Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Everyone who has ever been upset by grammar errors in commercial web sites, please come to my aid! I am working on a web-based application for an insurance company, and have a requirement to add a field where the user can input the date that the claim form arrived at the processing department (they can come in through physical mail, fax, or the internet), which will then be visible on the website. One of the designers documented this as the "Receipt Date", but a developer labeled it in the application as the "Received Date". Needless to say, this is the kind of disagreement which can drive a programming team into full-scale armed conflict. (Seriously, I just spent 15 minutes listening to them argue about this. I have a deadline to meet.) So, before any more blood is shed, I appeal to the Internet Guardians of Grammar and Usage for definitive guidance. What is the most correct term for this value?
If it helps -- the website's audience is entirely in the USA. Some of our developers are Indian, and learned to speak English with British vocabulary.
Like most, I have no authority, but that will not stop me from voicing an opinion. I don't think either one is grammatically wrong. However, I do think that the common usage within the context of users should prevail. Do the claims processing people call it the receipt date, the received date, the date received, the date of receipt, or the received on date?
In a vacuum, I would give slight preference to Received Date, because the word receipt could be construed as a noun adjective, and that could be confusing. Since that may not be an issue in this context, the preference might not apply.
Do the customers ever submit repair or replacement receipts associated with the claim? If so, I would avoid Receipt Date, since it might prompt people to enter the date of the repair receipt, rather than the date on which the claim was received.
The users have always called it the "stamp date", because every day someone goes through the mail and faxes and stamps the current date on each page. Members and service providers won't know what that means, though. This is something I have to deal with a lot. My employer, and the insurance industry in general, has created an internal language over the last hundred years or so. New hires actually get a vocabulary list to memorize! When outsiders try to interact with the company, they often get baffled by the jargon as much as the bureaucracy. So, one of the goals of putting this internal data out on the web is to translate it into plain English.
We do not get receipts with the claim forms, but I see how that could be confusing to outsiders.
I Googled verb endings last night, and it looks like -ed is a standard ending, while -t is irregular or archaic. So, is "receipt" just an archaic form of the past participle, that has hung around because of confusion with the noun "receipt"?
McMike said:
I Googled verb endings last night, and it looks like -ed is a standard ending, while -t is irregular or archaic. So, is "receipt" just an archaic form of the past participle, that has hung around because of confusion with the noun "receipt"?
Yes and no. Online Etymology Dictionary: receipt There are several examples of words ending in -t, both deverbalized nouns and past participles that have no "confusion" to help them endure.
Deverbalized nouns
deceit cf. deceive
script cf. scribe
weight cf. weigh
Past Participles
kept cf. keep
slept cf. sleep
swept cf. sweep
wept cf. weep
I know that British English uses more past participles with added -t (learnt, burnt, spelt), but are all the American English ones from verbs in -eep?
I used to be a systems analyst/programmer, so I have some understanding of your situation, and empathize with your frustration.
I concur with Glenn on several points, and I make the same disclaimer about my opinions not carrying any authority.
1. As Glenn mentioned, "receipt" is often used as a noun; so is "stamp." Use of either word could open the door for more confusion later. Example: As a systems person, you already know that you have to out-think the users. (Fortunately, this is not difficult.) What I mean is, often you have to plan for things that the users haven't thought of yet, but could happen. Example: Sometime in the future, the company may want the customer to submit receipts with the claim form. If so, "receipt date" (the date shown on a receipt) and "received date" (the date the documents arrived at the company) would need to be differentiated.
2. In contrast to "receipt date," I can think of only one meaning "received date" could have in this context, so it seems clearer and less ambiguous.
3. Since you indicated the web site is for an audience entirely in the USA, American English would be preferable over British English. When in doubt, go with the American usage.
4. This term is not limited to use by the programmers only. Since the date will be entered, then appear on a web page, it will have a label on the screen, so it should be clear to the user/customer as well. Again, my vote would be for "received date."
I agree with Glenn that you should use whatever the industry dictates, and, McMike, you seem to have had the same thought. As to your other question, about the use of receipt in the phrase "receipt date," I speculate that it had its origins in merchant contracts. One gets a receipt for bought goods, so the date that those goods pass into the possession of a wholesaler, retailer, or consumer would be easily described as the "receipt date" (surely they mean the date that something was received, but practice makes its own vocabulary). As you pointed out, McMike, for contracts in your industry (and probably any other in which no goods are received, such as contracts for services) the concept of receipt doesn't quite feel right.
In sum, I think you're on the right track, and I would avoid receipt unless it is for a sale of goods or the context makes sense.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)