE” — to the extent that it’s become a standalone word, separated from what the letters stand for — non-linear EDITOR.
But, I don’t think this is an academic, pointy-headed grammar discussion. When the word you use for your livelihood is artificially applied to a machine, that inevitably devalues what you do. The switch has been driven primarily by the manufacturers, and it should be challenged.
May 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm
To add to that… an upright moviola and a flatbed are both NLEs. Perhaps they should call FCP and AVIDs digital file NLEs. And I think I’ll just start calling myself a digital splicer. Or is that cutter?
May 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Call ’em what they are: CRAFT TOOLS.
June 6, 2008 at 4:00 am
I’m afraid you scupper your own arguments early on with:
‘how many times have you heard that?’
What’s used in language is what’s correct, so there’s no ‘just plain wrong’ about it.
Good luck trying to change usage though :)
June 25, 2008 at 7:05 am
I like calling the editing software “Avid.” Much in the same way that facial tissue has been called Kleenex. “NLE” doesnt roll off the tongue as easily.