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

X ` Man[_3_]

On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote:
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"

Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine.

--
I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant
science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern
Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country.