More on the case of using “analyte” as “measurand”

Although admitting the occurrence, on reflection, most of the reactions confirmed that analyte should be replaced by measurand, defined as it is in the 2008/2012 VIM (see entry 2.3 in [2]): quantity intended to be measured. What came to light (again) is the widespread—and still largely unrecognizeddifference in our thinking about a term and a concept. A concept is what we—literally—conceive in our mind about the world surrounding us. We also conceive concepts when we think about measurement and we describe the concept by means of a term (a name if you like). As long as we keep to ourselves what we mean by a concept we use, we more or less understand it because we more or less understand what we say to ourselves. We understand the term associated with the concept. However, when we need to communicate with others and want to be understood, we have to define the concept we use in order to make sure that it is understood in the same way in which it was conceived. In communication, a concept is represented by a term (the label of the concept) in the given language thus creating the very possibility to communicate. When translators have to translate the term from one language to another, they have to understand the concept hiding behind the term in the original language. Hence, they must have access to a definition of that concept in the original language before a valid translation of the term can be made into another language and be understood in the same way as intended in the original language (all in a given field of course).