![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
ROTFL! --doug
Doug wrote:
Without meaning to fan the flames, can you provide another citation
outside of LO that supports the theory espoused?That "register true" is for "adjust to baseline" or whatever?
Take any book about typography. I can cite at least three different book titles
from memory that will support it. But they are all in Polish, so I doubt they
will be much of use here.ROTFL! --doug
http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/lswiki.nsf/dx/General_Glossary_ls301
I found this link. You will have to search down through this article. Lotus, I believe is an IBM product as in Lotus Symphony. It has the same two paragraphs that LO and AOO have.
--Dan
Do you care to elaborate what have you found so funny?
When you said that it would not be of much use here--there are
relatively few Americans (or Brits, either, I guess) who read Polish.
Absolutely correct, and I imagine you thought it was somewhat
humorous also. --dm
Again, without meaning to fan any flames or otherwise sound insulting, quite frankly in my opinion the link is a weak one for various reasons, including lack of a verifiable author with impressive sounding credentials. I was looking more for something along the lines of a historical citation. Perhaps a book or article about the history of the printing press, newspapers and/or typography. Towards that end I looked at various sources for typography, none of them mention "register true" that I could find. A google search on register true turns up only the LO help page.
It's just odd to me that something that is supposed to have been in use for many years isn't mentioned anywhere authoritative (other than perhaps a few Polish books in Miroslaw's memory). Granted the term is relatively obscure, but "parellelepiped" is in the dictionary and that arguably is even more obscure. Other obscure words include "ninnyhammer" and "flibbertigibbet" which I've only just learned.
here is a page advertising some stuff on offset printing referring to 'register true': <http://www.kba.com/en/sheetfed-offset/service/upgrades/print-quality/plattenstanzen/>
here is a page on a patent relating to register-true coordination of a printing cylinder. <http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20090141294/description.html>
I haven't yet found a page with a good definition (but have only spent 10 mins so far). ah, the Heidelberg glossary mentions 'register true in the definition of 'Folding marks', viz. Marks made to ensure register-true folding. Back to top <http://www.heidelberg.com/bin/www/en/glossary/glossaryitems/f?mode=printable>
perhaps also Miroslav could cite a book or two; don't see what difference it makes if the books are in Polish. if Missouri is the 'show-me' state, does that require translation into Missourian?
oh look, German: Im Druckwesen versteht man unter dem Begriff Register, dass die Zeilen der Vorderseite mit denen der Rückseite bzw. die Zeilen nebeneinander liegender Spalten auf einer gemeinsamen Schriftgrundlinie liegen. Hält ein Text nicht Register, empfindet man dies insbesondere im Spaltensatz als unangenehm. Textverarbeitungsprogramme und DTP-Programme beherrschen die Registerhaltigkeit oftmals nur bedingt.
roughly and very abbreviated: 'register means that the lines on the front size lie on a common line with the lines on the rear side'. <http://www.typo-info.de/registerhaltigkeit.htm>
plenty of references to 'register halten' and 'registerhaltigkeit'.
obscure terms of specialized crafts I guess often don't show up in google or in english.
F.
Andrew:
Try googling for the following, starting on page 23.
Bookbinding and Its Auxiliary Branches: Punching, crimping, cycletting ...
By John J. Pleger
TomW
Hi 
Words that are obscure within a particular technical language or very localised geographical area do sometimes take a long time before they reach the lofty academic's towers. Occasionally an academic or two might venture forth into strange lands to see and report what is really going on. For example txting had been in widespread usage and the main language for almost an entire generation before some of the more obvious examples reached any type of dictionary. People think language is static but if you travel across England you find that every 20miles or so different words appear or vanish and usage varies hugely. I live in almost a city but even 5miles outside in any direction the locals are almost incomprehensible = it's still English, or at least it's spoken in England.
Regards from
Tom
Can you, without help of translation software, tell which one is about
register?
1. Części książki zawierające informacje o dziele i autorze lub stanowiące
wypowiedź autora związaną z książką.
2. Zgodność padania na siebie wierszy kolumn wydrukowanych po przeciwnych
stronach arkusza.
3. Nawiasy okrągłe stosowane są przez autora danego tekstu do oznaczania
alternatywnych sformułowań tekstu głównego.
(They are all excerpts from the same book, "Typografia typowej książki" by
Robert Chwałowski.)
It is safer to assume that most of readers here do not understand Polish. If I
write something in language that other people in this thread do not
understand, then this message is not proving anything. I could as well write
recipe for apple pie and other people will be unable to tell the difference.
The same goes for your quote in German. Let's assume that I do not know word
"register" and think it is not understandable and should be changed. I read
your post, which contain proof in German with "rough and very abbreviated"
translation. How can I be sure that this translation is accurate? If I do not
understand German, I have no idea what is written there. I must depend solely
on your translation. And *you* are trying to convince me! How can I be sure
that you are not lying just to prove your point?
(Personally I hope you do not, but again - this is only assumption that may be
wrong.)
If we are trying to convince someone (as in this case), then we must do our
best to provide arguments that are understood. It is crucial that each side
can independently verify accuracy of arguments. Otherwise, our debate partner
will have to believe us. And faith is not a proof.
Hi
Words that are obscure within a particular technical language or very localised geographical area do sometimes take a long time before they reach the lofty academic's towers. Occasionally an academic or two might venture forth into strange lands to see and report what is really going on. For example txting had been in widespread usage and the main language for almost an entire generation before some of the more obvious examples reached any type of dictionary. People think language is static but if you travel across England you find that every 20miles or so different words appear or vanish and usage varies hugely. I live in almost a city but even 5miles outside in any direction the locals are almost incomprehensible = it's still English, or at least it's spoken in England.
Add different usages in nominally English speaking countries such as bonnet or boot in UK vs US usage.
Regards from
Tom
I think the problem as I have been following the thread is the old technical printing terminology has crept into LO but very few people are aware of its technical meaning. The terminology is probably a very accurate description of what is being done but to those of us who not familiar with printing terminology it is borderline gibberish. The real issue is how to handle the terminology, keep the accurate if obscure terminology or replace it with a less precise but more generally understood terminology.
perhaps also Miroslav could cite a book or two; don't see what difference it makes if the books are in Polish. if Missouri is the 'show-me' state, does that require translation into Missourian?
Can you, without help of translation software, tell which one is about register?
no.
1. Części książki zawierające informacje o dziele i autorze lub stanowiące wypowiedź autora związaną z książką.
2. Zgodność padania na siebie wierszy kolumn wydrukowanych po przeciwnych stronach arkusza.
3. Nawiasy okrągłe stosowane są przez autora danego tekstu do oznaczania alternatywnych sformułowań tekstu głównego.
(They are all excerpts from the same book, "Typografia typowej książki" by Robert Chwałowski.)It is safer to assume that most of readers here do not understand Polish. If I write something in language that other people in this thread do not understand, then this message is not proving anything. I could as well write recipe for apple pie and other people will be unable to tell the difference.
I find this an absurd criterion of proof. there are plenty of proofs of things I do not understand, for instance in math physics or fluid dynamics, but that doesn't imply they are not proofs!
to access them I would need yrs of training. to access a text in Polish I need a friend or colleague (or software), a lot easier. or I can just take your word for it.
The same goes for your quote in German. Let's assume that I do not know word "register" and think it is not understandable and should be changed. I read your post, which contain proof in German with "rough and very abbreviated" translation. How can I be sure that this translation is accurate? If I do not understand German, I have no idea what is written there. I must depend solely on your translation.
And *you* are trying to convince me! How can I be sure that you are not lying just to prove your point?
that's pretty cynical. though St Paul wrote that a fellow from Crete told him all Cretans are liars!
(Personally I hope you do not, but again - this is only assumption that may be wrong.)
anyone with a little savvy or some friends can check the translation. and it is exceedingly unlikely you would be lying, it is more likely there is confusion about the question. I am quite prepared to take your word and I see no reason to think we are talking about different things.
If we are trying to convince someone (as in this case), then we must do our best to provide arguments that are understood. It is crucial that each side can independently verify accuracy of arguments. Otherwise, our debate partner will have to believe us. And faith is not a proof.
understood and agreed. and our interlocutors must sometimes be willing to do a little work if they are uncertain of our veracity or accuracy.
sorry to be so longwinded, and we should be wary of 'thread drift'.
F.
Allow me to interject. You both make excellent points, but lets soften the debate a bit and assume nobody is lying, because that's not the issue. The issue, by way of example is as follows. The original bible to my knowledge, was written in Hebrew. Someone wanting to read the bible would either have to learn Hebrew, or rely on someone else's translation of it into one's own native language, in my case English.
Yet, despite the translation there are still millions of people that *interpret* that translation differently from each other. And so, in the case of register true, I simply wanted to see for myself that there was indeed factual evidence that, that terminology was in fact in use at some prior point in time, but more importantly, why those particular words were used to mean what I'm told is "aligning baselines". I wanted to be certain in my own mind, that other people were not interpreting differently than I might interpret, not because they were lying but because everyone sees things a bit differently.
Miloslaw is right, I would greatly prefer to see it in English as I don't know Polish, however the argument falls a bit short when he states using translation software isn't allowed (my interpretation of his comment "without using translation software").
Translation sofware says:
1. the parts of the book containing information about the work and the author or collecting personally the author of a book.
2. compliance of the overlapping rows of columns printed on opposite sides.
3. parentheses are applied by the author of the text to determine the main alternative wording of the text.
I would guess number 2 is the answer to the question he asked. Yet, it fails to answer my original question which is where do the words "register true" come from, and to extend and clarify the question - how did register true come to mean "aligning baselines"?
If there were software that used "hot stove" to mean "burn your hands", ok I see the connection and I'm satisified without further explanation. I don't see the same connection between "register true" and "align baselines" and so I'm curious to see how it came to mean that. I'd be somewhat satisfied if I saw in a book somewhere that was describing the finer points of typesetting or some such, and it simply stated something to the effect of "when they used to set type on the presses built in the early 1900's, they would first align the baselines of all the typeface thingys, and then say to somebody 'it registers true, you may print it'". OK, now at least I have a sense of how we got from here to there.
To the others that supplied links, thank you I intend to check them out but haven't yet done so.
I think that bit's fairly easy. According to the dictionary, one sense of "register" as a noun is "a state of proper alignment" and as a verb "to adjust so as to be properly aligned" or "to be in proper alignment". And "true" similarly can mean as an adjective "accurately placed", and as an adverb "precisely" or "exactly". So "register true" can mean "align exactly" or "precise alignment". (There's nothing about baselines - but we're talking about vertical alignment, so what else could you align?)
Brian Barker
Felmon,
I find your attitude towards discussion worth a respect. I wish everyone would
do as you do.
I think we agree in most of points.
I would only like to comment this part:
I find this an absurd criterion of proof. there are plenty of proofs
of things I do not understand, for instance in math physics or fluid
dynamics, but that doesn't imply they are not proofs!
But, honestly, I fear that providing accurate explanation in English is beyond
me at the moment. We would need to go into basics of methodology history and
theories, as well as philosophical concepts behind them. After that, I think
you could agree with me. But explaining is not only difficult for me, it would
also be awfully off the list topic.
Therefore, I hope you do agree that we should end this discussion here.
It's just I wouldn't believe translation provided by software is accurate.
I have used Google Translate (and Babelfish before) for translating full
paragraphs from one language I do understand to another language that I do
understand. There were mistakes. Some of them small, some of them completely
twisting meaning of sentences.
Since I understood both languages, I could correct any mistakes. But I
wouldn't dare to translate to/from completely foreign language.
I am still using Google Translate, but only for word-to-word translation. When
I don't remember right word in foreign language, it is helpful.
By the way, translation you have posted are pretty accurate. It seems that
translating software is getting better and better. But there are still rough
edges. As I was writing reply to Felmon message, I asked Google translate how
would "on jest godny podziwu" ("he is worth a respect") be in English. Google
suggested "he is adorable". I am not sure if Felmon would be happy if I said
that "he is adorable". I would still wait before using automated translation
software to translate longer parts of text.
Brian, the definitions you've pulled are from the legal industry 
While I don't doubt your research (I essentially said the same thing in an example - to wit:
/I'd be somewhat satisfied if I saw in a book somewhere that was
describing the finer points of typesetting or some such, and it
simply stated something to the effect of "when they used to set type
on the presses built in the early 1900's, they would first align the
baselines of all the typeface thingys, and then say to somebody 'it
registers true, you may print it'". /)
The problem is you're guessing, as was I. If you said to me something like "I've been a typesetter for 45 years, and my daddy was a typesetter before me and before that my granddaddy before him and we always used to align baselines and we called it register true, I don't know why we just did"... well, that at least carry's some ring of authority. If you'd of added "Back in them days register meant 'align' and true meant 'precise', ok that closes the circle. Finis. In lieu of that, a book from a confirmed authority stating something similar would be preferable.
It's not that I'm unwilling to accept your explanation, I just would of preferred hearing it from an authoritative source, such that it's undeniable. At this point I'm willing to drop the matter, other than to say I still vote for a change in name from "register true" to "align baselines" simply because it's more clear - at least to me.
Thanks to everyone that participated in the discussion. I'll take a look at the links previously provided perhaps they'll give me the answers I'm seeking, but regardless I declare this thread dead & buried.
Felmon,
I find your attitude towards discussion worth a respect. I wish everyone would do as you do.
thank you! danke! Dziękuję!
I think we agree in most of points.
I would only like to comment this part:
I find this an absurd criterion of proof. there are plenty of proofs
of things I do not understand, for instance in math physics or fluid
dynamics, but that doesn't imply they are not proofs!But, honestly, I fear that providing accurate explanation in English is beyond me at the moment. We would need to go into basics of methodology history and theories, as well as philosophical concepts behind them. After that, I think you could agree with me. But explaining is not only difficult for me, it would also be awfully off the list topic.
Therefore, I hope you do agree that we should end this discussion here.
ok, besides someone else authoritatively declared the thread 'dead and buried'.
but a quick question: are you an 'intuitionist' about proofs?
several yrs ago there was a flap about a computer solution of the 'four color problem'; some feel that there is no proof unless some person can grasp it thus proofs produced by supercomputers are really not proofs if no human being can trace the immensely many deductive steps. don't ask me for details. I have a vague recall of Tymozcko's work,
Tymozcko, Thomas (1979), `The four-color problem and its philosophical signicance', Journal of Philosophy, 76, 57-83.
wow! now we have decisive proof the thread is closed!
and, no, I am not 'adorable'.
Felmon
Back in 1973, I had was working in the US on a camera-ready book composition, and I was given the "Pocket Pal, a graphic artsproduction handbook", from International Paper Company (10th edition (1970), 3rd printing, rev. January 1973. (the original edition is 1934) as a reference book for english typesetting terminology (I am French and my Polish is very basic , and even if I cannot claim six-quarter printer ancestry, I have some knowledge of printing technologies, from composing stick using mobile lead typefaces to latest digital ones.)
In the "graphic arts terms" glossary, there are the following entries:
* register: Fitting of two or more printing images on the sae paper in
exact alignment with each other.
* register marks: Crosses or other devices applied to original copy
prior to photography. Used for positioning negatives in register, or
for register of two or more colors in process printing.
The term "registration" is also used in image processing in a close meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_registration
Best regards,
Jean-Louis
As far as I can imagine what it means, I believe answer is "no".
I am rather relativist. I believe that what is proof for one person, may not
be proof for another one.
World is too complicated for one person to understand it all. Therefore we
must take shortcuts and put faith in some other people. We must believe that
when someone says "something was proven", and scientific community does agree,
then it was independently checked by people capable of understanding that.
Most people would say "it is truth, it has been proven". I would say
"I believe that scientists did their job right. I believe that »something« is
true. I, personally, can not prove that. Therefore, I do not »know« - I
»believe«".
This leads us to another matter: "what about reality? There should be some
proof that something exists in reality". Well, "reality" (or "truth") are
quite complicated and problematic concepts. That's why I like Popper and
Lakatos works, as they abolish these concepts. They basically say "to hell
with 'truth'! Final goal of science is not 'truth' or 'knowledge about
reality'. Final goal of science is to be as less wrong as possible. Science
progresses as we are less wrong than before. But we are doomed to be wrong".
I hope this brief and rather incomplete answer is sufficient. As I said, more
detailed answer would require us to go into at least basic of philosophy and
methodology (and history of latter). And I honestly don't feel up to it.
For interested readers, I would recommend (all available for English readers,
with many translations to national languages):
- Alan Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?
- Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
- Paul Feyerabend, Against method
I have ordered them by difficulty level. The first one should be understandable
even for people without any methodological background.