Forum: Author Hangout

Either the title is a joke that whooshes over my head, or it was a mistake and should have been 'Alga vs Algae'.

I pronounce algae with a hard 'g', but I've heard it spoken with a soft 'g' too.

AJ

I pronounce algae with a hard 'g', but I've heard it spoken with a soft 'g' too.

"Algae" is pronounced with a soft "g" (jee).

"Alga" is pronounced with a hard "g" (guh).

"Algae" is pronounced with a soft "g" (jee).

"Alga" is pronounced with a hard "g" (guh).

Biologists like to use Latin pronunciations, and Latin doesn't have a soft 'g'. However they get tied in knots by scientific names including contemporary words that do contain a soft 'g'. :)

And there are those that use Latin pronunciations with their peers but Anglicise them when talking to laymen in an attempt to make their subject matter seem more accessible (aka dumbing down).

AJ

Either the title is a joke that whooshes over my head, or it was a mistake and should have been 'Alga vs Algae'.

I pronounce algae with a hard 'g', but I've heard it spoken with a soft 'g' too.

Duh! You're right. I was so caught up in the differences between fungi and algae, I mistakenly transposed the two while posting last night (at 3 a.m.).

I was referring to algae (plural) and alga (singular), though the link discusses how the pronunciations for fungus (plural) and fungi (singular) are reversed, though as usual, the American version screws everything up, since it tends to supercede local uses.

By the way, my latest sci-fi story has a crew dealing with a local planet's gastronomical algae (each bed for growing each only represents a single alga).

@Remus1

If so, it's regional and/or relatively recent. I'm 49 and live in the upper Midwest, Wisconsin in particular, and I can't recall ever hearing funguses.

I don't believe it's regional. I'm in the S.E. and haven't heard it as funguses either.

The terms are used so rarely by most, it's natural the average Joe couldn't recall the correct term in a pinch, so "funguses" isn't unexpected. But it's akin to saying "catses" (the plural of a plural), which makes no sense at all.

boilermakers

So why were you in West Lafayette at Purdue?

There's a fungus amongus ...

Part of my childhood was spent on a reservation. That was followed by a few years on the Cumberland Plateau. That was followed by years living and working in all but one state and numerous countries. In all that time and travel, I've never seen nor heard it.
That time included interaction with natives, hillbillies, rednecks, roughnecks, boilermakers, iron workers, engineers, environmentalist, scientist, politicians, and many others 'before' we discuss anyone outside the U.S.
I cannot know what you've heard, but as I stated, it's not regional and I've never heard it used in my time anywhere or time. That is my personal experience, yours will obviously vary.

Alas, while your experience is not regional, it also doesn't reflect the proper use of the term, as few of those you mention have any daily interactions with fungi or algae. That's akin to asking a man's input concerning writing a gynecology journal (aside from male gynecologists, that is, since they are familiar with the terrain).

If an author references something, they should use the proper term, not simply 'commonly used' terms. Though obviously, dialogue is entirely based upon the character, and the rules aren't the same in those circumstances.

So your an expert on people who use or interact with fungi... really?? Pray tell, exactly what does such a person look like? How exactly do you know what came up in any conversation I've hadhad with people you've never seen nor heard of?

No, I'm not, but that's why I look up the proper terms, and ask for advice from people who know what they're talking about, rather than asking someone he meets in the middle of the street how they pronounce the term.

Since I write science fiction, I frequently get called whenever I mistakenly use the incorrect term, even when I use the correct term in the wrong context (like "theory", since scientists generally object to using the typical usage meaning 'a general, but unproven idea').

My point, was merely that few people conduct extensive analysis on a variety (as opposed to a single fungi, like mushrooms or truffles) of algae or fungus outside of research labs or testing facilities. There are such labs in remote regions, but the employees rarely discuss the topic in general conversation.

So get off your high horse. I wasn't demeaning the common man, I was specifying using scientific terms for biological specimina (the plural of specimem).

My bigger point is that it's the obligation of authors to research the proper terms, rather than taking advice from their barber, or your drinking buddy. You can imitate their speech in dialogue, but you'd best know the correct terms when it's called for.

But, once again, this entire discussion has degenerated into personal attacks (similar to the proverbial "You're a racist!" "No YOU'RE the RACIST!" "Really, then you're a fuckin' NAZI of Racists!!!"), so I'll leave the thread for you to continue your rants. I thought authors, who normally take pride in their work, might like to know the differences in usage and pronunciations between British and American common scientific terms.

With practise

You AMERICAN! ;)

AJ

Aaarrgghh, wretched Americans!

You should have written 'With practice'. But Americans are inconsistent, hence the name of the Bond film, 'License to Kill', where the noun has an 's'.

AJ

I prefer "Because my spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places." by Winnie the Pooh ;)

AJ

Although wiki says funguses is acceptable too, but that's probably an Americanization.

This is what the grammarist.com says:

Fungi vs. funguses
Though fungus has Latin roots, it has been an English word for many centuries, so there is nothing wrong with pluralizing it in the English manner—funguses. But even though there is nothing wrong with the English plural, fungus is one of a handful of Latin-derived words whose Latin plurals are conventionally preferred even in today's English. In 21st-century writing of all kinds, and especially in scientific writing, fungi is the more common plural and hence the safer choice.

How about Hippopotami, hippopotamuses, hippos?

Latin plurals are typically favored in scientific writing, however, and while some people who study animals use hippopotamuses in their own speech, the Latin plural is especially common in scholarly texts that mention the animal. In general usage, though, only a few Latin plurals are preserved by convention, and hippopotami is not common enough to be considered one of them.

Of course, anyone who wishes to get around the issue can go with the shortened hippos, which is actually more common overall than both of the others in this century.

The data is what I expected.

It should be "are what," but how many people would say that nowadays?

Indeed :(

AJ

In English, Data is primarily used as a mass noun.

Primarily being the operative word. When the speaker needs to distinguish between single data points, then the distinction between datum as singular and data as plural can be useful even though it sounds odd to a layman.

Mass nouns are always treated as singular and they have no plural form.

No, although singular is the most usual case. And I believe it's true to say that most mass nouns have plural forms, although they are considered countable when used in that form. For example, 'Sand' is usually a mass noun but consider 'The Sands of Mars'.

ETA: A better example might be custard. In normal use it's uncountable because you'd say something like 'a bowl of custard', specifying the unit of measure. However it does have a countable plural eg 'My local supermarket sells a range of instant custards'.

AJ

I don't understand your objection. To me, 'sands' is obviously a plural form of 'sand'.

ETA Alum Bay, The Isle Of Wight, has twenty-one different coloured sands.

AJ

Sort of related:

"UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations are flouted with impunity by the Manchester Cities and Paris Saint Germains of this world."

When speaking of the football club as a whole, Manchester City is a mass noun and therefore singular. Yet even though there's only one of them (excluding alternate realities), it still has a plural ;)

AJ

For example, 'Sand' is usually a mass noun but consider 'The Sands of Mars'.

Hee-hee. Yeah, all three of them! I suspect the composition of 'sand' on Mars isn't that similar to ours, though I've got to admit, I've never tried sunbathing nude on a Mars beach.

Mass nouns are used for things that have to be measured, rather than counted, like dirt. Gramatically, mass nouns are always singular, they never have a plural form.

Back when 'data' referred to how many sheep you owned, the distinction made sense. Once data became as common as sand on a beach (an utterly uncountable mass), the previous guidelines forever changed.

Now, for Star Trek, Next Generation, Data is definitely single, as he never married. No little datums for him.