Re: anyone using mycorrhizae?


In article <coedndy5svJI01zanZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Jeff Layman" <jmlayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|>
|> English is popular because it doesn't appear to need many rules, and adapts
|> readily. Things get accepted as the norm without much thought if their
|> usage is very common. How many times do you hear the word "datum"? Not too
|> many, so "data" is now used in the singular.

Indeed, and that is one of my points. Academic pedants like me will
use the word "datum" and "data are", but only dogmatists will claim
either that "data is" is wrong or that it is compulsory. Please note
that I am NOT someone who spends much time pointing out people's
terminological errors!

|> Nothing is simple; what about "stigma"? Botanically, the common plural
|> usage is "stigmas". But if applied to witchcraft, it is "stigmata"? Why?
|> they are both from the same singular word (although you never hear its use
|> in the singular with respect to the latter. Heh - I can see us ending up
|> with "a stigmata". Or worse, "a stigmatum"...).

Quite. And that is PRECISELY what is being foisted on us with
"mycorrhizae"! I am pretty sure that it was originally used as a
collective noun up until the lunatics took over the asylum (in the
early 1950s). Correctly, the singular should probably be
"mycorrhizon", though I am no Greek scholar.

Please note that I expect slightly higher standards of education
from those who proclaim themselves the academic experts, and who
claim that they are empowered to tell other people what the correct
terminology is, than from the hoi polloi who merely use it. And it
is the claim of such authority by the botanical loons that gives me
the right to rail against them!

I am not saying that ordinary users of English are wrong to use
"mycorrhizae", but am damning the botanical loons for their ignorance.
You are welcome to post in sheddi or ebonics, if either if the dialect
you use normally, but you may not get understood on this group :-)

|> I see that you used the word "singularity" to describe a concept (relating
|> to mycorrhiza). There you are - that use is rare today. Talk about
|> "singularity" and in popular use most people would assume you are talking
|> about a black hole!

Indeed - but, as I said, I am an academic pedant and even my more
colloquial usage tends to be rather old-fashioned. You surely don't
expect me to use the sort of English they perpetrate for Sun readers?
Forsooth - the very idea! :-)

|> Perhaps that's where you want to put the botanical loons...

A lovely idea - though I am not a follower of the Black Hole
religion (prophet: Stephen Hawkins) ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another stupid singular "their"
    ... Sure there is: English usage through history. ... The cited use of singular they is a good example of the historical ... language as AOL subscribers are about computers and the Internet. ... ready to accept stupidity and cacaphony as normal and even good usage. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Who, Their, His, Her
    ... As I have many times remarked, most serious usage manuals are ... is an ardent supporter of the singular "they", but I don't reckon we can ... of thoughtful, literate readers, and I ... English words and expressions that are singular in form but felt to be ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: usage question re: "to obsess"
    ... the English then used by educated writers. ... Shakespeare's time, most disputes about usage involved vocabulary, ... Each in their own way helped me to find the right language ... The singular "they" might be considered an equally objectionable usage. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: "Data dont"
    ... singular or a plural. ... than a DVD" in the mainstream media? ... It contained some English ... of its inflections --- and Latin the least. ...
    (alt.usage.english)