= NOTICE: Virus Email With My Email Address on It =
Franklin Hummel
One of the current viruses going around seems to have affected someone's computer
(cannot tell who) which had my email address on it. As a result, a lot of virus email
is now being sent out as if it is from me (hum...@world.std.com). I found this out a
day or so ago when I started getting in a lot of bounced email I never sent. I have
notified my ISP.
These message are NOT from my own computer. I have been running my virus software
updates as well as the Windows ones almost every day for the last 2 week because of
the ongoing virus threats, and running a full virus scan of my system every other day
and my PC is clean.
I can't tell where these messages are from, so I cannot stop this. So for the near
future, be careful if you open email from me and do NOT open any attachment which
might be a virus.
--
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
===========================================================
"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but it
is queerer than we can imagine." -J.B.S. Haldane
Dan Norder
>As a result, a lot of virus email is now being
>sent out as if it is from me (hum...@world.std.com).
You and everyone else with an email address listed in a newsgroup, on a
website, or in someone's addressbook. So you are in good company.
Actually, what I find almost as stupid as these viruses going around is how
some mail servers deal with it. They send out reply emails to the addresses
saying they the attachment was a known virus warning you to install anti-virus
software. Well, if it's really as known of a virus as they think it is, they
should know that the return addresses are forged and emailing the forged
address to nag them about the virus is a complete waste of time that just
needlessly adds to the mail traffic on the net and fills up innocent peoples'
mailboxes.
jeanannd
function after infecting a person is to send SPAM out, (as well as sending
itself to everyone in your email address book).
--
^ ^
>"< jeanannd
/ I \ /
\ / I \/
"Dan Norder" <dann...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030821214506...@mb-m18.aol.com...
james ambuehl
viruses. Also, as a "just in case, for my work computer," I don't even
keep an e-address book -- I keep it all in hardcopy, in pen on a handy
little spiral notebook. ;-)
-- Jim
"Currently she was standing in the middle of what appeared to be his
TARDIS library. But it was a library of the evil and the arcane, where
the godless 'Necronomicon' was sandwiched between those terrible works
'Liber Inducens in Evangelium Aeternum' and 'The Black Scrolls of
Rassilon'. Where the infamous 'Book of Vile' and its Black Appendix sat
next to 'The Ambuehl Lores' and the wretched 'Insidium of Astrolabus'
.."
-- THE QUANTUM ARCHANGEL by Craig Hinton
Dirk A. Loedding
"Franklin Hummel" <hum...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Just a general warning to you folks:
>One of the current viruses going around seems to have affected
>someone's computer (cannot tell who) which had my email address on it.
>As a result, a lot of virus email is now being sent out as if it is
>from me (hum...@world.std.com). I found this out a day or so ago when
>I started getting in a lot of bounced email I never sent. I have
>notified my ISP.
That's just the way the Sobig.F virus works. You start getting bounce
messages for email you never sent. The virus forges the From line,
making it look like you sent something. A quick examination of the
headers will show otherwise. Bottom line: Don't sweat it.
>I can't tell where these messages are from, so I cannot stop this. So
>for the near future, be careful if you open email from me and do NOT
>open any attachment which might be a virus.
Good advice. Some of the recent virii, however, don't even require
you to do anything except not apply the patches. You can contract
them just be being online.
--
Thought for the day:
"The problem with people is that they're only human." ş Hobbes
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dan Norder
Viruses
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Good advice. Some of the recent virii. . . .
>
I don't mean to pick on you, Dirk, but this is an excellent example of
something I said in a previous thread, about usage determining proper
use.
The proper English plural of "virus" is "viruses", whereas the proper
Latin plural (virus is a Latin word) is "viri" or "virii". Now, among
lay people "viruses" is used almost exclusively, but among scientists
and medical professionals "virii" is used much more often than
"viruses". In fact, sometimes the editors of scientific and medical
journals will "correct" the plural by changing "viruses" to "virii".
So among scientists and medical professionals at least "virii" is
considered the proper way to pluralize "virus".
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Clore
The OED only recognizes "viruses" as the plural for "virus"
(citations with the form "viruses" include scientific
journals). They do not so much as record the forms "viri" or
"virii". The latter, BTW, is not a correct Latin plural.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Franklin Hummel
It was orignally posted to 4 differrent newsgroups. After my "What is the plural of
Cthulhu?" post, I don't think we need to bring the Grammar Wars outside of a.h.c.
Kevin L. O'Brien
who has reviewed papers for journals, who has worked as an editor for
a couple of scientific journals, and has attended numerous scientific
conferences, "viri" is used preferentially over "viruses". Perhaps
the OED missed it.
Kevin L. O'Brien
cwmo...@gbronline.com
>The proper English plural of "virus" is "viruses",
human interface devices.
:)
Wayne
jeanannd
little feetsies. (my cats idea obviously).
--
^ ^
>"< jeanannd
/ I \ /
\ / I \/
<cwmo...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:3f47f96e...@news.gbronline.com...
Dan Clore
>
I won't dispute that. They also don't include the form
"octopi" as a plural for octopus. In addition to which, and
to get on topic for the newsgroup, doing my project on
fantasy/horror diction (working file approaching 300,000
words), I've collected quite a few words the OED has missed.
Examples: adjectivitis, aegipan, aglaophotis, alabraundine,
andromaniac, anthosmial, apostis, bemerded, bo, cambion,
chaote, chaoticism, chaoticist, Charonian, Conchimarian,
crescendent, Cycloptic, demiurgy, dentant, discollate,
durdal, dweomer, encinct, evant, fantaisiste, fascinum,
fastitocalon, faunlet, glandous, grimoiran, heptagram,
homunculus, immundane, inappelable, malpassage, megademon,
melanine, Mercutian, necrophagi, Ocypetean, omniverse,
phasmatological, priapistic, psychophantic, pulleiar,
reptilize, revelant, rubrous, scin-laeca, siccant, strix,
Stromkarl, Stylitean, thaumatropically, tingaribinus,
unreverberate, unstelled, unsurcease, and weirdling. (Not an
exhaustive list.) Some of these omissions are quite
surprising.
Dan Norder
[snip list of "words" he can't find in the OED]
>Some of these omissions are quite surprising.
Not from this end.
It's a lot more surprising that you think all of them are real words worth
mentioning, as a good portion of them are highly questionable.
Dan Clore
Details, please. I can give citations in which all of these
words are used. The omissions I find most surprising are
aegipan, heptagram, homunculus, and rubrous.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
David Harrison
> Dan Norder wrote:
>
>>Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>
>
>>[snip list of "words" he can't find in the OED]
>>
>>>Some of these omissions are quite surprising.
>>
>>Not from this end.
>>
>>It's a lot more surprising that you think all of them are real words worth
>>mentioning, as a good portion of them are highly questionable.
>
>
> Details, please. I can give citations in which all of these
> words are used. The omissions I find most surprising are
> aegipan, heptagram, homunculus, and rubrous.
>
Which version are you looking in? My 'Concise' (fairly recent edition)
has 'homunculus'.
I was chatting to a couple of the OUP's dictionary guys a while ago and
they mentioned removing words that were no longer considered part of the
modern language. Words get added to the dictionary, and others taken away.
To be honest, I've never heard of aegipan, heptagram, or rubrous either.
Heptagram is easy to figure out, but I've never heard it used. While I'm
no accurate yardstick of the language these examples don't sound current
at all.
My 2 syllables' worth.
cheers,
David H
--
"When the tough get going, I'll steal their sandwiches."
If you need to contact me direct, please remove the obvious from the
reply address
Dan Clore
> On 8/24/2003 6:25 AM, Dan Clore said:
> > Dan Norder wrote:
> >>Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> >
> >>[snip list of "words" he can't find in the OED]
> >>
> >>>Some of these omissions are quite surprising.
> >>
> >>Not from this end.
> >>
> >>It's a lot more surprising that you think all of them are real words worth
> >>mentioning, as a good portion of them are highly questionable.
> >
> > Details, please. I can give citations in which all of these
> > words are used. The omissions I find most surprising are
> > aegipan, heptagram, homunculus, and rubrous.
> >
> Which version are you looking in? My 'Concise' (fairly recent edition)
> has 'homunculus'.
The CD-ROM of the second edition, version 3.0., 2002.
> I was chatting to a couple of the OUP's dictionary guys a while ago and
> they mentioned removing words that were no longer considered part of the
> modern language. Words get added to the dictionary, and others taken away.
>
> To be honest, I've never heard of aegipan, heptagram, or rubrous either.
> Heptagram is easy to figure out, but I've never heard it used. While I'm
> no accurate yardstick of the language these examples don't sound current
> at all.
I have citations for "aegipan" from (among others) Edgar
Allan Poe, Arthur Machen, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton
Smith, and Charles G. Finney. The word "heptagram" is fairly
common in works on magick. The word "rubrous" appears (among
other places) in works by A. Merritt that sold millions of
copies. (He's supposed to have been the American author with
the most volumes in print at one point.)
David Harrison
> I have citations for "aegipan" from (among others) Edgar
> Allan Poe, Arthur Machen, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton
> Smith, and Charles G. Finney. The word "heptagram" is fairly
> common in works on magick. The word "rubrous" appears (among
> other places) in works by A. Merritt that sold millions of
> copies. (He's supposed to have been the American author with
> the most volumes in print at one point.)
>
Granted. But don't forget that the dictionary is compiled by regular
academic folk, all prey to the politics of the day. Given trends here
toward "relevance at all costs to today's society" (or those parts of
society that are sufficiently PC, right-on or dumbed-down), I wouldn't
be at all surprised to find such words omitted or dropped. I think the
policy is also toward current rather than past usage, though please
don't quote me on that.
By the way, can you give me definitions for your example words? I'm
dying to know!
cheers,
David
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> To be honest, I've never heard of aegipan, heptagram, or rubrous either.
>
"Aegipan" (also "aigipan") refers to the form the Greek god Pan took
when he fled the monster Typhon. He lept into the sea and
shape-changed to an animal, but his transition occured right as he was
passing between the land and the sea, so he became a combination land
and sea animal: the forequarters of a goat and the hindquarters of a
fish. This form was called "capricorn" by the Romans.
"Heptagram", as you no doubt surmised, is a seven-pointed star,
similar in form to a pentagram.
I have no precise dictionary definition for "rubrous" but the context
in which it is used would indicate it means reddish or red-tinted.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Clore
> On 8/24/2003 11:58 AM, Dan Clore said:
>
> > I have citations for "aegipan" from (among others) Edgar
> > Allan Poe, Arthur Machen, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton
> > Smith, and Charles G. Finney. The word "heptagram" is fairly
> > common in works on magick. The word "rubrous" appears (among
> > other places) in works by A. Merritt that sold millions of
> > copies. (He's supposed to have been the American author with
> > the most volumes in print at one point.)
> >
> Granted. But don't forget that the dictionary is compiled by regular
> academic folk, all prey to the politics of the day. Given trends here
> toward "relevance at all costs to today's society" (or those parts of
> society that are sufficiently PC, right-on or dumbed-down), I wouldn't
> be at all surprised to find such words omitted or dropped. I think the
> policy is also toward current rather than past usage, though please
> don't quote me on that.
The OED isn't supposed to omit or drop anything. (I'm not
talking about abridged reference volumes, here.)
> By the way, can you give me definitions for your example words? I'm
> dying to know!
This is my entry for aegipan. I can't remember where I found
that it refers to a centaur-like creature; I think most of
the quoted authors simply took it as some kind of satyr or
faun.
ægipan (pl. ægipanes, ægipans), œgipan, n. [< Gr aigipan,
goat + Pan.] In Græco-Roman mythology, one of a race of
centaur-like beings with the torso of a human joined to the
body of a goat. In some cases, the term may be understood as
a synonym for satyr or faun.
[Not in OED]
Pindar plainly saith, That there is no more Thread, that is
to say, no more Life spun from the Distaff and Flax of the
hard-hearted Fates for the Goddesses Hamadryades, than there
is for those Trees that are preserv'd by them, which are
good sturdy downright Oaks, whence they derived their
Original, according to the Opinion of Callimachus, and
Pausanius in Phoci; with whom concurs Martianus Capella. As
for the Demigods, Fauns, Satyrs, Sylvans, Hobgoblins,
Ægipanes, Nymphs, Heroes, and Dæmons, several Men have, from
the total Sum, which is the result of the divers Ages
Calculated by Hesiod, reckon'd their Life to be 9720 Years,
that sum, consisting of four special numbers orderly arising
from one, the same added together and multiplied by four
every way, amounts to forty; these forties being reduced
into Triangles by five times, make up the total of the
foresaid Number. See Plutarch, in his Book about the
Cessation of Oracles.
François Rabelais (trans. Sir Thomas Urquhart & Pierre Le
Motteux), The Lives, Heroick Deeds, and Sayings of Gargantua
and His Son Pantagruel
In his Left hand he held a Pipe, and a crooked Stick in his
Right. His Forces consisted also wholly of Satyrs, Ægipanes,
Agripanes, Sylvans, Fauns, Lemures, Lares, Elves, and
Hobgoblins, and their Number was Seventy eight thousand one
hundred and fourteen. The Signal or Word common to all the
Army was Euohe.
François Rabelais (trans. Sir Thomas Urquhart & Pierre Le
Motteux), The Lives, Heroick Deeds, and Sayings of Gargantua
and His Son Pantagruel
We pored together over such works as the Ververt et
Chartreuse of Gresset; the Belphegor of Machiavelli; the
Heaven and Hell of Swedenborg; the Subterranean Voyage of
Nicholas Klimm by Holberg; the Chiromancy of Robert Flud, of
Jean D'Indaginé, and of De la Chambre; the Journey into the
Blue Distance of Tieck; and the City of the Sun of
Campanella. One favourite volume was a small octavo edition
of the Directorium Inquisitorum, by the Dominican Eymeric de
Gironne; and there were passages in Pomponius Mela, about
the old African Satyrs and Œgipans, over which Usher would
sit dreaming for hours. His chief delight, however, was
found in the perusal of an exceedingly rare and curious book
in quarto Gothic-the manual of a forgotten church-the
Vigiliæ Mortuorum secundum Chorum Ecclesiæ Maguntinæ.
Edgar Allan Poe, "The Fall of the House of Usher"
[Some texts correct to "Ægipans".]
Villiers turned page after page, absorbed, in spite of
himself, in the frightful Walpurgis Night of evil, strange
monstrous evil, that the dead artist had set forth in hard
black and white. The figures of Fauns and Satyrs and Ægipans
danced before his eyes, the darkness of the thicket, the
dance on the mountain-top, the scenes by lonely shores, in
green vineyards, by rocks and desert places, passed before
him: a world before which the human soul seemed to shrink
back and shudder.
Arthur Machen, "The Great God Pan"
Goats leaped to the sound of thin accursed flutes, and
ægipans chased endlessly after misshapen fauns over rocks
twisted like swollen toads.
H.P. Lovecraft, "The Horror at Red Hook"
Once in his ascent Randolph crossed a rushing stream whose
falls a little was off sang runic incantations to the
lurking fauns and ægipans and dryads.
H.P. Lovecraft, "The Silver Key"
"And God! The shapes of nightmare that float around in that
perpetual dæmon twilight! The blasphemies that lurk and leer
and hold a Witches' Sabbat with that woman as a
high-priestess! The black shaggy entities that are not quite
goats-the crocodile-headed beast with three legs and a
dorsal row of tentacles-and the flat-nosed ægipans dancing
in a pattern that Egypt's priests knew and called accursed!"
H.P. Lovecraft & Zealia Bishop, "Medusa's Coil"
Quaint quills whereon the ægipan has played.
Clark Ashton Smith, The Black Book of Clark Ashton Smith
From out its winding tube
The serpent sobs a music old and quaint
As antic quills blown by the ægipan.
Clark Ashton Smith, The Black Book of Clark Ashton Smith
PAN: Physically the largest of all the gods. In his troupe
were lemures, ægipanes, bassarides, bacchides, evantes,
mænades, fauns, and sylvans. They all adored him.
Charles G. Finney, The Circus of Dr. Lao
ægipanic, adj. Of, pertaining to, or resembling an ægipan
(q.v.).
[Not in OED]
In their rhythmic piping, droning, rattling, and beating I
felt an element of terror beyond all the known terrors of
earth-a terror peculiarly dissociated from personal fear,
and taking the form of a sort of objective pity for our
planet, that it should hold within its depths such horrors
as must lie beyond these ægipanic cacophonies.
H.P. Lovecraft & Harry Houdini, "Under the Pyramids"
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
> On 8/24/2003 11:58 AM, Dan Clore said:
> By the way, can you give me definitions for your example words? I'm
> dying to know!
And here's for rubrous. There should be more from Merritt,
but I evidently haven't gotten the other passages entered
yet.
rubrous, adj. [< L ruber (root: rubr-), red, ruddy] Red,
ruddy.
[Not in OED]
Of that journey I have few memories. I only know that we
went through corridor upon corridor; successions of vast
halls and chambers, some carpeted with the rushes, others
with rugs into which the feet sank as into deep, soft
meadows; spaces illumined by the rubrous light, and spaces
in which softer lights held sway.
A. Merritt, The Moon Pool
Against the thick shutters sounded a creaking groan of
hideous pressure. Oaken planks sagged inward. Holding fast,
the iron bolts trembled, then abruptly smouldered into
sullen rubrous heat. Mist poured past the buckling timbers,
bearing with it a smell not of any sea known to man.
Karl Edward Wagner, "Undertow"
Crimson as it climbed, the full moon seemed a false dawn to
mock the dying sun, arriving prematurely, disrespectful as a
greedy heir pacing in eager impatience before the master's
deathbed. For a space the limitless skies of twilight
displayed two rubrous globes low on either horizon, so that
Kane mused as to whether his long journey across the desert
might not have led him to some strange dusk world where two
ancient suns smouldered in the heavens.
Karl Edward Wagner, "Two Suns Setting"
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Dan Norder wrote:
>
> > Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>
> > [snip list of "words" he can't find in the OED]
> > >Some of these omissions are quite surprising.
> >
> > Not from this end.
> >
> > It's a lot more surprising that you think all of them are real words worth
> > mentioning, as a good portion of them are highly questionable.
>
> Details, please.
>
Ten will get you 0.01 that he won't respond.
I guess it would all depend upon what Dan Norder considers to be a
"real word", and God only knows what that would be. For me, and this
is just my opinion, a "real word" is any word that becomes generally
accepted by a group a people, such that those people use it. The
group can be as small as a profession, or a literary community, to as
large as the entire population of human beings that speak that
language. Yet just because a word is unknown beyond a limited group
doesn't mean it isn't "real".
I wonder, for example, if Norder would consider "chromatography" to be
a "real word". That's a word from my own profession, biochemistry.
It is derived from "chromato", meaning color, and "graphy", meaning a
process or method of pictorially represention; hence, it literally
means "a process or method of pictorial representation with color".
In biochemistry, however, it refers to the general process of
separating biological molecules. The reason it is called
"chromatography" is because when the process was first developed it
was used to molecules that had pigments, so the scientist could
actually see the separation process occur as various colors emerged
from what appeared to be a homogeneous solution. Nowadays we use
dfferent methods for detecting the molecules instead of visual
pigments, but the name has stuck.
Another example, a specialized form of chromatography is
"electrophoresis". This word is derived from "electro", meaning
electric, and "phorous", meaning carrying or bearing; hence
elctrophoresis literally means "carrying with electricity". In
biochemistry this word refers to the method of using an electrical
field to drive biomolecules through a gel, which then separates them
on the basis of size.
My point is that these two words are doubtlessly unfamiliar or even
unknown outside of the small circle of biochemists (though
chromatography is a general term generally known to chemists,
biologists, and geologists), yet they are "real" words because they
are generally used by biochemists when discussing research
methodology.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3F484C60...@columbia-center.org>...
> > Dan Norder wrote:
> > > Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > > [snip list of "words" he can't find in the OED]
> > > >Some of these omissions are quite surprising.
> > >
> > > Not from this end.
> > >
> > > It's a lot more surprising that you think all of them are real words worth
> > > mentioning, as a good portion of them are highly questionable.
> >
> > Details, please.
> >
> Ten will get you 0.01 that he won't respond.
I know, having encountered Dan Norder in the past, but maybe
this time, when we flip the coin, it will land standing on
its side.
Quite right. The case is a little different with the words I
listed, though. Rather than coming into general use in a
community (which some of them have, in genre writing), some
appear but once--but in an important literary monument. (Not
only in the genre: several that I listed occur in the works
of William Blake--dentant, glandous, and reptilize.) The OED
attempts to be comprehensive, and thus words that appear in
texts with millions of copies in circulation ought to be
included.
David Harrison
rolling update policy, and apparent multiple sources, these words might
be good candidates.
The page at
http://www.oed.com/public/readers/
should point you in the right direction.
We can debate endlessly, or try and tip the balance with the OED. Which
sounds better?
all the best
David H
David Harrison
Not words I'll trip over every day, but you just never know :-)
Rather enjoyed reading the source passages, too!
all the best
David H
--
Dan Clore
Thing is, I have enough that it would be a lot of work to
put everything into shape for them, with all the detail that
they want for each quotation. It's a lot more work than I
want to do.
Christopher K. Philippo
What will the outcome of your "project on fantasy/horror diction" be? A
book? An ebook?
Toff
Dan Clore
Most likely multiple books, eventually. I can foresee three
major publications deriving from it: (1) a handy paperback
reference dictionary, with words and definitions and just
enough quotations as are necessary to illustrate; (2) a big
Book of Words, with all of the words and definitions and
with quotations cut down to the most interesting and
entertaining, to make a good read; and (3) probably on
CD-ROM, all words, definitions, and quotations. Along with
these, books of sort (2) could be made for individual
writers or perhaps for subgenres. Right now, I think an H.P.
Lovecraft Book of Words, with entries for all of the
specialized diction that occurs in his work, along with
quotations from authors that influenced him or were
influenced by him, etc., would make a good current project.
Other authors who might deserve that treatment include Clark
Ashton Smith, William Morris, James Branch Cabell, and E.R.
Eddison. But I doubt that any of those would have the likely
audience that an HPL Word Book could expect.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
David Harrison
> Thing is, I have enough that it would be a lot of work to
> put everything into shape for them, with all the detail that
> they want for each quotation. It's a lot more work than I
> want to do.
Very fair answer. I'd help but have the same problem -- freelancing
takes up too much time.
cheers,
David
Kevin L. O'Brien
commercial publishing house, one good way to test the waters to see
how much interest your project would generate would be to start off
with a small press version. I would be very happy to consider
publishing a book of your words, as both an eBook and a POD trade
paperback, but what I would like to see is a dark fiction or pulp
fiction book, one that features 6 to 12 pulp writers or writers of
dark fiction --- including Lovecraft of course --- with selection of
words used by each. The book would then have a master index of words
at the end, with the eBook having links directly from the index to the
individual entries. I could probably get an artist to provide
illustrations of some of the words as well.
If you are interested please check out my website for more details and
then contact me privately.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
http://www.clare.ltd.new.net/
Timothy McDaniel
Kevin L. O'Brien <kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote:
>whereas the proper Latin plural (virus is a Latin word) is "viri" or
>"virii".
Apparently not. Tom Christiansen has an article, "What's the Plural
of `Virus'?", at <http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html>.
<http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html> comments on it and
other sources. Christiansen writes,
Virus is not attested in the plural in Latin, and is of a rare
form (2nd declension neuter in -us) that makes it debatable what
the Latin plural would have been; the only plural in English is
viruses.
The Google answer also quotes Dictionary.com:
Q. What is the plural of virus?
A. Viruses.
It is not viri, or (which is worse) virii. True, the word comes
directly from Latin, but not all Latin words ending in -us have -i
as their plural. Besides, viri is the Latin word for 'men' (plural
of vir, man, the root the English virile). There is in fact no
written attestation of a Latin plural of virus.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Kevin L. O'Brien
of virus is viri or virii. Now, I grant you that biologists are not
experts in Latin, but neither is Tom Christiansen a scientist. So his
pronouncement is irrevelevant, both to the biological community and to
my point, which was that the proper plural form for a word is
determined by which is the most popular. Among biologists, viri or
virii is used preferentially over viruses, so among biologists the
proper plural form of virus is viri or virii.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Paul Vader
>Again, I'm sorry, but the biological community accepts that the plural
>of virus is viri or virii.
No they don't. 'Viruses' is accepted as much or more. And 'viri' is just
plain wrong. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Timothy McDaniel
Kevin L. O'Brien <kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote:
>of virus is viri or virii.
Then they're just a bunch of metaphorical penes.
>my point, which was that the proper plural form for a word is
>determined by which is the most popular.
And that is simply wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong wrong.
DRS
vkmrfoo...@news.supernews.com
> kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net (Kevin L. O'Brien) writes:
>> Again, I'm sorry, but the biological community accepts that the
>> plural of virus is viri or virii.
>
> No they don't. 'Viruses' is accepted as much or more. And 'viri' is
> just plain wrong. *
According to my Collins Latin dictionary the plural of 'virus' (nt) is '-i'.
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
Mike Tice
Tim McDaniel was specifically responding to only one line of your
post, which was the only thing he quoted at the head of his post:
Kevin L. O'Brien <kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net> wrote:
>whereas the proper Latin plural (virus is a Latin word) is "viri" or
>"virii".
He wasn't talking about biologists, he was talking about the proper
Latin plural, so his post was not at all irrelevant.
As far as your main point that viri is preferentially used by
biologists, I note that searching "virii virology" gets 121 hits on
Google, "viri virology" gets 220 hits, whereas "viruses virology" gets
114,000. Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to substantiate your
claim that 'among scientists and medical professionals "virii" [or
viri] is used much more often than' viruses?
--Mike
John Flynn
> Paul Vader wrote:
>
>> No they don't. 'Viruses' is accepted as much or more. And 'viri' is
>> just plain wrong. *
>
> According to my Collins Latin dictionary the plural of 'virus' (nt) is
> '-i'.
Nuh-uh. It won't list plurals specifically. Typically, a noun entry in
a Latin dictionary will give the nominative singular and the genitive
singular (which, in this case, is indeed "-i") along with the gender. This
is normally enough to indicate which declensional paradigm to use for that
noun.
--
johnF
"While the origin and early evolution of language are problematic, there is
certainly no positive evidence that language arose to fulfill a need to
communicate."
-- _Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Its Possibilities_, Frederick Newmeyer
Kevin L. O'Brien
numerous papers in scientific journals, who has reviewed numerous
papers, and who has served as an editor on a couple of journals.
"Viri" may be wrong, but it's what biologists use.
If you were a biologist you would know that.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Franklin Hummel
Keep the Grammar Wars within your own newsgroup, please.
--
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
===========================================================
"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but it
is queerer than we can imagine." -J.B.S. Haldane
--
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
===========================================================
"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but it
is queerer than we can imagine." -J.B.S. Haldane
DRS
bigk2c$pe2$1...@pcls3.std.com
> PEOPLE, SOME OF YOU ARE STILL CROSSPOSTING THIS!
>
> Keep the Grammar Wars within your own newsgroup, please.
Not while you keep top-posting and over-quoting.
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Then they're just a bunch of metaphorical penes.
>
Well, when you spend 20 years of your life doing biological research
then your opinion will mean something; otherwise it means nothing.
>
> And that is simply wrong.
>
Considering that dictionaries and grammars are written based on
popular usage rather than popular usage being determined by
dictionaries and grammar, I hardly think that is an accurate
statement.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Tim McDaniel was specifically responding to only one line of your
> post, which was the only thing he quoted at the head of his post:
>
And by quoting it out of context he distorted what I was trying to
say, so I corrected him.
>
> As far as your main point that viri is preferentially used by
> biologists, I note that searching "virii virology" gets 121 hits on
> Google, "viri virology" gets 220 hits, whereas "viruses virology" gets
> 114,000.
>
Google is not a database of scientific literaure, so I would hardly
consider those results meaningful. Besides, viri and virii are used
in scientific papers, not articles published for public consumption.
In the latter, magazine editors change the plural form of virus to
that which they are familiar with, namely viruses. Google almost
certainly counted the number of occurances of the plural forms to be
found in popular publications rather than scientific publications.
>
> Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to substantiate your
> claim that 'among scientists and medical professionals "virii" [or
> viri] is used much more often than' viruses?
>
Now you are using Dan Norder's argument: "prove to me you are right
by quoting every instance viri/virii is used more often than viruses".
That is clearly impossible. Even if I quoted a hundred journal
articles where viri/virii is used you could maintain that there are
thousands of others that use viruses; even if I quoted a thousand, you
could claim there are millions. I have better things to do with my
time than try to prove to a non-biologist what a biologist takes for
granted. If my word as a working biochemist is insufficient then I
suggest you spend the next 20 years doing biological research and find
out the truth for yourself.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Dan Clore
> DRS wrote:
> > Paul Vader wrote:
> >> No they don't. 'Viruses' is accepted as much or more. And 'viri' is
> >> just plain wrong. *
> >
> > According to my Collins Latin dictionary the plural of 'virus' (nt) is
> > '-i'.
>
> Nuh-uh. It won't list plurals specifically. Typically, a noun entry in
> a Latin dictionary will give the nominative singular and the genitive
> singular (which, in this case, is indeed "-i") along with the gender. This
> is normally enough to indicate which declensional paradigm to use for that
> noun.
Which means that according to the Collins Latin dictionary,
the plural of "virus" is "viri". The two Latin dictionaries
I have, Cassell's and New College, indicate the same thing.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Aaron Vanek
My worthless opinion:
Using "virii" or "viri" is correct if it appears in a scientific context, mainly biological. However, does that mean that computer viruses should also be called as such?
If someone uses "virii" in common usage (as referring to computer virUSES), I'm going to think they're smug and smarmy and full of themselves. But then, I'm a lower class populist groundling who is going to use the word "viruses" as much as possible and leave virii to those who should know more about the little buggers than I.
There are other language battles worth fighting. How come no one's calling each other to the mat about the ubiquitous misuse of "lose" vs. "loose", "your" vs. "you're" "its" vs. "it's", etc.?
This sounds like people arguing about a crack in the window that lets a few raindrops leak inside when the roof is caving in.
Feel free to flame me to heart's content. I didn't really learn anything studying English for four years in college.
PS-My spell checker recognizes "viruses" but not "viri" or "virii", so that decides it. ;-)
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
-- Aaron Vanek "The Yellow Sign" REVIEWS: http://www.flipsidemovies.com/yellowsign.html http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=4472 Also Check out: http://www.webnoir.com/yellowsign The Carmichael-Reardon Gallery: http://www.webnoir.com/crg "Return to Innsmouth" available on video (PAL and NTSC) http://www.beyond-books.com/catalog/ "(My) Necronomicon" viewable at: http://www.hypnotic.com/films.asp?ID=48
Paul Vader
>> According to my Collins Latin dictionary the plural of 'virus' (nt) is
>> '-i'.
>
>Nuh-uh. It won't list plurals specifically. Typically, a noun entry in
>a Latin dictionary will give the nominative singular and the genitive
>singular (which, in this case, is indeed "-i") along with the gender. This
That's what I meant by 'just plain wrong'. And since viruses were
discovered long after Latin became a dead language, it hardly matters
anyway. *
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> My worthless opinion:
>
An opinion is worthless only when it is based on ignorance. My
statement that certain opinions are worthless was a comment on the
fact that non-biologists were trying to claim to know how biologists
think and act, while ignoring the statements of a working biologist in
their midst. Such claims are worthless because a non-biologist has
not the training or experience to know how biologists think or act, so
their claims are based on ignorance.
>
> Using "virii" or "viri" is correct if it appears in a scientific
> context, mainly biological. However, does that mean that computer
> viruses should also be called as such?
>
No.
>
> If someone uses "virii" in common usage (as referring to computer
> virUSES), I'm going to think they're smug and smarmy and full of
> themselves. But then, I'm a lower class populist groundling who is going
> to use the word "viruses" as much as possible and leave virii to those
> who should know more about the little buggers than I.
>
As it should be. Each group should use whatever plural form they are
most used to. The general lay public is permitted to use viruses
without recrimination from either biologists or software engineers,
but that also means that biologists and software engineers should be
allowed to use viri/virii if they wish without recrimination from
self-appointed guardians of grammatical purity.
>
> There are other language battles worth fighting. How come no one's
> calling each other to the mat about the ubiquitous misuse of "lose" vs.
> "loose", "your" vs. "you're" "its" vs. "it's", etc.?
>
And I fight those battles where they mean the most; ie, when I edit
submissions for Lindisfarne Press. On Usenet, people tend to write
the way they talk, so as long as I understand what they are trying to
say, I don't sweat the details. Also many people are somewhat
careless about typos, which may account for many of these incorrect
usages.
>
> This sounds like people arguing about a crack in the window that lets a
> few raindrops leak inside when the roof is caving in.
>
My point was always very limited in scope. I never argued that
everyone must use viri instead of viruses. My argument was simply
that biologists use viri preferentially over viruses, so for them viri
is correct usage. I have no opinion on what the plural form of virus
SHOULD be.
>
> Feel free to flame me to heart's content. I didn't really learn anything
> studying English for four years in college.
>
If this were a discussion about the structure and form of the English
language I would bow to your superior knowledge, but it isn't. It is
a discussion about two things: what is the proper Latin plural of
virus, and what form of plural do biologists use preferentially.
Regarding the former, people who know Latin better than I do have
stated that viri is the Latin plural of virus and have backed up their
claim with references to Latin dictionaries. What I find of more
general interest is that other people who know Latin better than I do
have contradicted this claim, so obviously the rules for Latin plurals
are not quite so clear-cut. This makes me question whether the rules
for English plurals are also as clear-cut as some people claim they
are.
As for the latter, being a biologist my expertise should take
precedence over the "expertise" of non-biologists, so if I say
biologists preferentially use viri over viruses that should be
accepted as readily as when I say that an enzyme is a protein that
acts as a catalyst.
>
> PS-My spell checker recognizes "viruses" but not "viri" or "virii", so
> that decides it. ;-)
>
Exactly right, being as we all know that spell checkers are always
100% accurate. ;-)
Kevin L. O'Brien
Lady Dagon
> Franklin Hummel <hum...@world.std.com> wrote in message
> bigk2c$pe2$1...@pcls3.std.com
> > PEOPLE, SOME OF YOU ARE STILL CROSSPOSTING THIS!
> >
> > Keep the Grammar Wars within your own newsgroup, please.
>
> Not while you keep top-posting and over-quoting.
It seems to me what Mr. Hummel (who if you read his posts, rarely, if
ever, top-posts) was first doing by top-posting in *this* message was
wanting to get people's attention to be sure people *read* his concern
about the cross-posting of this thread (and this is the *second* time
he asked this).
By over-quoting I believe he was trying to show others how much
off-topic this thread has gotten. You will also note his request was
in no way a reply to what the quote post was. He was using the entire
quoted text as an example.
Mr. Hummel started this thread over concerns some who read the
newsgroups he posts to might receive and open virus-infected email
with his address on it, which was sent from someone else's computer.
I think the fact he is trying to be responsible for the off-topic,
cross-posting his message has become through other's posts is
something which should be praised.
In other words, stop being a fucking asshole and try to think before
you post insults about people who don't deserve them.
-The Lady
John Flynn
Dan Clore wrote:
> John Flynn wrote:
>> DRS wrote:
>>> Paul Vader wrote:
>>>
>>>> No they don't. 'Viruses' is accepted as much or more. And 'viri'
>>>> is just plain wrong. *
>>>
>>> According to my Collins Latin dictionary the plural of 'virus' (nt)
>>> is '-i'.
>>
>> Nuh-uh. It won't list plurals specifically. Typically, a noun entry
>> in a Latin dictionary will give the nominative singular and the
>> genitive singular (which, in this case, is indeed "-i") along with
>> the gender. This is normally enough to indicate which declensional
>> paradigm to use for that noun.
>
> Which means that according to the Collins Latin dictionary,
> the plural of "virus" is "viri". The two Latin dictionaries
> I have, Cassell's and New College, indicate the same thing.
They indicate that a neuter 2nd-decl. noun ends in -i in the nominative plural?
--
johnF
"She looked at the scenery. It heaved and merged like porridge.
Presently it congealed. They had arrived." -- _Howards End_, E M Forster
Dark Lotus
multiple for virus we choose and let the ego war here rest for Cthulhu's
sake. Hell why don't we just call the plural of virus k'tagnatha and say
it's what the Star Spawn use.
Anyway it's not a big deal people really, let's all just get back to serving
the Old Ones or whatever non-euclidean life form you choose to follow, be it
deep one or Dagon or whatever.
--
------
A man who dies and whose name is forgotten is forever lost to this world and
the next. Only memory's power of evocation stands between a soul and its
oblivion.
Dan Clore
>
> You know why don't we all just agree to disagree and use whatever form of
> multiple for virus we choose and let the ego war here rest for Cthulhu's
> sake. Hell why don't we just call the plural of virus k'tagnatha and say
> it's what the Star Spawn use.
>
> Anyway it's not a big deal people really, let's all just get back to serving
> the Old Ones or whatever non-euclidean life form you choose to follow, be it
> deep one or Dagon or whatever.
Well, I for one will concede that I spoke too soon. Virus
seems to be an odd word in Latin. Maybe the real plural
would be viriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.......
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Silv
Dan Clore wrote:
> Dark Lotus wrote:
> >
> > You know why don't we all just agree to disagree and use whatever form of
> > multiple for virus we choose and let the ego war here rest for Cthulhu's
> > sake. Hell why don't we just call the plural of virus k'tagnatha and say
> > it's what the Star Spawn use.
> >
Agreed. This is almost as bad as the "What's the plural of Cthulhu" thread.
>
> > Anyway it's not a big deal people really, let's all just get back to serving
> > the Old Ones or whatever non-euclidean life form you choose to follow, be it
> > deep one or Dagon or whatever.
I've always been cheering for Hastur, myself.
Sylv
Dan Norder
>ægipan (pl. ægipanes, ægipans), œgipan, n. [< Gr aigipan,
>goat + Pan.] In Græco-Roman mythology, one of a race of
>centaur-like beings with the torso of a human joined to the
>body of a goat. In some cases, the term may be understood as
>a synonym for satyr or faun.
>[Not in OED]
How about this instead:
http://www.theoi.com/Kronos/Aigipan.html
No mention of race or the centaur form.
Dan Norder
offensive again. I still have him killfiled, but just with the tirade that Dan
Clore quoted him saying is proof that he's got a major case of the pit bulls.
My main point is that just because a fiction writer uses a word it doesn't mean
that it is, in fact, a real word and that obsure words in obscure fields often
aren't used frequently enough to be listed in a dictionary.
I have no desire to get into huge arguments over these things, especially when
people never change their minds. I've got better things to do with my time.
Obviously (seeing as how there are 10 posts in this thread alone from killfiled
people in the last day or two) some other people don't.
james ambuehl
You say 'virus', while I say 'virii'
You say 'octopus' while I say 'octopi'
You say 'Cthulhus' while I say . . . AARRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!! NO!!!!!!
RUN AWAY!!!! WE'RE DOOOOOOMED!!!!! AAIIIIIEEEEE!!!!!!*
(*)Well, what else are you going to say when a multitude of "Cthulhi"?
-- Jim
"Currently she was standing in the middle of what appeared to be his
TARDIS library. But it was a library of the evil and the arcane, where
the godless 'Necronomicon' was sandwiched between those terrible works
'Liber Inducens in Evangelium Aeternum' and 'The Black Scrolls of
Rassilon'. Where the infamous 'Book of Vile' and its Black Appendix sat
next to 'The Ambuehl Lores' and the wretched 'Insidium of Astrolabus'
.."
-- THE QUANTUM ARCHANGEL by Craig Hinton
Mike Tice
> Google is not a database of scientific literaure, so I would hardly
> consider those results meaningful.
Would you agree that PubMed is a database of scientific literature?
As you are no doubt aware, PubMed includes access to MEDLINE, which
"contains bibliographic citations and author abstracts from more than
4,600 biomedical journals published in the United States and 70 other
countries. The database contains over 12 million citations dating back
to the mid-1960's."
virii = 0 hits
viri = 26 hits (including several papers by M. Viri and F. Viri)
viruses = 399,616 hits
> > Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to substantiate your
> > claim that 'among scientists and medical professionals "virii" [or
> > viri] is used much more often than' viruses?
> >
>
> Now you are using Dan Norder's argument: "prove to me you are right
> by quoting every instance viri/virii is used more often than viruses".
All I asked for was any non-anecdotal evidence, not exhaustive
evidence.
> I have better things to do with my
> time than try to prove to a non-biologist what a biologist takes for
> granted. If my word as a working biochemist is insufficient then I
> suggest you spend the next 20 years doing biological research and find
> out the truth for yourself.
Well, since you are unwilling to waste any time educating a mere
non-biologist, I'll have to find out the truth for myself. But why
should I spend 20 years of effort when it takes a mere 10 seconds of
investigation at PubMed to find out the truth?
--Mike
"[The universe] is written in the language of mathematics, and
its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures,
without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single
word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth."
-- Galileo
Dan Clore
That's a good reference, but not directly relevant. It
concerns an individual deity, not the race (just as the name
Pan also does on the same page). It may give a useful hint,
though, since the race would probably have been envisaged as
similar to the god.
Dan Clore
>
> I knew as soon as I replied the first time that Kevin O'Brien would go into the
> offensive again. I still have him killfiled, but just with the tirade that Dan
> Clore quoted him saying is proof that he's got a major case of the pit bulls.
>
> My main point is that just because a fiction writer uses a word it doesn't mean
> that it is, in fact, a real word and that obsure words in obscure fields often
> aren't used frequently enough to be listed in a dictionary.
You're quite right that fiction writers frequently employ
neologisms and nonce words, and that one shouldn't expect to
find them in dictionaries.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > Dark Lotus wrote:
> > >
> > > You know why don't we all just agree to disagree and use whatever form of
> > > multiple for virus we choose and let the ego war here rest for Cthulhu's
> > > sake. Hell why don't we just call the plural of virus k'tagnatha and say
> > > it's what the Star Spawn use.
> > >
> Agreed. This is almost as bad as the "What's the plural of Cthulhu" thread.
I still have a post for that in my drafts file, so just you
wait!!! Iä!!!!!
Kevin L. O'Brien
and won't let me respond directly to Mike Tice's post.
Mike wrote: "All I asked for was any non-anecdotal evidence, not
exhaustive
evidence."
But the nature of the dispute is over which plural form of virus is
preferentially used by biologists; as such, the only way to establish
that is to count the number of times each form is used. Merely
quoting a few instances of the use of viri instead of viruses is
insufficient because you could easily claim that there are many more
instances of using viruses that I didn't quote. So to establish the
truth of what I am saying I would have to provide exhaustive evidence,
which is clearly impossible. This is just a form of "heads Mike wins,
tails Kevin looses" argument that allows him to ignore my expertise on
this issue.
Mike also wrote: "Well, since you are unwilling to waste any time
educating a mere non-biologist, I'll have to find out the truth for
myself."
To educate someone, that person must be willing to learn. You've
already decided what the truth is, so it doesn't matter what I say,
you refuse to learn. So why waste my time? You remind me of the
debate I had with a creationist who was convinced that the reason heme
(the molecule in hemoglobin that carries iron) is not a protein is
because it contains iron, when the actual reason is that it contains
no amino acids; he refused to be educated as well. And he used
similar tactics to what you are using to try to support his claim,
except all he did was to shout his ignorace from the rooftops.
"But why should I spend 20 years of effort when it takes a mere 10
seconds of
investigation at PubMed to find out the truth?"
Mostly because it would give you the nonanecdotal evidence you desire.
In this case, however, it would allow you to understand the PubMed
results you've obtained.
You are assuming that scientific databases like PubMed work like
Google, in that the occurance of each word is counted and catalogued.
That is not true. With over 12 million entries, including author
names, titles, institutional names, abstracts, and much more, it would
be exceedingly difficult, even with sophisticated database programs,
for PubMed to catalogue every word in every entry. It also isn't
necessary. What PubMed does is catalogue keywords.
Keywords do not normally include plurals. That is, the database will
use a keyword like "enzyme" but not "enzymes", and if you put in
"enzymes" the database pretty much defaults to "enzyme" and gives you
the same references. I say "normally" however for two reasons. First
of all, no database program is perfect, and neither are the humans
that enter the data, so out of 12 million plus entries there are bound
to be discrepencies. For example, I entered "enzyme" and received
1480146 hits, then I entered "enzymes" and received 1390360 hits.
This does not mean that there were 1,480,146 articles that mentioned
"enzyme" but only 1,390,360 the mentioned "enzymes", but that the
database program for some reason smply did not find all the articles
that contain the keyword "enzyme" when "enzymes" was used. This is
something every scientist has to learn when getting to know PubMed:
there is no guarantee that your search will produce every relevant
article in the database, especially if your search parameters are too
general.
Also the database may default to a different keyword altogether if
that keyword is a real catalogued keyword. For example, when you put
in "viri" PubMed should have defaulted to "virus" but instead it
defaulted to an author name keyword, since "viri" is catalogued as an
author name keyword but not as a subject keyword. The database's
programming obviously gives greater weight to actual words it finds in
the catalog than it does to related words.
Secondly, the PubMed database also includes non-technical articles,
including editorials, reviews, and news items, as long as they are
published in scientific journals. Such articles often use less
technical terms, especially if they would be unfamilar to
non-biologists (which would include scientists from other
disciplines). As such, "viruses" may vey well be a keyword simply for
that reason.
I should also remind you that I said "viri" is preferentially used,
not exclusively used, so there are going to be articles that use
"viruses" instead of "viri". Also, the people who maintain the
database know that there are people who prefer "viruses" over "viri",
or are unaware that "viri" is preferentially used over "viruses", so
they almost certainly programmed PubMed to respond to "viruses" as if
"viri" was used. In fact, this may explain why "viri" only results in
pulling up author names whereas "viruses" results in pulling up
articles about, well, viruses. I am not a virologist, so I have never
had to do a PubMed search for articles on viruses in general, but
virologists almost certanly know that this is the case and so probaly
use "viruses" themselves. The thing to keep in mind is that general
databases like PubMed are set up to be used by anyone, not just a
select few, so it is bound to be programmed in such a way that people
unfamiliar with technical terms can still get relevant articles. A
virology database, on the other hand, would probably give very
different results to a search of "viri" vs. "viruses".
So, you put in "viri" and get 26 hits and then put in "viruses" and
get 399,616 hits, and erroniously conclude that this is because there
are only 26 articles that use the word "viri" while there are 399,616
articles that use the word "viruses". If, however, like me you were a
biologist with 20 years of research experience you would have known
that these results are due instead to the way PubMed is designed.
"Viri" is present as an author name keyword, whereas "viruses" is
probably present as a subject keyword; additionally the database is
probably programmed to respond to "viruses" as if it were the plural
"viri". So, you put in "viri" and get only a handful of articles with
authors whose last name is "Viri"; but you put in "viruses" and you
get articles about viruses, regardless of whether they mention
"virus", "viruses", or "viri".
So your results prove nothing, other than you do not have the research
experience to properly interpret them. To be sure, you would need to
read every one of those 399,616 articles to see what plural form, if
any, is used. If you do, you will find that whenever a plural of
virus is used "viri" is used more often than "viruses".
Or you can become a biologist and do biological research and learn the
same thing. Or you can take my word for it, being as I am a working
biologist.
Or you can keep on being ignorant. The choice is yours.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Kevin L. O'Brien
>
> Dan Norder wrote:
> >
[snip nonresponsive ad hominem]
> >
> > My main point is that just because a fiction writer uses a word it
> > doesn't mean that it is, in fact, a real word . . .
> >
I agree that a single appearance doesn't automatically make word
"real", but Dan Norder has still failed to define what does make a
word "real", other than a passing reference to inclusion in a
dictionary. I would argue that there are two ways of making a word
"real": the first is general acceptance and use by a group, even one
limited in size; the other is an extended appearance, such as Dan
Clore's reference to a single use but in millions of copies.
> >
> > . . . and that obsure words in obscure fields often aren't used
> > frequently enough to be listed in a dictionary.
>
I suppose it depends upon what Dan Norder means by "obscure", but even
an "obscure" field like biochemistry will have its own dictionaries of
technical terms. Assuing of course Norder even recognizes these as
being legitimate dictionaries.
Then there is the fact that more general dictionaries very frequently
will have "obscure" scientific terms if they are comprehensive enough.
I've seen entries in encyclopedic dictionaries, as well as the
massive tome-like dictionaries found in libraries, for such terms as
chromatography, electrophoresis, photosynthesis, proteolysis,
anabolism, catabolism, phosphorylation, glycolysis, gluconeogenesis,
and many more.
>
> You're quite right that fiction writers frequently employ
> neologisms and nonce words, and that one shouldn't expect to
> find them in dictionaries.
>
As you pointed out in a previous post, however, the OED is meant to be
comprehensive, so one would expect to find such words listed there.
Besides, I would argue that any book that lists words and their
definitions is essentially a dictionary, whether it would be called
one or not.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Aaron Vanek
you refuse to learn. So why waste my time? You remind me of the debate I had with a creationist who was convinced that the reason heme
Are you an asshole in the real world too, or just on usegroups?
You may be right on the issue, but why do you have to act righteously about it? Do you feel that by using the word "viruses" instead of "virii" that we are insulting the hallowed study of biology, or, more importantly, your TWENTY YEARS experience as a biologist?
I am tempted to call a bunch of virologists and ask them what they use, but I have an existence to squander with smart ass comments and drinking beer.
And feeding trolls, I guess. Next response I give you I'll send it via email, so this thread dies.
Mike Tice
>and won't let me respond directly to Mike Tice's post.
I'm having the same problem.
>Mike wrote: "All I asked for was any non-anecdotal evidence,
>not exhaustive evidence."
>But the nature of the dispute is over which plural form of virus is
>preferentially used by biologists; as such, the only way to establish
>that is to count the number of times each form is used.
I didn't ask you to prove it, I just asked for *any* evidence on your
side apart from your own opinion. The only evidence I have to work
from is the evidence that I have naively obtained from Google and
PubMed, which suggests that the usage of 'viruses' outstrips the use
of alternate plurals by a factor of roughly 1000 to 1.
>Keywords do not normally include plurals.
Then why are there 400,000 hits for 'viruses'?
And why did you find over a million hits for 'enzymes'?
In both cases PubMed returned a similar number of hits for the
singular.
I can't understand your use of the word 'normally', since the
inclusion of plurals seems to be the normal rule not the exception.
>Also the database may default to a different keyword altogether if
>that keyword is a real catalogued keyword. For example, when you put
>in "viri" PubMed should have defaulted to "virus" but instead it
>defaulted to an author name keyword, since "viri" is catalogued as an
>author name keyword but not as a subject keyword.
It's obvious that you are just making up rationalizations on the fly
without even checking whether they are, in fact, true. Although a
search on 'viri' does pull up papers written by people of that name,
it also locates papers in which viri appears in the abstract, such as
the paper by Petsev et al.
>Secondly, the PubMed database also includes non-technical articles,
>including editorials, reviews, and news items, as long as they are
>published in scientific journals.
But you contend that the editors of scientific journals change
occurences of viruses to viri!
I also invite you to look at the hits obtained by searching 'viruses'
and see whether most of those 400,000 hits are non-technical articles.
As an example, I offer "Antigenic and genetic variability of human
respiratory syncytial viruses (group A) isolated in Uruguay and
Argentina: 1993-2001." [No, I don't consider this proof of my
assertion; it is merely a piece of evidence that supports my view,
which is something you have not offered at all.]
>I should also remind you that I said "viri" is preferentially used,
>not exclusively used, so there are going to be articles that use
>"viruses" instead of "viri".
Certainly, but PubMed only comes up with a handful of 'viri' and
hundreds of thousands of 'viruses'. This does not appear to be
evidence of the preferential use of 'viri'.
>Also, the people who maintain the
>database know that there are people who prefer "viruses" over "viri",
>or are unaware that "viri" is preferentially used over "viruses", so
>they almost certainly programmed PubMed to respond to "viruses" as if
>"viri" was used.
Again, you are just making things up. Why would they reward people
with hundreds of thousands of hits for using (what you contend to be)
the wrong spelling, while punishing those who use the correct spelling
with a handful of hits?
>In fact, this may explain why "viri" only results in
>pulling up author names whereas "viruses" results in pulling up
>articles about, well, viruses.
As I demonstrated above, "viri" does not only result in hits on
authors.
>The thing to keep in mind is that general
>databases like PubMed are set up to be used by anyone, not just a
>select few, so it is bound to be programmed in such a way that people
>unfamiliar with technical terms can still get relevant articles.
So you're now asserting that PubMed is not a scientific database?
>So, you put in "viri" and get 26 hits and then put in "viruses" and
>get 399,616 hits, and erroniously conclude that this is because there
>are only 26 articles that use the word "viri" while there are 399,616
>articles that use the word "viruses".
I didn't say that exactly. It looks as though publishers submit
authors, titles and abstracts to PubMed, not the complete text of the
articles themselves. So I'm sure there are more occurences of viri
out there than PubMed lists. No doubt there are more 'viruses' out
there as well. However, the huge disparity in numbers suggests that
viruses is far more common.
>If, however, like me you were a
>biologist with 20 years of research experience you would have known
>that these results are due instead to the way PubMed is designed.
>"Viri" is present as an author name keyword, whereas "viruses" is
>probably present as a subject keyword;
No, despite your 20 years of research experience, you do not know how
PubMed is designed. Searching 'viri' returns hits other than names.
>additionally the database is
>probably programmed to respond to "viruses" as if it were the plural
>"viri". So, you put in "viri" and get only a handful of articles
with
>authors whose last name is "Viri"; but you put in "viruses" and you
>get articles about viruses, regardless of whether they mention
>"virus", "viruses", or "viri".
If PubMed works the way you think it "probably" does, and if 'viri' is
as common as you say it is, shouldn't it be easy to find me 1 paper in
the 'viruses' search that uses 'viri' in the abstract? I'm not
looking for exhaustive evidence, just any evidence.
>So your results prove nothing, other than you do not have the
research
>experience to properly interpret them. To be sure, you would need to
>read every one of those 399,616 articles to see what plural form, if
>any, is used. If you do, you will find that whenever a plural of
>virus is used "viri" is used more often than "viruses".
You have turned the tables somewhat. I'm not trying to prove
anything. You made the original claim that 'viri' is more common than
'viruses' in scientific literature. I didn't ask you to prove that,
just to provide some evidence for it. You have refused to provide
any. Your long-winded rationalizations about how PubMed works are at
times patently wrong and ridiculous. At the very least, you have
failed to support your point with any evidence whatsoever. After the
results of my own investigation, I feel justified in saying that you
are wrong, absent any forthcoming evidence from you or others.
But I'll turn the tables again, just for fun.
I submit that:
On PubMed, apart from the 26 articles obtained by searching 'viri',
NONE of the 399,616 articles obtained by searching 'viruses' will
include the word 'viri' in its title or abstract.
Find one. Just one. And I will admit that I am wrong on this point.
--Mike
JK
in Science News about bacteriophages and
couldn't help but think of this fun little thread
as I saw 'viruses' spelled out in its rude glory
in the text. True, it is a popular magazine and
not a major journal but it seems generally
respectable.
But then, I've also seen them use 'octopuses'
so obviously they are a bunch of idiots. ;)
Dan Norder
">tice...@hotmail.com </A> (Mike Tice))
> Now you are using Dan Norder's argument: "prove to me you are right
> by quoting every instance viri/virii is used more often than viruses".
Killfile or no killfile, when you lie and pretend I said things I never did, if
I find out about it, I'm going to tell you to stop.
I never wrote that sentence and have never said anything remotely similar to
that sentence. Whenever someone asks you to give evidence for anything you
freak out and make ridiculous statements like that. Enclosing it in quote marks
would give the public (at least those unacquainted with your tactics) the idea
that I actually said that. I didn't, and you know that, so knock it off.
Dan Norder
>Dan Norder wrote:
>> http://www.theoi.com/Kronos/Aigipan.html
>>
>> No mention of race or the centaur form.
>That's a good reference, but not directly relevant.
Why not?
>It concerns an individual deity, not the race (just
>as the name Pan also does on the same page).
I don't think there is a race, which is kind of the point for showing you that
link.
>It may give a useful hint, though, since the race
>would probably have been envisaged as similar to
>the god.
OK, let's back up.
Are you talking as some hypothetical race that you think people actually had
myths about? If so, a check of the actual sources (as the page quoted above
does) is highly relevant.
If you mean some word assigned to a new race invented by fiction authors and
assigned a name similar to a legendary reference, I thought you were talking
about a word that you found odd that it wasn't in the OED...? Fictional races
almost never make real world dictionaries.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> >Dan Norder wrote:
> >> http://www.theoi.com/Kronos/Aigipan.html
> >>
> >> No mention of race or the centaur form.
>
> >That's a good reference, but not directly relevant.
>
> Why not?
>
> >It concerns an individual deity, not the race (just
> >as the name Pan also does on the same page).
>
> I don't think there is a race, which is kind of the point for showing you that
> link.
There is a race, mentioned by Classical authors such as
Pomponius Mela (cited in the Edgar Allan Poe quotation) and
Pliny the Elder.
Okay, I found a reference to the centaur-like form:
"According to some early accounts, centaurs were said to
possess the bodies of goats instead of horses, though these
are more properly known as aegipans, named for their
progenitor, AEgipan (often confused with Pan) a woodland god
similar to Pan (though with four legs), the son of Zeus (and
the she-goat Aix or the satyrette Amaltheia) who aided the
gods in the Titanomachy (the battle of the Titans). Centaurs
are also called Hippocentaurs and Magnetes."
http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/Centaurus.html
Dan Norder
>There is a race, mentioned by Classical authors such as
>Pomponius Mela (cited in the Edgar Allan Poe quotation)
>and Pliny the Elder.
>
>Okay, I found a reference to the centaur-like form:
>"According to some early accounts, centaurs were
>said to possess the bodies of goats instead of horses,
>though these are more properly known as aegipans,
>http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/Centaurus.html
Too bad that site didn't actually reference which early accounts supposedly
said that. I've learned not to trust passages like that that don't reference
where they got the info from, having seen too much bad info tossed around.
The only Pliny the Elder reference I could dig up mentions "aegipans and
satyres" with no explanation as to what they are meant to be. It seems likely
that the Pomponius Mela cite that Poe mentions directly relates to this brief
Pliny passage as well, based upon the phrasing. So we don't start with a lot of
information to go on.
They appear to be creatures of some sort, but it isn't clear that they are
meant to be a race of similar creatures. The phrasing could equally be
referring to children of Aegipan with various unrelated forms (as mythological
characters often had children that varied greatly in shape and form from each
other) and it's also plausible that the word was meant descriptively and not as
a name for a distinct race of creatures.
I don't see anything from any of the sources I have access to suggesting that
the word "aegipans" was meant to refer to a centaur-type race with goat parts
instead of horse parts. The reference seems to be refering to the Panes (the
goat beings that were the sons of Pan that are commonly called satyrs these
days) as Aegipans... and since Aegi means goat, it's a little redundant.
A lot of people are confused into thinking that satyrs were always part goat.
The main ones actually had little pushed in noses, horse or donkey tails and
ears -- although others were almost indistinguishable from humans. As time went
on, the satyrs became thought of more like the god Pan.
Without more info, I'd suspect that Pliny (as a Roman and late reference when
it comes to GrecoRoman beliefs) was referring to the two major types of beasts
called satyrs in this way, using the word "goat - Pan" (aegipan) to refer to
the satyrs with goat attributes (aka Panes) and satyrs to refer to the other
ones. I also suspect that later people didn't understand the reference, nor
realizing that satyrs were ever anything but half goat, and decided that
aegipans referred to some other goat like creature that was different from the
(assumed goat) satyrs. Perhaps this the goat-centaur idea came from a mistake
like this.
On the other hand, perhaps there are references I don't have access to that
would indicate that ther actually were thought of as goat-centaurs. As much as
I know about mythology, and no matter how many books I have in my library,
there are always little obscure bits that pop up here and there.
Dan Norder
MythologyWeb
www.mythology.com