On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:46:00 +0100, (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

Custos Custodum wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:16:02 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
wrote:

ITYM, "antennae"

It is "antennas" for the things connected to radios and "antennae" for
things connected to insects and arthopods even in the UK, not just in the
US, according to Collins English Dictionary.



Try a dictionary for grownups such as the OED and not one
targetted at disuptive children.

Your wish is my command. From OED3, March 2016:

antenna, n.
View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |Off
Quotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation: Brit. /an't?n?/, U.S. /æn't?n?/
Frequency (in current use):
Inflections: Pl. antennae, (esp. in sense 4) antennas.
Origin: A borrowing from Latin. Etymons: Latin antenna, antemna,
Italian antenna.
Etymology: classical Latin antenna, earlier antemna... (Show More)

4. A wire, rod, or other structure by which airborne radio waves are
transmitted or received, usually as part of a radio or television
transmission or receiving system; = aerial n. 3.

1902˜2013(Show quotations)

Interpreting that, it does bear out Gareth's theory that antennae is the
original plural but says that antennas is also used "especially" with
radio aerials. So the conclusion I draw is that both are correct but
that antennas is growing in popularity.

Like disc/disk and programme/program, it's a useful distinction that
apparently goes over the heads of the Luddites among us.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:02:29 +0100, Spike
wrote:

On 27/07/2017 00:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

Are you trying to usurp Evans as the village idiot?

Hint, there is no mention of 'growing popularity' of either- it is clear
they mean antennas is used for RF antennas.

It is really not my fault if you use the word converse when you don't
know what it means. The dictionary says that antennas is a second
variant 'especially' used for radio aerials, it certainly doesn't say it
is exclusive usage in this context. Growing popularity is from my own
observation of the literature, antennae is widely used in UK 1930s
publications.

In his depiction of the X-Gerate-equipped Heinkel III, R V Jones
labelled them as 'antennae'.


Such a description might well have been apt, given the appearance and
attachment of these structures. But that was ~70 years ago. Language
and spelling change. Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

On 27/07/2017 00:59, rickman wrote:
Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote on 7/26/2017 4:17 PM:
On 26/07/2017 19:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Gareth's Downstairs Computer
writes



ITYM, "antennae"

No he doesn't.

Read the title thread to which you are both contributing.

Does your post belong in an entomology group?


I refer you to Aharoni's work at Imperial College in the 1940s.

It was antennae then, in Brit.

It can only have changed through the pig-ignorance of Yanks
and of Brits not paying attention in school.

In message , Custos Custodum
writes



Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

I recall 'shewn' in my primary school arithmetic books, Mind you, it was
some time ago.

As for Latin plurals, I feel that in cases where the Romans would never
have used that word for something (either because the thing did not
exist, or if it did exist, we now use the word for something somewhat
different), the Anglicised ending is usually preferable. I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.
--
Ian

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017, rickman wrote:

Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote on 7/26/2017 4:17 PM:
On 26/07/2017 19:38, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Gareth's Downstairs Computer
writes



ITYM, "antennae"

No he doesn't.

Read the title thread to which you are both contributing.

Does your post belong in an entomology group?

I just realized this whole debate is moot.

He's not going to build more than one 137KHz antenna, not unless he has a
very large farm, so the subject header could have been "Full wave antenna
on 137kHz?"

Michael

Custos Custodum wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:02:29 +0100, Spike
wrote:

On 27/07/2017 00:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

Are you trying to usurp Evans as the village idiot?

Hint, there is no mention of 'growing popularity' of either- it is clear
they mean antennas is used for RF antennas.

It is really not my fault if you use the word converse when you don't
know what it means. The dictionary says that antennas is a second
variant 'especially' used for radio aerials, it certainly doesn't say it
is exclusive usage in this context. Growing popularity is from my own
observation of the literature, antennae is widely used in UK 1930s
publications.

In his depiction of the X-Gerate-equipped Heinkel III, R V Jones
labelled them as 'antennae'.


Such a description might well have been apt, given the appearance and
attachment of these structures. But that was ~70 years ago. Language
and spelling change. Not many people write "shewn" for "shown" these
days.

I think that, with the exception of Gareth, we all agree to a greater or
lesser extent with that. The disagreement is over the idea that
antennas has always and universally been used in the radio world.
Clearly in the UK it hasn't. Whether antennae was ever used in the USA
I don't know, and would be interested in comments.


--

Roger Hayter

On 28/07/2017 11:28, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:15:37 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

Whether antennae was ever used in the USA
I don't know, and would be interested in comments.

With a few exceptions (summa cum laude etc.) the US is not keen on
Latin spellings so I suspect not.

In the UK, since the end of WWII, the use of antennae for radio related
radiating objects is negligible, I have been reading the professional
literature for nearly 40 years and antennas is the word used without
exception both UK and US plus the rest of the world.


I refer you to the professional tome, "Antennae" by Aharoni
of Imperial College, published by Oxford.

One presumes that each of the lesser souls is an ignoramus.

Gareth's Downstairs Computer
wrote:

On 28/07/2017 11:28, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:15:37 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

Whether antennae was ever used in the USA
I don't know, and would be interested in comments.

With a few exceptions (summa cum laude etc.) the US is not keen on
Latin spellings so I suspect not.

In the UK, since the end of WWII, the use of antennae for radio related
radiating objects is negligible, I have been reading the professional
literature for nearly 40 years and antennas is the word used without
exception both UK and US plus the rest of the world.


I refer you to the professional tome, "Antennae" by Aharoni
of Imperial College, published by Oxford.

One presumes that each of the lesser souls is an ignoramus.

Quite so. 1946. Whether we like it or not, a combination of Americans
and democratisation of our War Office (which got renamed as a 'defence
department' at about the same time[1]) has led to the disappearance of
'antennae' from the radio literature. I agree with you that
historically it *was* correct, but it is exceptional to the point of
being confusing now. Languages change.

[1] See Orwell, 1984. War is peace.




--

Roger Hayter

Jeff wrote:

On 28/07/2017 11:28, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:15:37 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

Whether antennae was ever used in the USA
I don't know, and would be interested in comments.

With a few exceptions (summa cum laude etc.) the US is not keen on
Latin spellings so I suspect not.

In the UK, since the end of WWII, the use of antennae for radio related
radiating objects is negligible, I have been reading the professional
literature for nearly 40 years and antennas is the word used without
exception both UK and US plus the rest of the world.


Indeed, and pre-war the UK usage was 'aerial' not antenna.

It seems that antenna was an import from across the pond, with its
plural as 'antennas'. I suspect that the use of antennae was the normal
reaction to a 'crass Americanism' by people who though that they knew
better.

Jeff
I suspect you're guessing. From a completely unsystematic vague
recollection of literature I would say that 'Antenna, pl. antennae' was
the scientific term in the UK in the 1920s and 1930s and 'aerial'
remained the popular (?Marconi influenced) version. Aerial remains
common usage among people not much interested in radio. Though I
suppose antenna may replace aerial in popular culture before long.
'Antennae' was therefore not a back formation, but the natural choice of
UK engineers with a classical education. I think the American influence
came later.


--

Roger Hayter

In message , Jeff writes
On 28/07/2017 11:28, Brian Morrison wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:15:37 +0100
Roger Hayter wrote:

Whether antennae was ever used in the USA
I don't know, and would be interested in comments.
With a few exceptions (summa cum laude etc.) the US is not keen on
Latin spellings so I suspect not.
In the UK, since the end of WWII, the use of antennae for radio
related
radiating objects is negligible, I have been reading the professional
literature for nearly 40 years and antennas is the word used without
exception both UK and US plus the rest of the world.


Indeed, and pre-war the UK usage was 'aerial' not antenna.

It seems that antenna was an import from across the pond, with its
plural as 'antennas'. I suspect that the use of antennae was the normal
reaction to a 'crass Americanism' by people who though that they knew
better.

Jeff

When I were a lad, in the UK the only people who would really refer to
'antenna' would be radio amateurs - usually among themselves and
particularly when talking to someone abroad. Otherwise, it was 'aerial'
- even in the commercial, professional and broadcasting world. However,
these days its use is not uncommon.

Even in the USA, the word 'aerial' was not unknown, and there are some
old radio adverts from the 20s and early 30s where if is used. Somewhere
on Youtube, there's a Laurel and Hardy film where, with little success,
they attempt to erect 'an aerial' - and I doubt if this is a special UK
version
--
Ian