>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Boyse, Jim wrote:
>>
>>
<clip>
>> Yep, except the plural of schema is schemas. See me
after class :-)
>> </clip>
>>
>> Shucks, I was hoping it was schemata. Sort of like
stigma, stigmata.
>
I wrote about this in the second edition of the XML Bible. To
quote:
You say schemas, I say schemata
Probably no single topic has been more controversial in the schema
world than the proper plural form of the word schema. The original Greek
plural is Û¯ËÌ·Ù·, schemata in Latin transliteration; and this is the form
which Kant used and which you'll find in most dictionaries. This was fine
for the 200 years when only people with PhDs in philosophy actually used the
word. However, as often happens when words from other languages are adopted
into popular English, its plural changed to something that sounds more
natural to an Anglophone ear. In this case, the plural form schemata seems
to be rapidly dying out in favor of the simpler schemas. In fact, the three
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) schema specifications all use the plural
form schemas. I follow this convention in this book.
The entire chapter is online at
http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/chapters/ch24.html if
anyone's interested.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|
Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer
|
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible,
2nd Edition (Hungry Minds,
2001)
|
|
http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/
|
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:
http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read
Cafe con Leche for XML News:
http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/
|
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary--