[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Correct latin&greek - was RE: New iguanodonts in PLoS ONE



Martin Baeker wrote-

> So, to turn the tables, if some linguist calls a new linguistic
> phenomenon (say, a really aggressive figure of speech) "Therapodism"
> (because he was thinking of Theropods but couldn't recall the name),
> would you then also agree that it's not important enough to be made a
> big deal of? Who would notice except for a few paleontologists? After
> all, who learns about dinosaurs in school nowadays?

I would indeed agree it's not a big deal.  It doesn't affect any area of study, 
and language is so fluid that English is already full of numerous words which 
break rules or have evolved from earlier forms which were more directly 
derived.  As with the Latin and Greek examples, I agree it's ideal to form 
words correctly, if only because it will help a few people remember more easily 
and because the knowledge is valuable for its own sake.  Yet my reaction would 
probably be limited to a derisive "ha!", as opposed to lamenting that the paper 
didn't get rejected for a spelling error from an unrelated field.

Mickey Mortimer