On Dec 25, 8:06 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@theworld.com> wrote in messagenews:email@example.com... > On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> 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? > > I was talking about classical languages > ==================================== > That's just great, by WHY are you posting to sci.physics? > Are you so fuckin' stupid that you don't realise it's off-topic?