I'll tackle two responses together:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Given, Annie [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Spellings
>
> does this mean revising the thesaurus, to add alternative spellings such
> as
> archeology, paleolithic...?
>
I wonder if they do count as 'Scientific' terms?
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Campling [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Spellings
Dear Jeremy and all,
Since I started working in England in 1978 I've been trying to get
people to use the IUPAC spellings. I mean who really wants to spell
"barytes" or "pyrites" (pronounced '-itees' on the end) when the rest of the
world knows these minerals as barite and pyrite. These are not American
spellings. IUPAC is an international body, and the spellings are agreed by
all European, Russian and Chinese scientists. Let's move into the 21st
century, not stay in the 18th !
Cheers, Neil
Of course in the 18th century you had a very hard time if you spoke Gaelic,
Welsh, Scottish, Manx . . . .
Standards are important, but I'd like to think that the truly 21st century
approach would be to build machines that can cope with the idiosyncrasies of
human culture, rather than use 'standards' to build humans that suit the
machines.
Peace & love, man!
Jeremy
