Schemata Won (or did they?)

[Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>]

Reading through the thread after a long weekend I have to express my
amazement at how many professional linguists there are on this list. I
didn't know that so many people actually had the skills to dig around in the
intricacies of language, especially when it comes to justifying if and how
words can be changed when being used in a language other than that in which
they originate. Neither did I know that there is such interest in these
things. Could't we start a new list devoted to XML and languages? (This is a
serious proposal)

In any case, I think the most interesting argument put forth is the one
considering Newspeak. I do see a danger of making languages not richer, but
more technical in nature when using words in ways that are not apparently
justified. Schema (s/ta) is just one example. I think we can come up with
many more. The point is, however, that people not apparently competent in
linguistics by (sometimes) erroneously using this or that form makes it
normative, which is a danger. Anglifying languages is at best practical.

We can't know everything about everything. Unless we can have some
meaningful input from someone whose job it is to see to that the English
language is used in an appropriate way (it hasn't a thing to do with Greek,
we still use the right plural form of schema, namely schemata), I suggest we
stop counting hits (which only says that so and so may people have used this
and that form, obviously without knowing why, or just thinking it was right)
or coming up with arguments for and against something which isn't our main
objective. 

Even though this is very interesting, I don't think XML-dev is the right
forum for discussing it. Let's keep to XML here and leave other things
alone. Mechanics rarely make good surgeons.

Kindest regards (please mail me if you want to continue this thread, as I
think it is highly interesting)

/Dimitris