Re: The case of the Hebrew word for "oxygen"...

On May 10, 7:12 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

4 - In a scientific matter such as this, the person would be expected
to avoid the misnomer, either correcting it or choosing a different
path altogether.

I don't see why anyone should believe that 4 is true. As has been
pointed out numerous times, there are plenty examples of scientists
being less than scientifically rigorous when coming up with names
(quarks, the dwarf planet Eris, various plant and animal taxonomic
names, etc.).

It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
expected to be interpretable, so the misnomer issue doesn't arise at
all. And it's possible to call a plant with red flowers 'caerulea',
but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. Of
course no one said it's *forbidden*.

Names are just labels---they need not be accurate descriptions as well.

Who said they needed?

Next thing you know, some french guy will coin the term 'phonophobe'
to label people who love sound, and you'll be happy to carry it over
to english because, after all, what's in a name.
.