Re: Correct latin&greek - was RE: New iguanodonts in PLoS ONE

[Don Ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

On 11/28/2010 4:38 PM, Dann Pigdon wrote:
> If the authors of a paper that appears in a peer-reviewed journal haven't shown 
> enough care or
> attention to get the spelling of words correct, then how much trust can you 
> place in their methods
> and conclusions?

Don't trust, verify -- it may be the paper that unlocks (e.g.) a path to 
cheap and clean energy -- you think it should be rejected out of hand 
due to a spelling/grammatical error?

And what chance will you have to get credited or contribute to science 
when the language of science is no longer English?

A lack of attention to detail in any facet of a paper can only plant a 
seed of doubt
> over the rest of the papers contents as far as I'm concerned.

Well, sure. But attention to detail should not put you in a trusting 
mood, should it?

That said, give 'em hell.

> Once you open the floodgates and begin to accept such improper usages, it
> becomes increasingly harded to justify *any* sort of spelling or grammatical 
> conventions.

Amen to that -- consider the word "regulate": gun-makers used to speak 
of "regulating" the barrels of a double rifle -- i.e., making both 
barrels shoot to the same point of impact. To advertise rifle as 
"well-regulated" conveyed the message that it grouped well, not that it 
had a lot of paper-work attached.

Then look what happened when the meaning began to shift -- toward 
"closely supervised" as opposed to "correctly functioning". Lawyers got 
rich.

New words with new meanings are good -- morphing old words, especially 
in a non-transparent fashion, is to be avoided. No matter what your 
politics. :D