[Taxacom] ubiquist??

Robin Leech releech at telus.net
Tue Oct 2 12:57:48 CDT 2012


Ahhh.  A take-off of "Build it and they will come!", eh? 
In relation to your suggestion of "it's and its", the present word "cannot"
used to be "can not", but the second "n" has not (yet) at any rate,
disappeared.
Robin

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark WIlden [mailto:mark at mwilden.com] 
Sent: October-02-12 10:16 AM
To: Robin Leech
Cc: Stephen Thorpe; Nambiyath Balakrishnan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??

Language is a pretty democratic process. If people in general (not just us
and not just a few guys publishing a paper) want these kinds of changes,
then they'll happen - otherwise not.

Yet every generation seems to have these very same issues. Can we forget
that Nero Wolfe banned Webster's 3rd from the brownstone for its solecisms?
Are there any among us who have never used 'impact' as a verb?

Not that there's anything wrong with railing against changes we don't like.
Everyone gets a vote (though some people's votes matter more than others).
But change is inevitable. If you've been pretty comfy with the way things
are, change is bad.

Personally, I am a descriptivist, who, for example, thinks that "it's" and
"its" will eventually merge, and that that would not be a bad thing. On the
other hand, I'm a pedant who would rather have my eyeballs sucked out than
use one for the other incorrectly. :)


On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:48 AM, "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net> wrote:

> Why not keep shortening to UBIQUE or UBIC (an adjective).  Thus, "This 
> species is ubique (or ubic).", meaning it is found everywhere.
> 
> And while we are at it, shorten adjective to adject.  I am sure that 
> there are a few other words we can modernize.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: October-01-12 11:24 PM
> To: Nambiyath Balakrishnan
> Cc: Robin Leech; Adolf Ceska; Ken Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, an off-list reply (from a French Canadian) stated this: Three of 
> the authors of this paper, including the first one, are French, and 
> the French word for ubiquitous and ubiquity is ubiquiste. The use of 
> ubiquist in English is thus a gallicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Nambiyath Balakrishnan <npbalakr at gmail.com>
> To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> Cc: Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>; Adolf Ceska <aceska at telus.net>; 
> Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>; "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
> <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012 5:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.P.Balakrishnan
> 
> ubiquist is not found in any dictionary. Why should we use it? The 
> noun of ubiquitous is ubiquity
> 
> On 2 October 2012 09:53, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> 
> the gradual ventriloquistization of the English language ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Leech <releech at telus.net>
> 
> To: 'Adolf Ceska' <aceska at telus.net>; 'Ken Kinman' 
> <kinman at hotmail.com>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012 5:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> 
> Does a ventriloquist speak ventriloquistically?
> Robin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Adolf Ceska
> Sent: October-01-12 9:25 PM
> To: 'Ken Kinman'; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> What is wrong with a ventriloquist? Adolf Ceska
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Kinman
> Sent: October-01-12 8:15 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> 
> 
>  Yes, when they use the phrase "ubiquist species" several times, it 
> could be regarded as a noun in apposition.  However, the phrase "as 
> ubiquist" in the abstract is clearly not a noun in apposition, and 
> thus potentially confusing to some.  But still no big deal.
> -----------Ken
> 
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
> From: mark at mwilden.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 20:01:53 -0700
> To: kinman at hotmail.com
> 
> It could be a noun in apposition.
> 
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,      No serious confusion for most.  However, ubiquist should
> probably always be used as a noun, and they clearly used it as an 
> adjective when they said "as ubiquist" in the abstract, instead of "as
ubiquitous".
> No big deal though.                  --------------Ken
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>> From: mark at mwilden.com
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 19:22:32 -0700
>> To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
>> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] ubiquist??
>> 
>> Is there a problem, here? Would anyone seriously be confused by this
> usage?
>> 
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Stephen Thorpe 
>> <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Since when did biologists start using the term ubiquist instead of
> ubiquitous??
>>> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0
>>> 046056 _______________________________________________
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of 
> these
> methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org/
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:  
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here





More information about the Taxacom mailing list