Re: [OT] The stigma of schema

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Tim Bray wrote:

> All the
> best [English] dictionaries recognize that their role is *descriptive* -
> describing what the language is - rather than *prescriptive* - 
> trying to prescribe rules for what the language should be.


Hence the Hartree-Fock evolution that I mentioned.  Publishers
use dictionaries to decide on usage questions; dictionaries
generate their information by summarizing the practices of
earlier (generations of) publishers.  Neither one is
authoritative by itself.  Clearly this process
is circular, but in fact it does converge, with a small
number of exceptions.


> Lots of educated, articulate people find it natural to
> use "schemas" in both written and spoken discourse.  Thus it
> is incontrovertibly a part of both the written and spoken 
> English language.  So is "schemata".  It is useful for the 
> community that discusses schemas to settle on one of these
> forms merely as a matter of conventional convenience. -T


As a result of which, future dictionaries will doubtless
include "schemas" as a variant plural, and (if the weight
of usage grows) eventually the preferred plural, at least
in computing.  We do have plurals differentiated by
profession already:  biologists say "antennae", radio
engineers speak of "antennas".

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein