Perhaps a trite observation but the very word "terminology" seems an
excellent example of the accepted dual uses of lithology and of the way
mineralogy is now being used.
"Terminology" has two meaning:
1. The formal discipline which systematically studies the labelling or
designating of concepts particular to one or more subject fields or
domains of human activity, through research and analysis of terms in
context, for the purpose of documenting and promoting correct usage.
2. A a system of words used to name things in a particular discipline.
Marian
N.B.W.Harris wrote:
> Lithology
>
> OED 1. That department of mineralogy which treats of the nature and composition of stones and rocks. Also, the lithological characters of rocks, etc.
>
> or Chambers: 1. The physical characteristics of a rock, including colour, composition and texture. 2. the study of rocks.
>
> OED notes that the use of the term to indicate the character of rocks is traced back to 1870.
>
> Nigel
>
> Professor of Tectonics
> Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
> Open University
> Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
>
> On Wednesday17 Feb 2010, at 08:06, Prof. J. D. Clemens wrote:
>
> This is a very old phenomenon, and I'm not sure that it is stoppable. Hands up all those guilty of writing or ignoring the use of "lithology" when you don't mean "the study of rocks" but "the description of rock types". Language evolves and some of these ugly misuses steadily become accepted. I continue to fight them, but I fear it's a losing battle.
>
> PS I also really hate the use of "likely" when what is meant is "probably", and "phenomena" when what is meant is "phenomenon", or worse - "phenomenas" instead of "phenomena" and "this data" instead of "these".
>
> All these are anomalous phenomena.
>
>
> On a somewhat different tangent: While journal editors insist on adhering to IMA nomenclature and other kinds of formalisms, justified or not, I am puzzled by the apparent acceptance of the increasingly sloppy use of clearly defined terms such as "mineralogy", not only in verbal communication, but in journal articles and textbooks.
> Mineralogy has become a shorthand term for "mineralogical composition" or mineral content. Mineralogy is quite clearly defined as the "science of minerals", and this is the literal translation of the term. I am not aware of a second meaning.
> I was under the impression that we should teach students to use precise scientific terms, as this is fundamental to scientific communication. Unfortunately, such efforts become null and void if the publications they read do exactly what we tell them not to do. I have never heard a palaeontologist talking about the "palaeontology of rock X", referring to its fossil content.
> It is apparent that short terms are preferred to long ones, but can that be an excuse? If yes, I suggest we write "xtal" instead of crystal in our publications.
>
> Cheers,
> Juergen
>
> J. Reinhardt
> School of Geological Sciences
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
> Durban, South Africa
>
> Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer<http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Prof. John D. Clemens
> Executive Head
> Dept of Earth Sciences
> University of Stellenbosch
> Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland, South Africa
> phone: +27 (0)21 808 3159 fax: +27 (0)21 808 3129
> http://www.sun.ac.za/geo/people/clemens_e.htm
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Our passions cannot alter the facts, only hide them from us.
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
>
|