17

What is the word that describes all the devices that express time?

username_allowed
  • 302
  • 3
  • 10
  • 10
    Can you provide the context that you want to use such a word? – James K Jul 03 '21 at 15:26
  • 3
    I agree with @JamesK you definitely need to supply the context for the word, is it for a story, a website, a shop? Or are you fueled by simple curiosity? – Mari-Lou A Jul 03 '21 at 16:35
  • If the question is out of curiosity, then I can understand that. In German, the word for clock, “Uhr”, encompasses watches, which are “Armbanduhren”, literally wristband clocks. – Carsten S Jul 04 '21 at 13:29
  • @JamesK I am categorizing the devices we use to know the time. Both clocks (wall clock) and watch will be part of the particular word I am finding – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 19:50
  • 1
    @user21820 Doesn't timepiece mean "a device (such as a clock or watch) to measure or show progress of time especially: one that does not chime". Doesn't it distinct itself from many types of clock or watch that makes sound to indicate time? – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 19:50
  • How about sundials and hourglasses? – James K Jul 04 '21 at 19:58
  • @JamesK Aren't they totally different objects? – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 20:04
  • 6
    "Timepiece" is the best option. Your objection seems meaningless, since (as @JamesK pointed out) a sundial is also a device that expresses time. Don't expect there to be a word with a meaning that you come up with, unless it is a common enough meaning that other people want to convey. – user21820 Jul 04 '21 at 20:32
  • 1
    Sundials are also timepieces "A sundial is a timepiece that has the fewest number of moving parts, an hour glass is a timepiece with the most moving parts" (answers to an old riddle) – James K Jul 04 '21 at 21:13
  • 4
    @Shuvo: The word "especially" does not mean the same thing as "exclusively." A timepiece can have a bell, it's just that the word is sometimes used to specifically mean a device without a bell. – Kevin Jul 05 '21 at 01:28
  • @CarstenS surely that says as much about German's willingness to form compound nouns than anything else. To some extent we've done almost the opposite in English, with "stopwatch" often being used to include things that should probably properly be called "stopclocks". – Chris H Jul 05 '21 at 09:35
  • 1
    @ChrisH I don't think that says very much about German at all. Spanish has one word for the two "reloj" with "reloj de pulsera" (lit. clock bracelet) being the word specifically for a wristwatch. And many other languages do the same (the Swedish and Norwegian are cognates with the German, and the Portuguese is cognate with the Spanish, Finish for a non-IE example has "kell" for either clock or watch and "käekell" for specifically wristwatches). German is just going with the flow here, nothing unique. – Sriotchilism O'Zaic Jul 05 '21 at 15:09
  • 1
    Good question! By the way, it’s “word that expresses”. – Davislor Jul 05 '21 at 17:29
  • @Davislor I corrected it after you said. – username_allowed Jul 05 '21 at 18:58
  • 2
    @ChrisH, you look at a watch and then say that it is ten o'clock, not on the watch, so one could expect clock to be a more general term. Of course, languages are not always logical, and it is common that they differ in how general the most common word for a thing is. I was just trying to say that it is not unreasonable to be a bit surprised by English in this case. – Carsten S Jul 06 '21 at 08:11
  • @Shuvo, by "device that expresses time", do you mean an actual purpose-built device, or anything that records the passage of time? Also, does it have to express the current time, or does measuring any length of time satisfy your requirements? – gotube Jul 08 '21 at 20:00
  • @gotube It is a device that tells current time first of all. Then it may have other functionalities. But as a second thought based on the concept that you arise, if there is a word for both of the type of devices then that would be great. – username_allowed Jul 09 '21 at 09:10
  • 1
    @Shuvo, then "Timepiece" is correct. A chronometer is anything that measures time in any way, like a stopwatch, an hourglass, arguably even a tree since you can count the rings, while a timepiece is a device that tells you what the current time is. – gotube Jul 10 '21 at 17:45
  • @Shuvo Please read the first comment, carefully. And please note that four other users agree that the question lacks details, and that is why it is currently closed. Edit the question, provide more context, and I'll be happy to cast a vote to reopen it. Let me know! – Mari-Lou A Jul 10 '21 at 21:17
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA You answer a different question, OK? "Why there is always a don't know person who talks loudly while known and curious peoples are talking"? – username_allowed Jul 11 '21 at 11:32

3 Answers3

92

Timepiece

An instrument, such as a clock or watch, that measures, registers, or records time

[The Free Dictionary]


a device (such as a clock or watch) to measure or show progress of time

[Merriam Webster]

Void
  • 18,058
  • 7
  • 75
  • 107
gotube
  • 49,596
  • 7
  • 72
  • 154
  • 5
    I'd add that this word really is used, in cases where all we care about is some way of telling the time: "what did they use for timepieces?" or "my only timepiece is my cellphone". – Owen Reynolds Jul 03 '21 at 15:58
  • 5
    No one, ever, asked: "What time does the timepiece on the wall say?” vs "What time does the clock say? – Mari-Lou A Jul 03 '21 at 16:33
  • 3
    Timepiece is technically correct but most people would find it very weird to hear a phone described as a timepiece. – eps Jul 03 '21 at 21:27
  • 20
    @eps It's uncommon and weird to need a word for "any device which tells time". But when you do, "timepiece" is the not-weird way of saying it. – Owen Reynolds Jul 03 '21 at 21:33
  • Not really, no. It's still going to be very weird to hear a phone called a timepiece to most people. A Google image search will show you this clearly (there are no phones) – eps Jul 03 '21 at 21:35
  • 7
    @eps A timepiece is a device explicitly designed to tell time. A phone includes that function, but that's not its explicit function – gotube Jul 03 '21 at 21:46
  • 2
    @gotube is exactly right. Who ever suggested that a phone is a timepiece? Answer: Nobody. So -- the phone may include a timepiece. – MPW Jul 04 '21 at 03:39
  • Any device that has a stable repetitive state can be termed a clock. This includes pendulums, clockwork, crystals, laser frequencies, atomic clocks... – Jeremy Boden Jul 04 '21 at 19:36
  • @gotube Doesn't timepiece mean "a device (such as a clock or watch) to measure or show progress of time especially: one that does not chime". Doesn't it distinct itself from many types of clock or watch that makes sound to indicate time? – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 19:41
  • @JeremyBoden But linguistically don't clock means the wall clock only? – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 19:48
  • "Timepiece" has some implication of precision and compactness... time-PIECE, rather than time-WHOLE :) – rackandboneman Jul 04 '21 at 20:01
  • 1
    @Shovo Not necessarily. Context is King! – Jeremy Boden Jul 04 '21 at 20:04
  • A perfectly reasonable context would be something like "you must be on time so be sure to have a timepiece available". Or, of course, "I collect timepieces as a hobby." Idiomatically, "clock" would exclude something you can pocket or wear on your wrist. – CCTO Jul 04 '21 at 21:55
  • I might say something like this to my son. "I was thinking of buying you a timepiece for your birthday. Would you prefer a clock or a watch?" – Dawood ibn Kareem Jul 05 '21 at 06:10
  • @Shuvo definitely not because there are desk clocks, mantle clocks etc., but "clock" does tend to exclude watches – Chris H Jul 05 '21 at 09:37
  • 1
    @Shuvo I wonder where that restriction came from in that dictionary, most horological glossaries don't make it, some explicitly say timepieces chime, such as https://www.watchrepairny.com/watch-terminology/ definition of 'complication' includes chiming "A complicated timepiece in which several mechanisms have been added to the basic movement. Some of those mechanisms can include, a perpetual calendar, Tourbillion, minute repeater, quarter repeater, or a five-minute repeater." (repeater = a mechanism which indicates the time by the number of times it bongs). – Pete Kirkham Jul 05 '21 at 10:06
  • @Shuvo where are you getting the definition that says it must not chime? I’ve not found that when looking it up… – Tim Jul 05 '21 at 18:43
  • @Tim This is the source I got it from – username_allowed Jul 05 '21 at 19:05
  • 1
    @Shuvo it just says “especially”. That doesn’t mean it has to be one that doesn’t chime, just that is the most common usage of the word – Tim Jul 05 '21 at 20:16
  • @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft, Your Google link suggests the sub-category of "Wall" timepieces if you scroll over a bit. What the top hits are in an image search never determine what a word does not mean. – gotube Jul 06 '21 at 05:42
  • 1
    The chime thing seems to be tripping you up. It's not a hard requirement that a timepiece does not chime, and it really is the best word to encompass clocks and watches. – Tashus Jul 06 '21 at 06:16
  • 1
    @Tim It seems then "timepiece" is an appropriate word. – username_allowed Jul 06 '21 at 07:39
24

There are words (gotube gives "timepiece") but these are relatively rare and technical. I suspect that in your language the distinction isn't usually made, and you are want to translate a sentence that uses this ambiguity from your language to English.

But if you write "I'm going to get my daughter a timepiece for her birthday." It will be very odd, even if it is the literal translation. "Timepiece" is technical and rather dated. It is used by people who insist that a "clock" must have a "bell" (see the etymology for why). If you want to write in natural sounding English, either choose "watch" or choose "clock", or write "watch or clock" (and perhaps rephrase).

I'm going to get my daughter a clock for her birthday, or perhaps a watch.

So this is my point. In English, watches, clocks, sundials and hourglasses are all "different", but "wallclocks" and "mantelpiece clocks" are types of clock. Wristwatch and pocket watch are types of watch. In other languages perhaps "watches" and "mantlepiece clocks" are the same, but wall clocks and sundials are different. Or "hourglasses" and "sundials" are the same, but watches are different... etc.

A "timepiece" is relatively technical term for sundials, clocks, watches: any device that lets you know the time. A clock is a large timepiece that may be hung on the wall, or stand on the floor or on a shelf. A watch is small timepiece that fits in a pocket or on a wrist. Clocks don't need to have chimes (even though their name comes from the Latin for "bell") and watches don't need to have alarms (despite the etymology). Timepieces can have bells or alarms, although the word is sometimes used by people who limit the word "clock" to "timepiece with a bell".

So, my advice: Use either "watch" or "clock" as appropriate.

And note that most young people actually don't use watches, they use their phone to tell the time.

James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452
  • 11
    I would note that 'timepiece' can be used to project an air of luxury when speaking about expensive items, such that the birthday example could actually be heard in some circles. – Tashus Jul 03 '21 at 17:08
  • I'm not exactly young, and I haven't used a watch in years. My phone acts as a perfectly good pocket watch. – Ron Jensen Jul 04 '21 at 00:04
  • 18
    "Timepiece" is neither rare nor technical – MPW Jul 04 '21 at 03:40
  • 2
    It is technical in comparison to "clock". – James K Jul 04 '21 at 09:09
  • 8
    Timepiece is not technical. Chronograph is technical. – barbecue Jul 04 '21 at 13:49
  • @JamesK Ain't timepiece suppose to not have a bell as I saw in a translation that timepiece means "a device (such as a clock or watch) to measure or show progress of time especially: one that does not chime". – username_allowed Jul 04 '21 at 19:59
  • 1
    @MPW: I don't know how to show that it's technical, but it is definitely rare. – Kevin Jul 05 '21 at 01:26
  • 4
    @Kevin: It's rarer than "clock" or "watch" for sure, but it's hardly obscure. As for being rare in an absolute sense, it depends where you draw that boundary! (It helps that it's a self-explanatory portmanteau of two simple words so there's little risk of misunderstanding, but I think it's a word that a good fraction native speakers will have actually heard before.) Finding it in a crossword puzzle wouldn't annoy me at all since it doesn't seem obscure. (And to add my 2 cents: it's not "technical".) – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 04:37
  • 1
    @PeterCordes: My 2 cents: The whole point of a crossword puzzle is to make you come up with mildly rare words. – Kevin Jul 05 '21 at 04:51
  • 2
    @Kevin: Not cryptic crossword puzzles, where the trickery is primarily in the clue construction, moreso than in the final word being clued for. (Or some other puzzle styles, such as NY Times' harder crosswords, especially Sunday, aren't cryptic but do try to use intentionally obscure ways to indicate common words.) I'm fully on board with calling "timepiece" a mildly rare word. As long as we understand that simply means "less common", not "people will think you're weird for using it" like this answer implies. (It could still be weird depending on context of course). – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 04:59
  • 2
    @PeterCordes: If you indiscriminately replaced "clock" and "watch" with "timepiece," without any regard for the context in which they occur, it would sound very weird to my native ear. "Timepiece" is formal, vague, and a bit stuffy sounding. – Kevin Jul 05 '21 at 05:15
  • @Kevin: Yeah, absolutely, I did say it can be weird depending on context, and I'd agree with all those connotations. Maybe that's what this answer was getting at, but it didn't seem to make that point very clearly. Some other words are almost always weird, e.g. quaff. You wouldn't say that about drinking something unless you're writing a fantasy novel. Or at least I wouldn't. Or words that are antiquated terms for pieces of technology, where modern usage has shortened or replaced them. (Can't think of a good example atm.) – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 06:13
  • @barbecue chronograph is a specific type of stop watch, it measures elapsed time not time of day. https://www.watchrepairny.com/watch-terminology/#:~:text=Chronograph%C2%A0%E2%80%94%20A%20chronograph%20is%20an%20instrument%20which%20shows%20the%20time%20as%20well%20as%20measures%20time.%20It%20is%20a%20mechanism%20which%20is%20used%20to%20measure%20continuous%2C%20or%20interrupted%20periods%20of%20time. – Pete Kirkham Jul 05 '21 at 10:17
  • It's not so much technical as abstract or generic. We tend to use concrete nouns in everyday speech - we talk of cars, vans, and buses, not motor vehicles. The abstract or generic terms are needed less often, and frequently make the text read as if it was written by a lawyer trying hard to keep all options open. When we do use generic terms, the ones we settle on are often very clumsy, e.g. "white goods" or "appliances" for fridges and washing machines, "devices" for phones, tablets, and laptop computers. – Michael Kay Jul 05 '21 at 10:43
  • @Pete Kirkham : The time of day is an elapsed time - since midnight. ;) – Self Evident Jul 05 '21 at 18:18
  • 1
    I think the rephrasing highlights that it should normally be rephrased completely as it seems rare that someone who is considering gifting a watch would view a clock as an alternative (or vice versa). Similarly in a language without a common word for "grandpa" you might write "Abe is the father of one of Bart's parents", but... – Hans Olsson Jul 06 '21 at 07:23
  • @PeteKirkham are you then disputing my claim that chronograph is a technical term? If not, what point are you making? – barbecue Jul 06 '21 at 21:49
  • @barbecue it is a technical term roughly equivalent to "stopwatch". There are lots of technical terms for things which are not clocks, introducing them into the discussion is not particularly useful. – Pete Kirkham Jul 08 '21 at 18:33
  • @PeteKirkham still not clear what point you are making. Did you just read my comment nd not the preceding one I was replying to? I'm confused as to what you think I'm saying that needs to be challenged. Are you saying "timepiece" is a technical term?" If so, I disagree. Are you saying "chronograph" is not a synonym for clock? If so, I agree. But at this point all I know is you disagree with something you think I said, but I have no idea what. – barbecue Jul 08 '21 at 20:02
  • @barbecue yes, your comment appears to be suggesting that 'chronograph' is the technical term for 'timepiece'. sorry for misunderstanding, but please try to be less cryptic. – Pete Kirkham Jul 09 '21 at 07:49
  • @PeteKirkham I see your point, but if I had picked a different word, like "bomb calorimeter" or "sphygmomanomoter" it would have been even more confusing. I just picked a word that relates to time measurement. – barbecue Jul 09 '21 at 13:15
4

chronometer

noun: chronometer; plural noun: chronometers

an instrument for measuring time, especially one designed to keep accurate time in spite of motion or variations in temperature, humidity, and air pressure

I believe this is the largest category that encompasses every possible device whose function is to measure the passing of time.

"Timepiece" is the one that probably best describes the familiar kinds of time-keeping devices that a layperson is likely to encounter. And, to JamesK's point, there really is a staggering diversity of sub-species; in very many contexts, a more-precise term is better.

"Chronometer" is also what people call expensive watches. But, the expensive watch market is driven by a relatively small group of fabulously rich people who have more money than anyone could possibly spend in a lifetime, and we should not let their peacocking co-opt this term.

More usefully, anybody whose life literally depends on accurate timekeeping (e.g. divers and astronauts, who have to ration breathable atmosphere), will insist on a "chronometer," but those don't need to cost $100,000 (yes, really).

Tom
  • 188
  • 2
  • Note that phones only sort of / partially measure time themselves, per-se, they keep their time synced over the network to an accurate time source. They will display an accurate time, but one they didn't fully measure themselves. Of course, they do have a quartz crystal oscillator to provide a fairly accurate clock signal internally, which they can base their time-of-day on without any network connection or cell signal, in which case they're acting as a chronometer, not just an NTP leaf node or cell timestamp receiver. (NTP Network Time Protocol). – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 04:43
  • Or phones can get their time from their GPS receiver, since GPS works by broadcasting the exact time from atomic clocks in satellites, triangulating for position also involves solving for the current time. But again, that's just relaying / syncing to a primary time source. If you want to split hairs, you could argue that the phone itself isn't really a chronometer, given the outside help. Or you could argue that it is, because it's using the external signal to maintain calibration of its internal time. – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 04:46
  • @PeterCordes I'd argue that you're mistaken. A phone has its own internal mechanism for keeping time, which continues to function even if it loses the connection to central timekeepers. A thing does not become excluded from the category of chronometers just because it has a noticeable amount of error. Mariners would disagree, but that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and driven by current, prevailing trends in a particular marketplace. I question the relevance of your comments to anyone who is learning English. – Tom Jul 05 '21 at 05:36
  • It's an interesting semantic point, and raises others (like what about a "dumb" GPS time receiver that doesn't try to maintain an independent time output?). It's true that even when a phone does have a network connection, it's just using it to maintain calibration of its internal timekeeping. Not like it switches off an internal chronometer and merely displays time from a remote source, because phones can't do that. So yes, after some thought I'd agree that phones can be included in chronometers. – Peter Cordes Jul 05 '21 at 06:06
  • 7
    I feel this is the answer to a different question. A chronometer is a very specific kind of timepiece - it's one that's extremely accurate despite fluctuations in temperature and pressure. It's absolutely not the general term for an object that measures time; which is "timepiece". That's what OP was asking for. – Dawood ibn Kareem Jul 05 '21 at 06:09
  • @DawoodibnKareem "Chronometer", from chrono- "time" + -meter. That is very plainly what it means. I addressed your specific concern in my post. – Tom Jul 05 '21 at 06:19
  • 2
    "Chronometer is what people call expensive watches" in much the same way as "formula one is what people call expensive cars". There are specific technical requirements for something to be a chronometer, and while mechanical watches which meet those requirements are expensive, the requirements are not based on the cost. – Pete Kirkham Jul 05 '21 at 10:20
  • I see this used a lot in science fiction (often shortened to "chrono") when specifying the physical form or using the words "clock" or "watch" feels too mundane. – MJD Jul 05 '21 at 16:19
  • @PeterCordes You’re certainly aware that modern phones have internal clocks with nanosecond precision, although they might or might not keep time when turned off or taken to a different time zone. – Davislor Jul 05 '21 at 17:27
  • 2
    I don't know about astronauts, but as far as safety is concerned, a diver would be well enough served with any old watch that kept time to within a minute a day. – TonyK Jul 05 '21 at 20:21
  • @Davislor Possibly we are getting off into the weeds here, but phones generally only provide clocks with millisecond precision, and in any case we are talking about accuracy, not precision. Even with NTP the accuracy will be around 10ms, and drift of 50ms/hour would not be surprising. – Paul Johnson Jul 06 '21 at 08:20
  • I think the problem here is the chronometer has TWO meanings, a tight/specific technical meaning as well as a more general meaning, i.e. pretty much any time-piece, but with a bias towards mechanical devices. As an example, my club has a device for measuring the speed of arrows - that is known as a chronometer, because it measures time, but clearly isn't any kind of watch. – MikeB Jul 06 '21 at 10:04
  • @PaulJohnson I guarantee you that your phone’s CPU and memory have a clock whose frequency is in GHz, although it doesn’t use that to keep track of wall time. As you say, this is getting pedantic. – Davislor Jul 06 '21 at 14:13
  • @Tom Isn't chronometer a subcategory of the common term that describes time? – username_allowed Jul 06 '21 at 22:15
  • 1
    @Shuvo Only according to buyers and sellers in that market; but they don't get to decide what our terms mean. The word is properly applied to any device whose function is to measure the passage of time. I believe there is no broader term for such devices: it includes all of them, regardless of their form, and it does so by reference to their nature as timekeeping devices. – Tom Jul 06 '21 at 22:17
  • @Tom Point taken. What is your expression toward the word "Timepiece"? is that also appropriate? – username_allowed Jul 07 '21 at 16:23
  • 2
    @Shuvo "Timepiece" is definitely the best answer. I originally came here to post that word, and then saw that it had already been suggested. I added "chronometer" for completeness, in case some future user has needs different from yours. "Timepiece" is narrower: it generally refers to personal possessions, from worn items to furniture like grandfather clocks. It might be kind of weird to call a giant atomic clock a "timepiece." – Tom Jul 07 '21 at 16:53
  • 1
    @Tom So does "timepiece" include "chronometer" or "chronometer" include 'timepiece'? – username_allowed Jul 07 '21 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Shuvo My understanding is that "chronometer" includes "timepiece." But it's important to note that if you walk into a watch store, it's the opposite: within the specialized jargon of that marketplace, "chronometer" is a narrower category even than "watch." So, context matters. – Tom Jul 07 '21 at 22:51
  • @Tom I saw "chrono" is "time". If that is correct then your answer gets more credibility. – username_allowed Jul 08 '21 at 06:37
  • @Shuvo and Tom, "time" + "piece" would make for a pretty strong argument, except that etymology does not determine modern word meanings. – gotube Jul 08 '21 at 07:48
  • 1
    @gotube You are right. But I did not say "Chrono" is "time" that is why it is the best answer. Tom gave an argument before that people use "chronometer" for narrower meaning. That has the potential to be the main origin word of time telling devices. I just said etymology also supports his argument. Do you think it is not? – username_allowed Jul 08 '21 at 11:56
  • @Shuvo IMO, etymology cannot support any argument about the current precise meaning of a word because word meanings shift over time. "Dictionary", for example, is "diction" + "-ary" because historically, it was a collection of word pronunciations. So, while etymology suggests "chronometer" could mean anything that measures time, it does not determine its precise usage today, and that's all we're interested in. – gotube Jul 08 '21 at 19:37
  • @gotube Yeah, I had this understanding of this conversation that now-a days chronometer is a subcategory of the timepiece. But historically (you can think when the word was made) do you think it's meaning was different and was a word used for all time telling devices or something like that. If it was, then we can reuse it though people now use it differently. It is just a matter of trend. We change, change started. – username_allowed Jul 09 '21 at 09:19