jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
The goal post is the thread title.
Yes, no disputing that that is the main point of your claim.
But, you have made other claims to support your main position. I addressed that point and your response was to suggest that I should to be listened to.
jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
In summary, the dictionary supports the thread title.
*A* dictionary supports your thread title. Many dictionaries don't support your position. It's not supported by Oxford, Cambridge, MacMillan, dictionary.com, etc.
Dictionary companies don't have the authority to genericize by simply creating a definition.
jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
Pugsy's statement agrees with it.
As much as I adore Pugsy and respect her opinion as being pretty authoritative on PAP treatment, usage and many aspects associated with it. She hasn't made any claims regarding common BiPAP terminology being sufficiently common to genericize it. Your argumentum ab auctoritate doesn't carry much weight.
jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
Scientific literature agrees with it. Respected experts and researchers use the term that way.
I, and nobody here, dispute that *some* respected experts and researchers use BiPAP synonymously with BiLevel. What I disagree with is that said usage is sufficient to genericize it, sharing knowledge about it is a problem, and doing so isn't mean, scaring off newbies and confusing.
jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
As best I can tell, all English-speaking sane people know it is true if they bother to look it up instead of using their own preference as their source.
As previously stated:
You've found a single dictionary that supports your position, the majority don't.
Dictionary entries are not sufficient to genericise a word.
jnk... wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:21 am
Two people seem to be having trouble with it and continue to argue the accepted and the obvious.
What is accepted and obvious?
Your position seems to be that BiPAP usage is common enough to warrant its genercising to dilute its trademark. My position is it's not. Finding a single dictionary entry, amongst many that do not, nor finding some respected authors amongst many that don't does not make it accepted nor obvious enough to support your position.
It's a matter of degree.