RE: SchemaTA (was: Newbie)

[Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@ubicco.com>]

In fact I was trying to show with this little text stuffed of badly written
plural forms that when we are finished with "schema", we can also debate on
"phenomenons/phenomena", "scenario/scenarii", etc. I agree with you, it does
not really matter, unless you're writing a thesis (what's the plural of
thesis ?). I don't want to enter the schemas/schemata debate :).

Regards,
Nicolas

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Envoyé : jeudi 28 juin 2001 17:53
À : Nicolas LEHUEN
Cc : 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'
Objet : RE: SchemaTA (was: Newbie)



I have seen XML experts use the word schemata and not schemas. I will try
to ensure that I use the word schemata in future literatute. I will admit
that I have been using schemas, without much thought.

My vote will be for schemata purely based on the above reasons, if I am
asked to choose between schemas and schemata. But I am not sure if it is
that important.

regards - murali.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:

> There are a growing number of phenomenons in the medias that are choosing
> amongst many scenarii to use the form 'schemas'. All those stimuluses are
> beginning to overload my poor brains.
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dimitris Dimitriadis [mailto:dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se]
> Envoyé : jeudi 28 juin 2001 16:27
> À : 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Objet : SchemaTA (was: Newbie)
>
>
> Let's start a change it to schemata campaign, then.
>
> My principle in adopting terms from other languages has always been to
stick
> as close to the original use as possible. It's a token of repsect, if
> nothing else.
>
> Besides, schemas is simply _wrong_.
>
> Regards,
>
> /Dimitris
>
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Skickat: den 28 juni 2001 16:11
> Till: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Ämne: RE: Newbie
>
>
> >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--
>
>