Is it a correct use of the word to state, as elsewhere on this board, "Many numbering systems repurpose letters as numbers"?
Granted that usage, meaning 'to use for new purpose', would seem consistent with the word "purpose". (Of course, one could counter that we have no need for such a word; a simple use would suffice in the example sentence.)
But the word seems to me to have a different meaning in the citations I find in Google-News. I'm not sure how to phrase the distinction; something like changing the item to fit a new use.
Maybe I'm mistaken. Can the board help me to pin this down?
Good question. What I meant by to repurpose X as Y is to use X for another purpose as Y. I suppose it's a new word as it only really shows up in A-H where it has a slightly different meaning. It's similar to to retool and to do double-duty.
I first heard the word "repurpose" used at a conference of higher education PR people two years ago. A colleague said he had "repurposed" articles written for his school's alumni magazine to be used in other ways. This meant he'd reformatted, resized photos, and rewritten text to be aimed at different audiences for different reasons than the original. Voila: one article now served many purposes, from fund-raising, to admissions recruitment to general public information in brochures, newsletters and on the Web site.
It's kind of a pompous word, though, isn't it. We used to call that recycling.
Wordmatic
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
I heard it at least as early as 1997. I think "recycle" is slightly different, implying the destruction of the original. When something is repurposed, its form or structure is kept more or less intact. Christmas, for example, is Saturnalia repurposed.
A colleague said he had "repurposed" articles written for his school's alumni magazine to be used in other ways. This meant he'd reformatted, resized photos, and rewritten text to be aimed at different audiences for different reasons than the original.
Wow, he was honest. That happens a lot in academia, but authors usually try to play everything as an "original."
I don't think of "repurpose" as a pompous word, though. To me a pompous word is more like saying "balderdash," instead of "nonsense." [Still, I like the word "balderdash" and I do use it.]
I don't think of "repurpose" as a pompous word, though. To me a pompous word is more like saying "balderdash," instead of "nonsense." [Still, I like the word "balderdash" and I do use it.]
I think that this is an example of an alternative word that means the same; I don't think that such usage always means pomposity - though it can.
An example of pomposity might be when sveral long words are used in a phrase when fewer short ones would do the trick. For example:
"I would be obliged if you could maybe see your way towards effecting an alteration to the item under discussion"
instead of, "Please change that".
Having said which, I quite like a bit of pomposity at times - it is better by far than illiteracy.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Wow, he was honest. That happens a lot in academia, but authors usually try to play everything as an "original."
There are two forms of life in academia: the faculty and the administration (oh, yes--and the students--the reason for our existence!) Academics and students adhere to stringent rules regarding originality of work. In the administration, or at least in the public relations end of it, we are under so much pressure to crank out so much material for so many different bosses for so many multiple purposes--and it is all about informing the audiences and promoting this agenda or that for the good of the organization--that nobody stands on ceremony about original work. We borrow and lend text freely, rewrite, resize, repackage and repurpose. We "glom." It is not about whether we learned anything or whether we can pass the exam on our own. It's about whether we got the work done and the president will find that the major donor has heard the message the next time he visits. People who study this kind of thing say that the audience doesn't actually absorb your message until they have heard it 11 times anyway. So such recycling is a virtue. In any given year, we will have chosen two or three messages that we want to get across, which are repeated again and again in mailings, email blasts, etc. It works. The applications and the dollars are coming in at a greater rate, now that our "talking points" have been synchronized!
Frankly, the repurposing of a single article for many uses is seen as an intelligent use of a resource--it is not considered cheating or plagiarism. If somebody did that on the academic side, he'd be thrown out on his ear--but over here in the "front office," well, we're justa bunch of spinmeister hacks, I guess!
WM (who should be cranking it out instead of visitng WC on this eve of her flight to California for Christmas!)
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Frankly, the repurposing of a single article for many uses is seen as an intelligent use of a resource--it is not considered cheating or plagiarism. If somebody did that on the academic side, he'd be thrown out on his ear--but over here in the "front office," well, we're justa bunch of spinmeister hacks, I guess!
Wordmatic, don't get me wrong. Academics do it all the time They just don't, as you colleague did, admit it. They will call it their program of research, which is building a knowledge base. However, in reality, much of it is the same, and they are trying to get as many publications and grants out of it as possible so that they can get tenure and promotions. It's all a big game.
The big difference is the utter lack of shame for just "gettin' the job done" on my side of the fence. We have no illusions that anything we write is supposed to be original or new--if it's zippy, that's a plus--but no illusions about anything in promotional writing being groundbreaking.
Word·matic [oh, gee, that interpunct is fun!]
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
