Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 25, 11:43 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote: >> On Dec 25, 10:45 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>>> The third explanation is that English is more versatile. IOW, >>>>> people can make up new words easily. I did this as part of >>>>> my job. >>>> I take it you don't know Arabic? >>> Her 'explanation', if true, is just a variant of my first i.e. the >>> classicists that control Latin insist on purity over accepting new >>> words like any living language must. >>> Andrew Usher >> I read that the Latin of the Vatican continuously makes up new words, > > There's a Latin radio station in Finland. > >> as well as the Latin used for taxonomy. ditto for Modern Standard >> Arabic, which is very closely based on Classical Arabic, and spoken >> Arabic is quite divergent from it. there is also Neo-Syriac. Israeli >> Hebrew is rather more deviant from Biblical Hebrew though. > > What does Neo-Syriac (or any form of Modern Aramaic) have to do with > the creation of modern scientific vocabulary? > > Israeli scholars do publish in Hebrew, but they realize that if > they're going to get an international hearing, they have to publish in > English (or maybe French -- when Israel was founded in 1948, its third > official language was French rather than English). > >> why isn't this cross-posted to a medical or biological NG? Latin based >> coinages are AFAIK more alive in those fields. philosophy tends, AFAIK >> towards german. particle physics is inovative: quark (a fundamental >> particle, IIRC from a type of german cheese, but based on a miss- > > Did Gell-Mann ever claim any connection with Ger. Quark?? > >> quotation from James Joyce) and "color" and "flavor",(characteristics > > Joyce _didn't_ write "three quarks for Mister Mork"?
Strictly speaking, he wrote "Three quarks for Muster Mark!"