Pronunciations of SQL Derived Database Names and Terms
-
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
To me, any acronym's pronunciation is about saving time with fewer syllables or by using a pronunciation that is an actual English word. Even though the longer ess kew ell is considered to be historically original, it has more syllables than sequel, thereby making it utterly inefficient at expressing the same acronym for people whose time is valuable. Fewer syllables = I'm not spending any extra time saying what I need to say. Regardless of what anyone thinks is "standard" or "accepted", the pronunciation with fewer syllables should always win. Unless you just like hearing yourself talk.
I think that's sensible and I think in all three cases that holds up.
SQL is "sequel" which is the shorter to pronounce.
MySQL is "Myes Q L" which is easier and faster to say than "My se-quel". Syllabically it might seem shorter, but actually saying it your tongue can say it more easily - less "stops" in your mouth.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
@JaredBusch said in What is a Database Management System:
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
MySQL is proncounced "My S-Q-L", never "My Sequel." This is a commercial product with an official pronunciation.
Official or not, it has been MySequel to most for a long ass time.
It's always been pronounced "sequel". I've literall;y never heard it any other way, and I would laugh if I did. To hell with "official".
"Always" is pushing it. For many years you would never hear that. It's a relatively recent things that more and more casual users of it have started to make their own pronunciations. If you say "MySequel" you definitely flag yourself as not being familiar with the product. People would recognize you as not being very familiar with it very quickly. Definitely something that in a job interview would raise some eyebrows. In SMB circles where DBAs and UNIX Admins are rare, you can totally get away with it. With people who really manage MySQL instances, it would come across very differently.
um, WTF with the over broad generalizing yet again?
Every where I have ever been, it has been pronounced my sequel. And , unlike you I actually talk to many, many, people and hear what they say.
-
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
Even though the longer ess kew ell is considered to be historically original, it has more syllables than sequel
Backwards on SQL. SQL was always "sequel". It's only recently that ISO SQL changed how it is pronounced for their own uses. The language family from IBM long ago is "sequel".
-
@JaredBusch said in What is a Database Management System:
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
@JaredBusch said in What is a Database Management System:
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
MySQL is proncounced "My S-Q-L", never "My Sequel." This is a commercial product with an official pronunciation.
Official or not, it has been MySequel to most for a long ass time.
It's always been pronounced "sequel". I've literall;y never heard it any other way, and I would laugh if I did. To hell with "official".
"Always" is pushing it. For many years you would never hear that. It's a relatively recent things that more and more casual users of it have started to make their own pronunciations. If you say "MySequel" you definitely flag yourself as not being familiar with the product. People would recognize you as not being very familiar with it very quickly. Definitely something that in a job interview would raise some eyebrows. In SMB circles where DBAs and UNIX Admins are rare, you can totally get away with it. With people who really manage MySQL instances, it would come across very differently.
um, WTF with the over broad generalizing yet again?
Every where I have ever been, it has been pronounced my sequel. And , unlike you I actually talk to many, many, people and hear what they say.
Ditto
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
To me, any acronym's pronunciation is about saving time with fewer syllables or by using a pronunciation that is an actual English word. Even though the longer ess kew ell is considered to be historically original, it has more syllables than sequel, thereby making it utterly inefficient at expressing the same acronym for people whose time is valuable. Fewer syllables = I'm not spending any extra time saying what I need to say. Regardless of what anyone thinks is "standard" or "accepted", the pronunciation with fewer syllables should always win. Unless you just like hearing yourself talk.
I think that's sensible and I think in all three cases that holds up.
SQL is "sequel" which is the shorter to pronounce.
MySQL is "Myes Q L" which is easier and faster to say than "My se-quel". Syllabically it might seem shorter, but actually saying it your tongue can say it more easily - less "stops" in your mouth.
PostgreSQL is smooth with the "postgres Q L", I mean nothing makes that word great. But it is smoother than trying to say Postgre... S Q L or another alternative.
Shorter = always better when it comes to audio acronyms. I have always applied that logic to computer stuff... standard, accepted ways be damned. I'm a loner, Dottie.... a rebel.
-
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
@RojoLoco said in What is a Database Management System:
To me, any acronym's pronunciation is about saving time with fewer syllables or by using a pronunciation that is an actual English word. Even though the longer ess kew ell is considered to be historically original, it has more syllables than sequel, thereby making it utterly inefficient at expressing the same acronym for people whose time is valuable. Fewer syllables = I'm not spending any extra time saying what I need to say. Regardless of what anyone thinks is "standard" or "accepted", the pronunciation with fewer syllables should always win. Unless you just like hearing yourself talk.
I think that's sensible and I think in all three cases that holds up.
SQL is "sequel" which is the shorter to pronounce.
MySQL is "Myes Q L" which is easier and faster to say than "My se-quel". Syllabically it might seem shorter, but actually saying it your tongue can say it more easily - less "stops" in your mouth.
PostgreSQL is smooth with the "postgres Q L", I mean nothing makes that word great. But it is smoother than trying to say Postgre... S Q L or another alternative.
Shorter = always better when it comes to audio acronyms. I have always applied that logic to computer stuff... standard, accepted ways be damned. I'm a loner, Dottie.... a rebel.
That was my point. Both the shorter AND the official always seem to line up.
-
@JaredBusch said in What is a Database Management System:
Every where I have ever been, it has been pronounced my sequel. And , unlike you I actually talk to many, many, people and hear what they say.
Where do you find all of these people? I've worked with MySQL for a very long time, and this is all news to me. I've worked in companies of all sizes with it. And of all types. Outside of SW, I'm serious that I may never have heard this as you describe. It's still so rare that when someone says it out loud it really catches my attention because it sounds so odd.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2972334/correct-pronunciation-of-mysql
It's not like every major resource doesn't have it documented how it is called. It's not like it is not a proper name. Who are these people in droves using this new pronunciation that they've determined to use against the will of the product itself? Why do I not run into them (outside of SW where it is pretty expected due to the bubble effect and that most people are buyers, not IT.)
Are you finding it in database shops with DBAs? Or is it limited to the one man shops where using the term out loud never happens?
-
First of all, I try very hard to never refer to Wikipedia as actual facts as anybody can change wikipedia at any moment in time. If I were to ever use wikipedia, then it would be just to familiarize myself with a particular subject.
Going back to my college classes and pulled the book from my database class. SQL (Second Edition)
Visual QuickStart Guide by Chris Fehily (2nd ed.) page xv "SQL isn't pronounced sequel; that pronunciation is a historical artifact. Avoid the error and articulate each letter: S-Q-L. m I disagree with people who claim that saying sequel is so common that nothing's wrong with it. You shouldn't say sequel for the same reason that you shouldn't split infinitives in your novel; it generally may be accepted, but it will rasp on the ears of knowledgeable people. Also, pronounce MySQL as my-es-kyoo-el and PostgreSQL as post-gres-kyoo-el (particularly if you are in a job interview)." -
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
First of all, I try very hard to never refer to Wikipedia as actual facts as anybody can change wikipedia at any moment in time. If I were to ever use wikipedia, then it would be just to familiarize myself with a particular subject.
That's not actually good logic. First of all, not just anyone can change it, it doesn't quite work that way. Second, changes trigger notifications to people, immediately. There are a lot of protections in place. Third, it is heavily peer reviewed, the most reviewed source there has ever been. Fourth, in research tests, it is the most accurate reference material of its type.
Using "anyone can change it at any time" is like evaluating RAID by saying "RAID 5 can survive ANY drive failure, therefore it's great!" This looks at one "under the hood detail" and misses the big picture. RAID 10 is more reliable than RAID 5, because of the resulting reliability. And Wikipedia is more accurate than any other similar reference because of resulting accuracy. Does that mean that you always trust it, no. Does it mean that you trust it more than other sources, yes. If you don't have faith in something peer reviewed and monitored, you should have less faith in everything else. Question everything? Of course. But never act like Wikipedia isn't among the most reliable and accurate sources that you can have. Nothing is always right, but nothing has the checks that WP has, either.
-
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
Going back to my college classes and pulled the book from my database class. SQL (Second Edition)
Visual QuickStart Guide by Chris Fehily (2nd ed.) page xv "SQL isn't pronounced sequel; that pronunciation is a historical artifact. Avoid the error and articulate each letter: S-Q-L. m I disagree with people who claim that saying sequel is so common that nothing's wrong with it. You shouldn't say sequel for the same reason that you shouldn't split infinitives in your novel; it generally may be accepted, but it will rasp on the ears of knowledgeable people. Also, pronounce MySQL as my-es-kyoo-el and PostgreSQL as post-gres-kyoo-el (particularly if you are in a job interview)."So let me ask you, even though I mostly agree with his points (ISO SQL is S-Q-L, but "historical artefact" of a name seems an odd way to describe "changing the name") and he definitely gets ISO SQL, MySQL and PostgreSQL correct.... why would you trust that one book over Wikipedia?
That book is from an exceptionally low end publisher (I like their stuff, but let's be honest, Peachpit was very... novice.) Writers for those books are generally decent, but it's a low paying job and reflects the opinion of a single person. The publisher does not check the material. Generally there are one or two peer reviewers that are paid almost nothing. They try to review the material but tend to focus on the meat and have almost no time to verify anything else. And in many of these books there is literally no review whatsoever. You will find this old books loaded with typos, broken examples and information that is clearly not applicable and copied from some other source.
And as a printed book, errata found later cannot be edited. So it is a point in time snapshot of one person's opinion that may or may not have been reviewed by one or a few additional people.
And you feel that that should be taken with a grain of salt compared to a living, continuously reviewed document that has thousands of people reviewing it not just initially, but regularly? It's not even in the same ballpark.
-
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
Visual QuickStart Guide by Chris Fehily (2nd ed.)](http://www.fehily.com/books/sql_vqs_2.html) page xv *"SQL isn't pronounced sequel; that pronunciation is a historical artifact. Avoid the error and articulate each letter: S-Q-L.
If you want to really look at accuracy. SQL is "sequel". Someone reading a book on SQL in 1985 should not be retroactively considered "wrong" because some people thought it would be cool to change pronunciation in 1987, right? That wouldn't make sense.
Now what I was taught, and now we are getting even deeper into pedantic, is that SQL-92 is "S Q L 92", because that's the actual ISO now, whereas SQL is the older name. But SQL is from 1974 and it's name isn't a "histoic artefact". I don't know what he's trying to imply with that.
-
I think the source of the printed book problem comes from some weird corruption that use to exist in the education system. As a kid, I know that I was taught that just because a publisher stated something (e.g. big business promoted it) that it therefore was "truth" and that anything said otherwise (e.g. by individuals rather than a corporation) was not "valid." I don't know how or when such backwards and unethical things go into the education system, but it was so common that even in universities today you see professors caring more about the size of the corporation providing information than the accuracy of the source. It's similar to the vendor problems we see in IT - people often think that listening to a vendor who has a commercial agenda to direct them in a specific direction is more valid than logic, research or experience from IT pros.
-
I remember this excerpt from back then and felt that he was on a little tirade for semantics and felt that it was a little bit unnecessary for what was needed. He should have just put "Its pronounced S-Q-L and not sequel." and left it at that instead of having a whole paragraph about how it makes him all upset because of pronunciation.
It would be like somebody calling TCP/IP a protocol in and of itself instead of an entire suite of protocols. This should be obvious to us to dig deeper into this if necessary, but I'm not going to go on a tirade explaining WHY it needs to be called a suite instead of just a protocol.
-
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
I remember this excerpt from back then and felt that he was on a little tirade for semantics and felt that it was a little bit unnecessary for what was needed. He should have just put "Its pronounced S-Q-L and not sequel." and left it at that instead of having a whole paragraph about how it makes him all upset because of pronunciation.
It would be like somebody calling TCP/IP a protocol in and of itself instead of an entire suite of protocols. This should be obvious to us to dig deeper into this if necessary, but I'm not going to go on a tirade explaining WHY it needs to be called a suite instead of just a protocol.
I know a few people that are in the S.Q.L. camp for any version. but everyone else i know jsut says sequel.
-
As far as wikipedia is concerned, I was not allowed to use it as a reference for any of my papers or it would not be considered a reference and that was the reasoning from the school. This was also 10 years ago too. Times change, and so might wikipedia now.
I didn't look into it too much deeper as I was just a fledgling college student with no credibility yet and so, no point on fighting about it. It was their rule, I simply obeyed it and carried it with me as a rule afterwards.
-
@JaredBusch said in What is a Database Management System:
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
I remember this excerpt from back then and felt that he was on a little tirade for semantics and felt that it was a little bit unnecessary for what was needed. He should have just put "Its pronounced S-Q-L and not sequel." and left it at that instead of having a whole paragraph about how it makes him all upset because of pronunciation.
It would be like somebody calling TCP/IP a protocol in and of itself instead of an entire suite of protocols. This should be obvious to us to dig deeper into this if necessary, but I'm not going to go on a tirade explaining WHY it needs to be called a suite instead of just a protocol.
I know a few people that are in the S.Q.L. camp for any version. but everyone else i know jsut says sequel.
I don't care how you say it, I'm going to know what you are talking about anyways.
I am from Texas and we say ain't around here these parts. Now GEET OFF MY LAWN! GEET.
-
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
As far as wikipedia is concerned, I was not allowed to use it as a reference for any of my papers or it would not be considered a reference and that was the reasoning from the school.
That's because it is not a SOURCE, it is a reference to other sources. It's not an original document. That's a different issue and more or less acceptable. But nothing is really a source that is accepted.
The real issue is that Wikipedia is so complete and easy that you could do anything with it and not need to research any further.
If the school explains that, that's legit and I know no school that takes Wikipedia. But if they claim that it isn't a source because it can be edited, that's BS.
-
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
It was their rule, I simply obeyed it and carried it with me as a rule afterwards.
Even in graduate work I've gone to the dean and challenged using myself as a source and won
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is a Database Management System:
@NerdyDad said in What is a Database Management System:
First of all, I try very hard to never refer to Wikipedia as actual facts as anybody can change wikipedia at any moment in time. If I were to ever use wikipedia, then it would be just to familiarize myself with a particular subject.
That's not actually good logic. First of all, not just anyone can change it, it doesn't quite work that way. Second, changes trigger notifications to people, immediately. There are a lot of protections in place. Third, it is heavily peer reviewed, the most reviewed source there has ever been. Fourth, in research tests, it is the most accurate reference material of its type.
Using "anyone can change it at any time" is like evaluating RAID by saying "RAID 5 can survive ANY drive failure, therefore it's great!" This looks at one "under the hood detail" and misses the big picture. RAID 10 is more reliable than RAID 5, because of the resulting reliability. And Wikipedia is more accurate than any other similar reference because of resulting accuracy. Does that mean that you always trust it, no. Does it mean that you trust it more than other sources, yes. If you don't have faith in something peer reviewed and monitored, you should have less faith in everything else. Question everything? Of course. But never act like Wikipedia isn't among the most reliable and accurate sources that you can have. Nothing is always right, but nothing has the checks that WP has, either.
Just anyone most certainly could change it. Completely anonymously (tied to IP only) at that.
Today many articles are now "protected" to varying levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
-
Self referencing is actually a handy trick in college. Find a way to get yourself published and you can create your own sources because it is often the "publisher" aspect that they respect. It takes a bit of work, so it's not like a panacea, but there are times that it can come in pretty handy.
