Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: > All the > best [English] dictionaries recognize that their role is *descriptive* - > describing what the language is - rather than *prescriptive* - > trying to prescribe rules for what the language should be. Hence the Hartree-Fock evolution that I mentioned. Publishers use dictionaries to decide on usage questions; dictionaries generate their information by summarizing the practices of earlier (generations of) publishers. Neither one is authoritative by itself. Clearly this process is circular, but in fact it does converge, with a small number of exceptions. > Lots of educated, articulate people find it natural to > use "schemas" in both written and spoken discourse. Thus it > is incontrovertibly a part of both the written and spoken > English language. So is "schemata". It is useful for the > community that discusses schemas to settle on one of these > forms merely as a matter of conventional convenience. -T As a result of which, future dictionaries will doubtless include "schemas" as a variant plural, and (if the weight of usage grows) eventually the preferred plural, at least in computing. We do have plurals differentiated by profession already: biologists say "antennae", radio engineers speak of "antennas". -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
