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

On 28/07/2017 16:24, Jeff wrote:


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.


No, look at the pre-war literature, as someone else has done in the
Antennae NOT antennas thread.

As another example, my copy of the Admiralty Handbook of Wireless
Telegraphy 1929 does not use the term Antenna, or its plurals, anywhere
in its 547 pages.

Jeff
My copy of The Services' Textbook of Radio Volume 5 Transmission and
Propagation (1958) doesn't mention antenna, antennas or antennae
anywhere in its 500 pages. Only aerial and aerials.

p.s. Suggest Spuke invest in a copy and read it so he knows what waves
he is launching.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

I refer you to William Shakespeare for correct English usage.

Those using computers may be in a bit of a bind as not only has the spelling
changed drastically since Shakespease's time, but so has the alphabet.

One presumes that if you can't spell like Shakespeare you are uneducated.

--
Jim Pennino

On 28/07/2017 19:22, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

I refer you to William Shakespeare for correct English usage.

Those using computers may be in a bit of a bind as not only has the spelling
changed drastically since Shakespease's time, but so has the alphabet.

One presumes that if you can't spell like Shakespeare you are uneducated.


It is unclear from your blurting out as to whether you are speaking for,
or against, the motion that you are a rebel without a cause, making an
argument for the sake of the argument alone.

Chill out. Sonny.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
On 28/07/2017 19:22, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

I refer you to William Shakespeare for correct English usage.

Those using computers may be in a bit of a bind as not only has the spelling
changed drastically since Shakespease's time, but so has the alphabet.

One presumes that if you can't spell like Shakespeare you are uneducated.


It is unclear from your blurting out as to whether you are speaking for,
or against, the motion that you are a rebel without a cause, making an
argument for the sake of the argument alone.

Chill out. Sonny.

Just pointing out how ridiculous it is to insist that the spelling of
some word must be the same as in some old book.

Grow up, goof ball.


--
Jim Pennino

In message , Jeff writes


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.


No, look at the pre-war literature, as someone else has done in the
Antennae NOT antennas thread.

As another example, my copy of the Admiralty Handbook of Wireless
Telegraphy 1929 does not use the term Antenna, or its plurals, anywhere
in its 547 pages.

Jeff

The 1912 ITU conference only mentions "aerial", but the French version
calls it "antenne". Plural is "antennes" bien sûr.

In Radio Telegraphy,PROC. IRE, vol. 10, pp. 215-238; August, 1922.

Marconi uses both antenna and aerial.

One example :-

"Considerable increases in efficiency have been obtained
in the aerial or antenna circuits and also in minimizing
the losses in the attendant loading coils"

He avoids the plural

Brian
--
Brian Howie

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:01:18 +0100, just as I was about to take a
herb, Brian Howie disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Marconi uses both antenna and aerial.

Just as I would not profess to be an expert in the foreign languages
that I speak, I do not think it prudent to hold an Italian, even with
an Irish mother, to be an expert in English grammar.
--

73 de Guy G4DWV/4X1LT