On Dec 25, 8:06 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote: > "Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@theworld.com> wrote in messagenews:firstname.lastname@example.org... > 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?-
Why don't you abuse the person who actually created the crossposting?
Just recently, there was a long thread in sci.lang and alt.usage.english about the word for "oxygen" in various languages, in which it was repeatedly asserted, without contradiction, that scientists understand the etymologies of their technical terminology. Obviously that was a false assumption.
But if you don't know the history of physics, you're a pretty poor physicist.