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

In article
<d287893d-f2fe-444e-89fb-f09a262bd25b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
António Marques <entonio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 11, 5:52 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

You guess correctly. In a scientific context, a long disspelled
misconception doesn't count as a good reason.

Why not? Why isn't respecting traditional names a "good reason"?
That's why the planets in our solar system are still named after
ancient gods. They weren't named after them just for fun---those
names are a holdover from naming practices stemming from what is now
"a long disspelled misconception".

I still see no reason why you should expect scientists to be subject
to different/stricter linguistic standards than anyone else. Names
are names, not descriptions. Scientists use definitions for
descriptions.

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."?

I'm somewhat troubled to see that 'In a scientific matter such as
this' and the several contextualising paragraphs preceding it are
apparently lost on you.

And yet, in a scientific context, there are plenty of examples of
where misnomers have in fact not been avoided, and are even embraced.
This is why I don't see why you think misnomer avoidance is such a
strong factor.

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?

DD UU HH !!! !!! !!! The first prediction from my algorithm is
precisely that the term wasn't probably coined in a scientifc context.

I highly doubt the average man on the street was responsible for
calquing "oxygen", since they would be unlikely to even know what the
Greek roots mean. Most likely, it was a scientist who decided to
respect the traditional naming scheme. Big yawn, because that happens
all the time in science.

If you didn't even read that, that's my fault?

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.

I don't need to look up no latin root, 'ventre' is a perfectly normal
word in my language (there goes your assumption; did you really
imagine I didn't know what it meant? One of the things that makes
discussions monotonous is having the other said systematically indulge
in whishful thinking). There is no reason at all why a word that
designates making voice appear to come from somewhere else than it
really does should point to the exact source of sound.

But it *does* point to an exact source (the belly). That source
happens to be wrong, which is the point here. "Ventriloquism" is a
misnomer.

Chinese checkers,

I understand the name was chosen on purpose.

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

Certainly.

Why can't scientists purposefully choose a misnomer, then?

Or is this your "get out of jail free" card, as soon as someone finds
a scientific misnomer to present to you as a counterexample to your
"predictions", you can just say "well, he did it on purpose, so I'm
right anyway". How very convenient.

American Indians,

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

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

But it is 'America' now.

When means I'm a Native American. Or not. Depending on who you ask.

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.

Because the semantic connection to 'India' is too weak to matter.

Ah, another way to weasel out of misnomers: a weak semantic
connection. "The semantic connection is weak, so my predictions are
still correct."

If you make your "predictions" broad enough, you can predict whatever
you want and never be wrong. That's how astrologers and palm readers
make their money.

Nathan

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The case of the Hebrew word for "oxygen"...
    ... Why isn't respecting traditional names a "good reason"? ... person would be expected to avoid the misnomer, ... Saying 'ventriloquism' is a misnomer reminds me of the guy who, ... Why can't scientists purposefully choose a misnomer, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The case of the Hebrew word for "oxygen"...
    ... It would be a misnomer if it were analysed every time it is used, ... - Someone decided to import the word into a language; ... - That person decided to do it by calquing; a calque builder must ... there are plenty examples of scientists ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... You are a continuing example of why scientists work to ... good reason, I believe. ... when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science. ... but to be honest I am not really interested in AGW issues. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... strange analogies and clearly false claims. ... rather clear errors of fact and reason in Morgan's book. ... more potable water. ... > interested in this, and not proper scientists? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: God, Family, and Country
    ... I recall science replacing God as the place I ... I realized two things about family and country - both had ... reason than to bring further enlightenment and progress to humanity. ... depressed by the fact that other scientists are not willing to ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)