Preferred plural of "helix": helixes or helices?
Geoff Kuenning
plurals of "helix", and ispell only knows one of them. I'm happy with
listing only one in the dictionary, since part of ispell's purpose is
to enforce consistent spelling within a single document. But I
couldn't come to a determination of which spelling is preferable:
"helixes" or "helices". Right now ispell lists "helixes", and I tend
to prefer that because it makes the root clearer, even though it's
probably less correct from an etymological point of view.
I'm crossposting to sci.bio.technology because the gene-manipulation
folks seem to be heavy users of the word (I wonder why? :-) and I
figured there might already be an accepted standard in that field. I
have redirected followups to alt.english.usage only just to keep
newsgroup clutter down.
Opinions, anyone?
--
Geoff Kuenning ge...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu ge...@ITcorp.com
John Daily
: An ispell user has pointed out to me that there are two accepted
First, one note...The newsgroup alt.usage.english is the favored group. This
one is likely an error...I don't know its history, but the other is used
heavily, this one not at all.
Regarding the question: My motto is to query Fowler, so here's a quote
from "Modern English Usage".
Naturalized Latin nouns in -ex and -ix vary in the form of the
plural. The Latin plural is -ices, the English -exes; some
words use only one of these, and some both.
1) Words in purely scientific or technical use (codex, cortex,
murex, silex, etc.) are best allowed their Latinity; to
talk of codexes, cortexes, murexes, and silexes, is to take
indecent liberties with palaeography...
2) Latin words borrowed as trade names (duplex, lastex,
perspex, pyrex, triplex, etc.) are for the period of their
lives English; if a plural is needed for any of them it
should be -es.
3) Words that have become the established English for an
object (e.g. ilex) use -exes...
Even though "helix" is definitely the established English word, I
think the first rule applies here, and I would always use helices. The
Oxford Universal Dictionary lists only helices as an option, although
Webster's 2nd lists both helices and helixes.
: Opinions, anyone?
: --
: Geoff Kuenning ge...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu ge...@ITcorp.com
--
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Communism has nothing to do with love. Communism is /
/ an excellent hammer which we use to destroy our enemy. /
/ - Mao Tse-Tung /
/ John Daily / jrd...@indyvax.iupui.edu / jrd...@aurora.st.usm.edu /
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
guymar...@gmail.com
Athel Cornish-Bowden
years ago? A Google Grouper, or course.
--
athel
Daniel James
> On Monday, May 2, 1994 at 6:58:11 PM UTC+1, Geoff Kuenning wrote:
>> An ispell user has pointed out to me that there are two accepted
>> plurals of "helix", and ispell only knows one of them. I'm happy
>> with listing only one in the dictionary, since part of ispell's
>> purpose is to enforce consistent spelling within a single document.
incorrectly spelt. If a word has two valid spellings then both should
be in ispell's dictionary or ispell will incorrectly detect one of the
spellings as an error.
>> ... But I couldn't come to a determination of which spelling is
>> "helixes", and I tend to prefer that because it makes the root
>> clearer, even though it's probably less correct from an
>> etymological point of view.
"helix" was adopted into the English language in both singular and
plural forms, in which case the Latin plural "helices" may be
preferred; or only the singular word "helix" was adopted into English,
in which case the plural should be formed in the usual English way, for
words ending with an 'x': by appending "es".
In most cases it is found that both things happened in different places
and at different times, and the issue is unclear.
It may be worth knowing that the Shorter Oxford lists "helices" before
"helixes".
--
Cheers,
Daniel.
John Ritson
<dan...@me.invalid> writes
>Guymar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 1994 at 6:58:11 PM UTC+1, Geoff Kuenning wrote:
>>> An ispell user has pointed out to me that there are two accepted
>>> plurals of "helix", and ispell only knows one of them. I'm happy
>>> with listing only one in the dictionary, since part of ispell's
>>> purpose is to enforce consistent spelling within a single document.
>
>I would say, rather, that ispell's purpose is to detect words that are
>incorrectly spelt. If a word has two valid spellings then both should
>be in ispell's dictionary or ispell will incorrectly detect one of the
>spellings as an error.
>
>>> ... But I couldn't come to a determination of which spelling is
>>> preferable: "helixes" or "helices". Right now ispell lists
>>> "helixes", and I tend to prefer that because it makes the root
>>> clearer, even though it's probably less correct from an
>>> etymological point of view.
>
>From an etymological point of view, there are two possibilities. Either
>"helix" was adopted into the English language in both singular and
>plural forms, in which case the Latin plural "helices" may be
>preferred; or only the singular word "helix" was adopted into English,
>in which case the plural should be formed in the usual English way, for
>words ending with an 'x': by appending "es".
would realise that they needed a plural. A Latin word would be imported
with its plural. Later, people unfamiliar with Latin would construct an
alternative plural in conformity with the standard English rules for
creating the plural form.
Stadium - Stadia/Stadiums
Hippopotamus - Hippopotami/Hippoptamuses
>
>In most cases it is found that both things happened in different places
>and at different times, and the issue is unclear.
>
>It may be worth knowing that the Shorter Oxford lists "helices" before
>"helixes".
>
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
of the rivers"), because it is the animal that needs a plural, not the
location. It's not as bad as "ignorami", but on the whole it's safer to
make English plurals of English nouns.
>>
>> In most cases it is found that both things happened in different places
>> and at different times, and the issue is unclear.
>>
>> It may be worth knowing that the Shorter Oxford lists "helices" before
>> "helixes".
--
HVS
Does this take some sort of prize for "responding to old messages that
google regurgitates"?
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus