Talk:foraminifera
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cleanup[edit]
@Sgconlaw: If you want to feature this entry, it needs serious cleanup. The use of foraminifera as a singular and foraminiferas as a plural is proscribed, and it would be an embarrassment to feature it that way. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Can you point me to any sources on this? The Wikipedia article mentions the singular and plural use of foraminifera, and the OED (entry updated 2010) says the word refers to organisms of this phylum "collectively or individually". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, the suffix -a was also stated in the OED. (Hmmm, I didn’t intentionally revert your edits. This seems to have happened when I was adding translations using the gadget.) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Can you please reinstate my edits? As for the issue at hand, Wikipedia is not an authority on usage, and the OED has a middling track record with scientific vocabulary. Here is an article on the usage, history, and etymology of the terms in question by actual experts, rather than confused lexicographers. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I've reinstated the edits and updated the entry. The article you referred to looks interesting but I can't access it online, and the abstract doesn't really explain anything. Are you able to provide a copy of it, or provide other accessible sources? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: I thought that you would be able to Google it on your own, but here you go. Interestingly, they say that foraminifera can be used as a singular in the manner of deer and fish — this is a bit confusing, because deer is a case where the singular is identical to the plural, and fish a case where the singular can be used as a mass noun. This is the flip side of the authors being scientists and not lexicographers: they know how to use the words, but not how to describe their use correctly. I think they way to resolve that is to consider foraminifera both a plurale tantum and a singular with standard plural foraminifera and nonstandard plural foraminiferas. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Thanks for the link to the article. Didn't realize it was also available on ResearchGate – I just clicked on the GeoscienceWorld link you originally provided and it required a login. I haven't read it yet, but based on your comment above, and the quotations I've added to the entry, it looks like the OED was right after all: foraminifera is sometimes used as a singular noun. (Is it a plurale tantum though?) Should the "proscribed" label be removed? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Are you sure that foraminifera is actually being used as a plural of foraminifer? I think most of the quotations are currently on the wrong page. I expect that foraminifera is a plurale tantum in uses where it is borrowed straight from Translingual and no modification is made, as it is necessarily plural there. Why don't you read the article, and see if you can come up with a usage note to summarise the relevant points for each page that needs it? Also, have you considered that a word with so much associated confusion and a meaning that is obscure to most people even after being defined might not be well suited as a WOTD? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I've read the journal article. It's interesting. Here are my responses to it:
- The article suggests that some writers use foraminifera as both singular and plural, that is, as an invariant noun (but does not mention foraminiferas which clearly exists), while others use foraminifer and foraminifers. It doesn't proscribe any particular form, so I've removed the "proscribed" label from foraminifera and added a usage note at both entries stating that either form may be used.
- Neither the OED nor Merriam–Webster (nor one or two other online dictionaries) clearly lists the plural forms for foraminifera and foraminifer. Since the journal article does not specifically mention foraminifera as a plural form of foraminifer, I've moved the relevant quotations over to foraminifera.
- Foraminifera was nominated for WOTD by @Vox Sciurorum; I don't think the word is necessarily that obscure. The only confusion seems to be regarding whether it is more correct to refer to a foraminifer or a foraminifera, and the journal article suggests that either is acceptable.
- — SGconlaw (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I've read the journal article. It's interesting. Here are my responses to it:
- @Sgconlaw: Are you sure that foraminifera is actually being used as a plural of foraminifer? I think most of the quotations are currently on the wrong page. I expect that foraminifera is a plurale tantum in uses where it is borrowed straight from Translingual and no modification is made, as it is necessarily plural there. Why don't you read the article, and see if you can come up with a usage note to summarise the relevant points for each page that needs it? Also, have you considered that a word with so much associated confusion and a meaning that is obscure to most people even after being defined might not be well suited as a WOTD? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Thanks for the link to the article. Didn't realize it was also available on ResearchGate – I just clicked on the GeoscienceWorld link you originally provided and it required a login. I haven't read it yet, but based on your comment above, and the quotations I've added to the entry, it looks like the OED was right after all: foraminifera is sometimes used as a singular noun. (Is it a plurale tantum though?) Should the "proscribed" label be removed? — SGconlaw (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: I thought that you would be able to Google it on your own, but here you go. Interestingly, they say that foraminifera can be used as a singular in the manner of deer and fish — this is a bit confusing, because deer is a case where the singular is identical to the plural, and fish a case where the singular can be used as a mass noun. This is the flip side of the authors being scientists and not lexicographers: they know how to use the words, but not how to describe their use correctly. I think they way to resolve that is to consider foraminifera both a plurale tantum and a singular with standard plural foraminifera and nonstandard plural foraminiferas. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I've reinstated the edits and updated the entry. The article you referred to looks interesting but I can't access it online, and the abstract doesn't really explain anything. Are you able to provide a copy of it, or provide other accessible sources? — SGconlaw (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: Can you please reinstate my edits? As for the issue at hand, Wikipedia is not an authority on usage, and the OED has a middling track record with scientific vocabulary. Here is an article on the usage, history, and etymology of the terms in question by actual experts, rather than confused lexicographers. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Why are foraminiferon and foraminiferum nonstandard? J3133 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- They're simply not used in standard scientific English. Look at the quotes: anything recent is from a non-native speaker who has simply made a back-formation from foraminifera. The form in -on is etymologically problematic, although that's neither here nor there from a descriptivist perspective. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not even know until 10 minutes ago that there was a Journal of Foraminiferal Research or that I had access to it through a university. There is and I do and I have skimmed "What should we call foraminifera?" In my experience, foraminifera is either a collective noun or a plural noun, but not singular as allowed in item (1) at the start of page 311. I have seen the uses in items (2) (singular foraminifer with plural foraminifers) and (5) (singular foram with plural forams). Items 3 and 4 (-eran, -erid) are alien to me although the -an and -id endings are familiar. I read about them in generalist publications rather than specialist journals. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)