[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Origins of flight-Reply
Ornithop? Ornithopter? What ever happened to the term "powered
flight"? Isn't this sufficient to describe the use of flight musculature of
some kind to counteract the force of gravity and keep a creature in the
air? Why do we have to invent another term?
>>> <email@example.com> 04/30/98 04:58pm >>>
> In a message dated 98-04-30 03:17:53 EDT, firstname.lastname@example.org
> << This was brought up before, so I'll just say those fish and frogs fly,
> they don't ornithop. >>
> I'm still trying to figure out whether the verb should be "ornithopt" or
> "ornithopter," as in, "birds are specialized for ornithopting" or "birds are
> specialized for ornithoptering." Because, you see, the "er" ending does
> denote the performer of an action, but belongs with the "pt" from the
> "pter," meaning wing. An "ornithopter" is a device so called because its
> propulsive units flap like bird's wings, just as a "helicopter" is a device
> called because it has rotating wings. I'm leaning toward
I hate when grammer gets in the way like this. I was a little lost on how to
write that. I found myself argueing over ornithopt and ornthop. I suppose
I could have said ornithopter. Let's try it.
This was brought up before, so I'll just say those fish and frogs fly, but
they don't ornithopter.
I still don't see it working. Seems I'll have to change the whole sentence.
This was brought up before, so I'll just say that those fish and frogs fly,
but they don't do it by ornithoptering.
Does that one sound better? I think it does.
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at