[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
On 27 November 2010 13:01, Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> 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.
Ah, you say that now, but only because Martin has deftly argued you
into a corner :-)
If this had actually happened, before all this discussion, I bet your
attitude would have been VERY different.