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

In article
<d9cb5123-899c-41d4-9f07-7b122d76165b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
António Marques <entonio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 11, 12:00 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It hasn't got to do with rigour. 'Quarks' and the like are just not
expected to be interpretable,

What about "strange quarks", "up quarks", etc.? I'm not saying that
"quark" itself should be interpretable, but surely "strange" would be.
And yet, there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at
least, not distinctive from other quarks!).

Nor is any misleading information conveyed by the name - unless
nuclear physics attaches some special significance to any other kind
'strangeness', which I don't think it does - so I still don't see how
do they fit in.

One would logically expect "strange" quarks to behave strangely. If
in fact they do not, then the name is a misleading description.

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*.

Like calling a rodent from the Andes a "Guinea pig"? Or a bird a
"titmouse"?

And guess what, they're 'piggies from India' here. Go figure. But did
you miss the 'there is a reason for it' part?

What counts as "a reason for it"? Or I guess more importantly, what
doesn't?

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

Who said they needed?

Anyone who says that avoiding misnomers is expecting in naming
implicitly says so.

You're quite the reasoned fellow, Nathan. I didn't simply say avoiding
misnomers is expected in naming.

So what did you mean by "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."?

Up until now, all objections have
emphatically missed the point.

If "all objections" have missed the point, then perhaps the point
wasn't made clearly enough. It is understandable why a writer would
place the blame for failed communication on the reader, but if every
single reader has misunderstood the writer, I think the writer needs
to consider alternative reasons for the communicative failure.

I'll have to point out that most of these aren't technical at all, and

I'd hardly say that "oxygen" is (just) a technical term. It is most
certainly the ordinary term for the stuff! What else would you call
it in casual, non-technical speech?

ventriloquism,

Just what is misleading about it?

Look up the Latin root "venter", and think carefully about what parts
of the body a ventriloquist uses (and doesn't use) when performing.

Chinese checkers,

I understand the name was chosen on purpose.

So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"?

American Indians,

'Native American' (which isn't actually wrong)

Well, they were natives of this land long before it was ever called
"America"!

has been on the rise for some time now.

Irrelevant. "Indian" was and is still widely used, despite centuries
of knowing that it's a misnomer.

Gothic architecture,

The original sense of gothic is in even more restricted use.

The original sense is presumably "of or having to do with the Goths".
Gothic architecture, from my limited knowledge of architecture, was
not created by the Goths (about 900 years and one country in the wrong
direction).

the Holy Roman Empire

Self-designation and taken quite seriously.

So would self-designating oneself with a misnomer be "a reason for it"?

Are the two of you sure you know what I'm actually saying? Your

Apparently not, if you don't think we have responded to what you think
you have said.

Now, I'm not in the mood to go and repeat
everything, so reread it if you will.

Repeating it wouldn't do any good, of course. Saying it with
different words might, however.

What, if anything, are you actually trying to say about misnomers like
oxygen? My claim is that they are utterly unremarkable, need no
explanation, and are not in any way something people will necessarily
feel any need to avoid. What's your claim?

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The case of the Hebrew word for "oxygen"...
    ... there's nothing particularly strange about strange quarks (at ... but unless there is a reason for it, it just comes across as dumb. ... When the reader doesn't depart ... So would purposefully choosing a misnomer be "a reason for it"? ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: i was playing to seek you some of my full jugs
    ... I was expecting to ... play you some of my pathetic aches. ... and they partly live Guglielmo too. ... Her poultice was strange, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Jennifer Hagel Smith Interview
    ... value, NO reason to believe she is speaking the truth...after all, it's ... >>> her physical condition that made a shower necessary or advisable. ... It just struck me as really strange the way she said ... >> possessions, hers and George's, were there on the dock. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: These two recent air crashes....something seems very odd about the Greek one...
    ... > I did make some constructive points, eg, all air crashes, where the ... "all air crashes, where the reason is not know, seem strange, until ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: New Avengers 32 spoiler stuff
    ... Strange has to be a Skrull. ... source was what he was using several times during his last ongoing ... However, in the context ... And now he pops up on the anti-side for some reason that I forget if we ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)