BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"

JustWait[_2_]

On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , lid says...

David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL.

On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as
a "2-cycle" engine.

Uhg.

It's only semantics, but you would think that those
manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a
"cycle".

Per Merriam-Webster...

stroke:
the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a
piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of
such movement
cycle:
a course or series of events or operations that recur
regularly and usually lead back to the starting point

"2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine

About 3,270,000 results

"2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine

About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides
being less popular, it's semantical nonsense.

I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than
either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle.

I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to
a significant semantical blunder.

What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of
cycles is irrelevant.

At least you aren't calling them motors.

"like"