Re: Chez watt: KT boundry event

UC wrote:
Windy wrote:
UC wrote:
That shows how we handle NOVELTIES in
English. We generally invent NEW terms, taking elements from Latin or
Greek. The GErmans simply combine existing vernacular German terms, or
adopt the English ones in some cases.
I was attempting to show you how our native tongus handles things, not
German or some other language. Often, people who are not native
speakers of English attempt to handle things as they are handled in
their native tongue.
Oh yes. When, for example, Linné and Ernst Haeckel needed new terms,
they never took elements from Latin or Greek, but used the existing
Swedish and German ones.
For inventions? For INVENTIONS?

Why the holy *** are you going on about inventions? You said
"novelties". If your principle only works in case of inventions, it
doesn't really say much about dinosaurs or Archaeopteryx, does it? But
yes, "phylogeny", for example, was a novelty.

It's only the English that have come up with
this amazing new way of creating scientific terminology.
Telegraph
Telephone
Television
Cinematograph

Are these scientific terminology? And who coined the words "telegraph"
and "cinematograph", hmmm?

German practice was either to make compounds of existing German words
or to follow English practice.
Fernsprecher (Telephone)
Fernsehen (Television)
Schallplatte (Phonograph record)

What do you mean "follow English practice"? Do you think all Greek or
Latin-based terms in the world originate from English practice?? In
addition to telegraph and cinematograph, there are, for example:

Grammophone
phylogeny
radioactive
telescope
thermometer

....and many more (including words not used in English, like
'Magnetofon')

These were not all coined by Germans, of course, but how do you know
Germans are following "English usage"? It looks like both English and
Germans most often followed French or Italian usage, rather than the
other way around.

that is like calling an 1855 horse-drawn buggy a Porsche 911. the
difference is, we had a name for the 1855 "horse and buggy". It was
"horse and buggy".
It seems that such a contraption was also called a "car" at the time.
No, it was not. 'Car' in American usage referred to vehicles on rails
(coal-car, cattle-car, etc.) until 'motor-car' was coined. 'Cab' (short
for cabriolet) referred to public carriages pulled by one horse,
capable of seating two to four persons.

You didn't specify only American usage.

That sounds like a nice, practical word. I wonder if it could be used
for something else?
"Main Entry:1car
1 : a vehicle moving on wheels:

What about this first definition? You just ignore it when it suits you?
This is more apparent in this old definition from Websters 1913 edition
(the two first definitions):

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?word=Car
"Car (?), n. [OF. car, char, F. cahr, fr. L. carrus, Wagon: a Celtic
word; cf. W. car, Armor. karr, Ir. & Gael. carr. cf. Chariot.]
1. A small vehicle moved on wheels; usually, one having but two wheels
and drawn by one horse; a cart."

= a buggy.

(M-W: 'buggy' = a light one-horse carriage made with two wheels in
England and with four wheels in the U.S. 2 : a small cart or truck for
short transportations of heavy materials.)

"2. A vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad. [U. S.] &hand; In
England a railroad passenger car is called a railway carriage; a
freight car a goods wagon; a platform car a goods truck; a baggage car
a van. But styles of car introduced into England from America are
called cars; as, tram car. Pullman car. See Train."

Once more with the irrelevancies. Yes, they invented a word "quasar".
But that has nothing to do with their use of the word "star". Stop
dodging the question. Do astronomers use the word "star" frequently in
scientific papers?
'Object' is the one of the correct terms. There is no Linnaean-type
terminology in astronomy, so your argument is fatally weakened.
Once again you avoid the question. Is it because you know that the
answer would be "yes", and that this would damage your cause? How about
"sand" and "bird", by the way?
The parallel does not exist in astronomy.
If "star" doesn't meet your high standards, what about "planet" and
"space"?

No comment here?

-- w.


.

Loading