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'.

And I do resent pompous ****s who can barely speak English calling *me*
an idiot.

Nice burn.


--
Spike

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.

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 Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

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.

Absolutely! All foreign borrowings should be naturalised and given a
regular English plural wherever possible. I haven't had much success
with 'criterions' yet, however. :-)

I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

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.

Absolutely! All foreign borrowings should be naturalised and given a
regular English plural wherever possible. I haven't had much success
with 'criterions' yet, however. :-)

I'm surprised. It's actually 'criterion' which seems to have
disappeared. These days, both plural AND singular seem to be 'criteria'
(even by those-who-should-know-better).

The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

I really cringe
when I hear the pretentious 'musea', 'stadia' and (topically)
'referenda'.

--
Ian

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:31:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

Speaking of bacteria, one of my pet peeves is when all those
Oxbridge-educated meedja types pronounce Clostridium Difficile as if
it were French. Well, it ain't; it's Latin, where all vowels are
sounded and all C's are (well) hard.

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:31:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Custos Custodum
writes
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:12:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:


The same goes for 'bacteria'. I was listening on the radio to programme
about language, and when the use of 'a bacteria' was challenged, a
doctor seemed completely nonplussed as to what the problem was. I'm sure
that neither Dr Findlay nor Dr Kildare would make such a mistake.

Speaking of bacteria, one of my pet peeves is when all those
Oxbridge-educated meedja types pronounce Clostridium Difficile as if
it were French. Well, it ain't; it's Latin, where all vowels are
sounded and all C's are (well) hard.

Even though the soft C before I and E was adopted in the middle ages,
does anyone really know for certain that all Ancient Roman C's were
hard? It's just as probable that they were, as in modern Latin-based
words, soft before I's and E's. They might also have been a bit like the
Italian ch or the Spanish th. On the other hand, if the C's were like
Esses, why didn't they simply use a Esses?

--
Ian

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