Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

I'd largely chalk it up to either ignorance or simple dunder-headedness (i.e. they realize the difference, but were typing too fast to notice)—largely based on whether they've written much science fiction in the past.

And then it transpired that the physicist threw a fit upon hearing someone speak about centrifugal force. "It is centrepital force, you oaf!"

"And transpiration is how plants breath" added the biologist.

Hmmm, breathy plants :-) It's good to see a frugal by pital. It's like the innie and outie force pair, yes?

Thanks CW. It's happening a lot lately, and sometimes by authors that I expect would know better. I try not to be a grammar Nazi at large, but will consider your advice.

I try not to be a grammar Nazi

This isn't about Grammar, it's about facts.

There have been one or 2 stories that were meant to be Science fiction, but some of what was written was just so wrong I bailed out.

it's about facts

You want facts to get in the way of fiction?

Seriously, the only reason it flags for me at all is that this is the way words unintentionally change meanings.

The language is fluid, well viscous actually, and does change, but hijacking words and phrases through ignorance and forcing meaning changes on them by sheer weight of numbers is not a reasonable method, IMHO.

Take 'terrific' as an example. It originally, and still does, mean something terrifying. But now it is mostly used to describe something wonderful and exciting, like Taylor Swift, or maybe that is using the original meaning.

It can get really confusing for literalists ...

"Terrific" didn't come from "terror"

It's not coining I object to, rather hijacking. Sure there has been lots of it, and it is ongoing, but I don't have to support it, just like I don't support piracy ;-)

A reference I found shows:

mid 17th century: from Latin terrificus, from terrere 'frighten'

Also see:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrific

and:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrific

Sadly both of them, and I suspect may others, have relegated the original meaning to #3. Sigh ... I curse semantic amelioration :-(

Try searching "terrific etymology"

I try to stick to authoritative sources, as much as that is possible on the Internet. Known dictionary sources tend to be correct, albeit a bit terse. I do have a hard dictionary, but it was printed in 1964 :-)

ETA: Interestingly, in that dictionary the primary definition for 'terrific' is "causing great terror". So it's all changed since 1964. Sigh ...

You want facts to get in the way of fiction?

No, I want them to support fiction.

Seriously, the only reason it flags for me at all is that this is the way words unintentionally change meanings.

To me it shows ignorance.

In general language words may change their meaning over time.
These are terms that relate at a basic level to our universe. Unless the very nature of our universe changes, then those words meanings/definitions will not change.

Unless the very nature of our universe changes, then those words meanings/definitions will not change.

What nonsense. Just because the basic forces of the universe don't change, doesn't mean that the words to describe them won't change.

What nonsense. Just because the basic forces of the universe don't change, doesn't mean that the words to describe them won't change.

I guess this needs repeating In general language words may change their meaning over time.

Different languages use different words.
But the present words that are used to describe various forces haven't changed since those forces were discovered/described. The only way for those words to change would be through misuse (ie general language) or for the nature of the universe itself to change. Rather unlikely.

It could be that yet another system could be developed to replace the metric system, which replaced (for most of the world) the earlier imperial system.
Even so, the old words from the earlier systems would still have the same meanings & relationships as they do now.

through misuse

It seems though that enough misuse redefines the use. I can't help thinking that 'inertia' will begin to become the de-facto word for those techy physics movement thingies. It's shorter than 'momentum' and 'velocity' and all those other big words, and you hear it lots on the news in financial reports.

Although "momentum" wasn't originally intended as a financial term

If you read the sentence carefully, you will see it was 'inertia' I was referring to, not 'momentum' which was just a contrast example.

Besides, I want to have the last word (pout pout).

Besides, I want to have the last word

Tough.

Tough.

That's the idea! I have some inertia when it comes to getting a thread back on topic, even though there is a concerted effort to fork it onto feedback to authors :-)

You want the last word, here it is: zyzzogeton

http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/zyzzyva

:P

here it is: zyzzogeton

And yet, what you point me to is about 'zyzzyva'. Great word though. But not your standard English dictionary class of publication. No offence to the Heritage types. I wonder if there is a 'Dictionary of Apnoea Terms' which would doubtless include 'Zzzzzzz', defined as the noise a throat makes when overcoming breathing INERTIA :-)

And yet, what you point me to is about 'zyzzyva'.

You missed this from the cited link

The last word in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged is a related word, zyzzogeton "a genus of large South American leafhoppers of the family Cicadellidae"

You missed this from the cited link

Why would you say that?

And yet, what you point me to is about 'zyzzyva'. Great word though. But not your standard English dictionary class of publication

Very important insect in South America. Definitely a great word and in my American/Canadian dictionary. (The Canadian lexicographer is/was a professor in Chicago)

You want the last word, here it is: zyzzogeton
http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/zyzzyva

I'm feeling very sleepy. Time for a zzz. :)

That's not a bastardization of the language

I didn't say it was. I just used it as an example of a much heard word in the public domain. Something to latch on to when wanting a techy word for those movement thingies.

Calling a pig an afghan

A resident of Afghanistan is an Afghan. The vast majority are Muslim and are for religious reasons unwilling to eat pigs, so almost no pigs live in the country. It would be difficult to find a pig there to call an Afghan. On the other hand, calling an Afghan a pig would be an easy way to start a fight.

A resident of Afghanistan is an Afghan.

The problem here is that the first 'a' was not capitalized by the writer, while you capitalized it, changing its meaning. The original use of "afghan" probably refers to a throw or carpet. I have often used an afghan as a blanket of sorts while lying on a couch.

The problem here is that the first 'a' was not capitalized by the writer, while you capitalized it, changing its meaning. The original use of "afghan" probably refers to a throw or carpet. I have often used an afghan as a blanket of sorts while lying on a couch.

Thank you for the contribution. I haven't noticed you here before, so hello and welcome!

You noted, "the first 'a' was not capitalized by the [original] writer". Looking at who that was, Crumbly Writer, I can almost guarantee you that if he'd proofread what he wrote before posting it he would have noticed the error and changed it to a capital. CW, as we call him, is very busy and he never proofreads his posts here. He usually comes here a few times a day, pounds out some interminably long and mostly, astute comments for our edification, then goes back to his other business. I.E., just learn to ignore his numerous and varied typos.
* *
So, moving on to your point, the question of whether or not the word 'afghan' requires a capital depends on what the writer, at the time, thinks the word is referring to - not necessarily its original meaning. If they use 'Afghan' to mean someone/something from Afghanistan, then they should use a capital because the adjective is referring to a proper noun.

I would not use 'afghan' in English to describe the style of weaving used to make an object. While that would be correct, I think the lesser evil is having readers interpret 'Afghan' as something made in Afghanistan, rather than having almost all of them assume I had made a technical blunder.

afghan

"afghan (blanket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An afghan blanket

Afghans being made for charity by a crochet club.

Afghans being made for charity by US military members at a crochet club.

An afghan is a blanket of knitted or crocheted wool, cotton, linen (or many other kinds of natural materials) or made of any type of man-made material. [1] It is sometimes also called a "throw" of indeterminate size. They are often used as bedspreads, or as a decoration on the back of chairs.[2]

Etymology[edit]

The word afghan refers to the people of the country of Afghanistan. The coverlet was originally produced by the Afghans. The use of afghan in the English language goes back to 1831, when Thomas Carlyle mentioned it in his Sartor Resartus.[3] The first mention of the word referring to the woven rug was in 1877.[4]"

The word afghan refers to the people of the country of Afghanistan.
- quoted from Wikipedia

I spit on that one.

If the word "refers to the country of Afghanistan" then it is incorrect to not write it with a capital.

Ngrams agrees with me! This query shows 'Afghan' being consistently capitalised with a frequency of well over 90%.

Well, I wouldn't say 'facts', as those are observable and repeatable phenomena, whereas word choices are an individual choice,

Force= mass * acceleration.
It isn't about word choice, it's about one of the basic constants of our universe.
Each of those words has a particular definition and meaning. Unless you choose another word with the exact same meaning & definition, it would be wrong.

I hope you emailed the author about the error so they can fix it.

The particular author that finally prompted this thread published the subject story in 2005, so I suspect any suggestions along those lines might be a touch late :-)

I don't like to proof uninvited, unless I want to proof for a particular author, and then I make a meal of it. I'm sure there are plenty of others who will take up my slack.

@Zom

Is there some reason, other than ignorance, that folk are using 'inertia' in a way that seems entirely inappropriate?

Perhaps slang, just as centrifugal is used when the correct word is centripetal (how many ordinary people have even heard of centripetal?)

Has some US state legislated a change in the naming of SI units? What is going on?

Some states have done sensible things and some have legislated nonsense. As examples I think it was Illinois which changed the name of their language to "American" whilst another has legislated that Pi (the mathematical constant) shall be 3 and not 3.14159 etc.

Probably poorer education, or faulty memory by the aged who haven't looked at that stuff in 50 years.

Certainly in my time educational standards here have fallen very badly.

whilst another has legislated that Pi

It was Indiana, and the bill was never voted into effect. It wasn't actually about Pi, but the value for Pi (3.2) fell out of the substance of the bill, which was about squaring of the circle. I have no understanding at all why anybody would want to legislate such a thing, but am thankful to Professor C. A. Waldo for enforcing speculative INETRTIA, and causing the bill to fail.

It was Indiana, and the bill was never voted into effect. It wasn't actually about Pi, but the value for Pi (3.2) fell out of the substance of the bill, which was about squaring of the circle. I have no understanding at all why anybody would want to legislate such a thing, but am thankful to Professor C. A. Waldo for enforcing speculative INETRTIA, and causing the bill to fail

I was actually thinking of Alabama.
Responding to pressure from religious groups, Alabama's state legislature redefined the value of pi from 3.14159 to :-( 3 in order to bring it in line with Biblical precepts.


mea culpa - I should have checked Snopes :-(

Mississippi exists so Alabama does not have the lowest statistics in the USA.

Mississippi exists so Alabama does not have the lowest statistics in the USA

Yes, Mississippi does have a lower elevation rank (47) than Alabama (35), but sadly is not the lowest, which is Florida (51).

centrifugal is used when the correct word is centripetal

Interestingly, both words are 'correct' and refer to opposing forces. In a rotating system, like a rock swung on the end of a string, centrifugal is the (apparent) force that causes an object to want to move further away, and centripetal is the force (provided by the string) that prevents it moving away and keeps it following the arc. At least that's what they were back when I was in school. Maybe they have changed since then. Although I suspect there is great INERTIA to changing physics terms.

Interestingly, both words are 'correct' and refer to opposing forces. In a rotating system, like a rock swung on the end of a string, centrifugal is the (apparent) force that causes an object to want to move further away, and centripetal is the force (provided by the string) that prevents it moving away and keeps it following the arc. At least that's what they were back when I was in school. Maybe they have changed since then. Although I suspect there is great INERTIA to changing physics terms.

Apparent is the operative part, there is no such thing as a "centrifugal force" although there can be centrifugal effects. Any "force" being experienced is centripetal in nature as something acts to keep the item within a fixed distance from the center of rotation.

Centrifugal "force" is called a "false force" in physics for a reason, it's an illusion.

Centrifugal "force" is called a "false force"

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that?

My understanding is that it is an apparent force developed by an object's inertia when a centripetal force maintains a curvilinear motion instead of a straight vector.

Surely, if there was no 'centrifugal force' applying, apparent or otherwise, bodies would not need a centripetal force to maintain curvilinear motion.

It's only 'apparent' because it is a derived force, rather than a direct force. I'm sure that blood cells in a separation centrifuge don't care if it's apparent or not. They press on regardless :-)

Check wikipedia.

Did that:
"In classical mechanics, conservation of linear momentum is implied by Newton's laws. It also holds in special relativity (with a modified formula) and, with appropriate definitions, a (generalized) linear momentum conservation law holds in electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and general relativity. It is ultimately an expression of one of the fundamental symmetries of space and time, that of translational symmetry." My emphasis.