On the Nomenclature of Steampunk Artifacts.

[Dr cornelius quack]

Folks, I'm concerned.

I forsee a grave problem arising in the not too distant future.
While the number of Steampunk objects increases at an accelerating rate, the corresponding pool of available (appropriate) names remains effectively fixed.
Are we going to run out of things to call our stuff before we run out of things needing names?

Does it matter that two or more objects may well be given the same name?
Should one 'stockpile' good names and sit on them, as happened with internet domains?
Will we be reduced to the indignity of appending numbers to our creations just to differentiate them? ("Introducing "The Aethero-Atomic Discumthrenulator364.")
It's all going to get terribly confusing.

I propose that we should form a commitee of the IUPAS (International Union of Pure and Applied Steampunks) to formulate a systematic nomenclature for SP creations. Such a system would be based on a methodical description of the item, starting with the basic purpose and listing all functional appendages in the order in which they are attached

Thus an automatic six barreled, Orgone powered, two piston actuated, four reservoir space blaster of the standard configuration could be fully and uniquely identified by the name:-

n-Crystalo-bi-pistylo-tetrapleno-vacuuo-hexa-raygunene

A much more intellectually satisfying name, I'm sure you'll agree.

[Mr. Boltneck]

We could build an open-source taxonomy: http://www.searchcomponentsonline.com/taxonomy_tools/
Pointless heuristics FTW!

[Prof Ainsworth Halfmain]

I like the idea, good Dr. It lends a certain air of exclusivity to those who fancy themselves inventors and certainly would assist in resolving any non-relativistic chronologically induced patent infringement claims.

Then again, it does run the risk of turning something simple and easily recognized into, say, 1,3,5-cyclohexa-pi-delocalized-triene. There is some value in keeping things simple, lest the unintiated suffer irreparable injury trying to sort out syllables and pronounce them in proper order.

Perhaps a CAS numerical system (Contraptionus Apparati Steampunk) would be of value for inclusion if common or trademark proprietary names are to remain in service.

[Dr cornelius quack]

Thank you, Professor.

I agree that 'common names' should not vanish entirely. In normal conversation, the use of a widely accepted 'nickname' aids in efficient time saving. However, I cannot agree that the object of a systematic naming protocol should be the creation of false divisions within the community at large. One would hope for, and do all in ones power to encourage, an 'across the board' raising of the knowledge base, so that all  may be equally at home with the system.  That these names may, at first, be challenging to the learner ought to act as a springboard for the diligent study of the method. Not to mention, a fine program of exercise for the facial muscles.

Kindest regards,

Dr. Quack

[Willie Hawkes]

We could always call them <Insert inventor's name, with "'s" at the end> <Insert Adjective> <insert invention name>

An example, "Hawkes' marvelous Hydraulic Pepper shaker"
(Note there is no such thing as a "Hawkes marvelous Hydraulic pepper shaker", though I reserve the right to invent one. =P )

[Prof Ainsworth Halfmain]

I agree wholeheartedly, good Doctor.
The proposed IUPAS committee, in developing a system for being incontrovertibly descriptive of the contraption, device or artifact in question, has strong merit. A system describing particular elements of its design in a formalized order, e.g. progressing through general class, functionality, emissions, power source, modulations, attachments, etc. would be of much use, easily learnt and interpreted by most after some degree of familiarization. Not to mention raise the awareness within the general Steampunk empire of technological advances being incorporated into devices of their everyday encounters.  Many seem unaware of even the basic inner workings of kinetoscopic display devices, yet recognize general capabilities and make use of them almost continuously in their daily dalliances. A more descriptive approach would indeed avoid certain proprietary cross claims whilst at the same time, give the user more flexibility to select the correct device having capabilities suitable to ones needs.
If I may be of service in this endeavour, please do not hesitate to telegraph or transmit kinetophotonic imagery at your convenience.
Yr obt svt,
Prof Ainsworth Halfmain

[rovingjack]

perhaps we need a dewey decimal system for the items in question. There is a about as much chance of running out of names as there are running out of coversation simply because all the words are used up. Or for that matter new people, since every living thing on the planet made with DNA has only T,G,C,A with hich to work.

Besides it's not required that every thing have a totally unique name. Just because two people have proton accelerated liquid ether rifels doesn't mean they are the same or even remotely resemble each other.