I couldn’t miss this one, could I?
But apart from adding to my collection of unintentional faces, this sighting led to me discovering that there is no universally accepted name for these viewer thingies. What a delightful lack of standardization.
I couldn’t miss this one, could I?
But apart from adding to my collection of unintentional faces, this sighting led to me discovering that there is no universally accepted name for these viewer thingies. What a delightful lack of standardization.
Oh, delightful! Does the Big Guy just roll his eyes when you discover these faces?
Jim T
Jim T – He’s a good sport about most things. If I see one while we’re driving, he’s not real keen to go back.
Someone (on a blog) had to get hearing aids — hated the name of them, so wanted to come up with an alternate name. Glasses aren’t called sight aids…
I suggested “sounders”. He suggested “hears”, but that is too much like ears and hard to lip read, I think.
My mind boggles at the infinite possibilities of terms that relate “aids” to functions. If glasses could be “sight aids,” what —-aids term could we come up with for orthotics? False teeth? Crutches? Girdles? Diapers — well, no, maybe we don’t want to explore these possibilities after all.
Jim T
Jim T – Good choice, buddy. Sometimes, the accumulated wisdom of the community has already spoken, via the words we have — and don’t have :-).
Barbara – I like your suggestion. Two outta three carries, yeah?
I like viewer-thingy-face. Or should the word be viewerthingyface?
Judith – Perhaps two words: viewer-thingy (which will (d)evolve to viewerthingy over time) face. I find the unhyphenated concatenation hard to parse.