[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: [OT] The stigma of schema
At 08:20 PM 29/06/01 +0100, Fotios wrote: >Again: According to English dictionaries "schemata" *is* the right plural >form of "schema". I had until now demonstrated remarkable restraint in forgoing a gleeful dip into unbridled pedantry, but hey, it's Friday afternoon. Furthermore, my 2 years' participation in the construction of the Oxford English Dictionary (OK, at the tech rather than lexicographic end, but still) leaves me with a hot button that Mr. Fotios just pushed. English or any other living language is an entity that would exist even if there were no dictionaries; it is effectively defined by the daily practices of the people that use it, heavily influenced by the teaching professions. It moves, it shifts, it squirms, it emits bad smells, it lives. All the best 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. For some good readable discussion of this I recommend the books by Steven Pinker - the latest, "Words and Rules" packs a huge amount of wisdom, common sense and fun in to 300 pages of discussion of irregular verbs (and some plural forms) using them as a tool to draw conclusions about language. 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
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|