Quote:
Originally Posted by ozinus  MDvaden. On so many levels I agree with you however Shigo taught me that being concise was the only way to communicate. If you talk about something that somebody can percieve 2 ways you have not effectively commmunicated. Dr Shigo would at times not let me finish a sentence unless I was clear about what I was saying and this goes for terminology. Not a dig mate just saying clarity of subject and terms is the key to a fluid conversation. |
Shigo covered mainly the arborist aspect. He dealt primarily with pros and researchers for chit chat. Arborists must handle the homeowner chit chat aspect as well, which leaves many arborists with a much richer and more developed style and vocabulary. If some arborists are versatile and can communicate clearly with homeowners, the same arborists can have a few speech habits that carry-over a bit. That may account for part of the variation.
Many hands-on arborists will use two dialects, we might say.
It also reminds me of the topping thing, that can be percieved two ways no matter what. In fact, the definition of topping may be wrong according to pure definition of words and terms.
For example, take the "indiscriminate" cutting that's been offered for definition of professional tree industry terms.
Well, most hacks I've seen, have made a decision about where to make their cuts. And to "discriminate" is to make a decision. So in probably 99% of hack pruning cuts, they are discriminating. Therefore their cuts would not be "indiscrimate".
The hacks discriminate between a cut "over here" and a cut "over there" knowing that one might make the limb fall on them, and the other cause the limb to fall away from them. Or several cuts make the tree top even all the way across, while staggered cuts will not make the tree even all the way across.
So according to a pure SINGLE definition ideal, most hacks "discrimate" and the professional arborist definitions for tree topping are at best incompletely defined.
So if the tree industry is willing to accept incomplete definitions like that, it may not be too hard to allow a few guys to maintain dialect flexibility
Hey, we could have real fun with this - look at Shigo.
Did he refer to "doughnuts"? Now are those "doughnuts"? No, they are not.
And didn't the same diagram state "broken"?
Now was that woundwood "broken"? No, it wasn't. It was not continuous.
And the other caption says "one sided" woundwood. Is that correct. No, it's not. It's disproportionate.
So the diagram based on Shigo's material in that pdf from Cassian, is literally loaded with figurative terminology.
That's partially why I referred to the "top" of the collar versus my "outside" the collar. Even if it was not intended as figurative, "top" is of neccessity figurative due to how various trees form branches.