# formulae vs. formula??



## scrupul0us

Is this just a matter of linguistics?... i see it occasionally on the board


----------



## Aladin Akyurek

There is a tendency to invoke "formulas" in lieu of "formulae". And I expect this usage to win in the end.


----------



## The Tamer

Formulae, though correct, sounds too , er, latin for my liking.  i feel like a snob when I say it.

oh man...  I'm bound to upset someone now.


----------



## RichardS

I don't see anything "snobbish" about using correct English. I've always used formulae, and will continue to do so. Alas, Aladin is probably on the money, and formulas will win out, as far as popular usage goes, in the end.

The other issue with formulas, where does the apostrophe go? 

Richard


----------



## tails

RichardS said:
			
		

> The other issue with formulas, where does the apostrophe go?
> 
> Richard



It doesn't go anywhere, it is just what it is. you dont need an apostrophe for formulas to what i know...
Oh yeah i like your signature, of course being an aussie man myself... lol


----------



## RichardS

tails said:
			
		

> RichardS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other issue with formulas, where does the apostrophe go?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't go anywhere, ...
Click to expand...


It's a joke, directed principally at Todd Bardoni and Sonny Bop etc.


----------



## maudulator

To The Tamer:

I think I love you! Your answer is purrrrfect!!


----------



## tails

Yeah The Tamer is right, you feel snobbish saying formulae. It makes you seem like one of those really rich people that are sticking their noses up at everyone else who has less money than they do.


----------



## Fergus

No doubt the people who opt for formulas also put Addendums in their Reports! Bill Gates has already done enough damage to the English language why compound it?


----------



## Zack Barresse

Ooh, ouch.  It's becoming quite crowded in here.  Getting slammed for the misfortune of some other poor (okay, richest man in the world) schmuck.


----------



## Todd Bardoni

The apostrophe is just SO stupid!  The only rational argument I hear in the apostrophe's defense is that it helps to clarify the meaning of the message to the reader.  However, this is such a bogus argument.  We don't use the apostrophe in spoken English and the receiver still gets the message...so why would the receiver not understand it just because its written?


----------



## tails

Todd Bardoni said:
			
		

> The apostrophe is just SO stupid!  The only rational argument I hear in the apostrophe's defense is that it helps to clarify the meaning of the message to the reader.



I see an apostrophe in that sentance... lol. We need to to clarrify to the reader because they are not hearing the words come out of your mouth. You can tell what people are talking about by what they say before and after it, and how they say it. Different ways of saying thing can lead to the use of the apostrophe or not. tone does a lot to the english language

Also, we dont use question marks when talking to people. we dont use commas, we dont use full stops. so why put them in text? well a question mark defines a question, if you read a book and they ask a question but dont have a question mark in it then would u suspect it was a statement or a question?


----------



## Todd Bardoni

tails said:
			
		

> Todd Bardoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostrophe is just SO stupid!  The only rational argument I hear in the apostrophe's defense is that it helps to clarify the meaning of the message to the reader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see an apostrophe in that sentance... lol. We need to to clarrify to the reader because they are not hearing the words come out of your mouth. You can tell what people are talking about by what they say before and after it, and how they say it. Different ways of saying thing can lead to the use of the apostrophe or not. tone does a lot to the english language
> 
> Also, we dont use question marks when talking to people. we dont use commas, we dont use full stops. so why put them in text? well a question mark defines a question, if you read a book and they ask a question but dont have a question mark in it then would u suspect it was a statement or a question?
Click to expand...


well, i see that u dont always use capitalization when always appropriate, or even whole words like "you".  so, because of these errors in grammar, i guess i need u to clarify what u mean since there is just no way of knowing.  i suppose i should clarify what i mean here 2 since theres just no way 2 noe.

and i never said enything about question marks or periods or commas.  i am strictly speaking of the useless apostrophe.


----------



## tails

well thats fair enough but the use of the apostrophe can come just as useful as every other bit of punctuation. It is all needed in text to define diffent things people say. You say that i dont use capitalisation or even whole words, YOU dont need to when talking (writing) to people like this. There's no point to get picky with every minor detail. You did understand what i meant, well you must have because you replied to it. Yes i do use words like u to describe you, it doesn't really matter. As long as people understand it. I wouldn't write a book or a poem using those words. but when i can i dont even think about it i just do it. There are many more people use it, you probably think we're inane but it doesn't matter. i'm like still young and i can proberly say you did the same thing at the age i am. I'm not trying to sound harsh but its true there are so many people that do it. As long as something is understood then it shouldn't matter but there will be times when the apostrophe will be needed. I cant think of anything off the top of my head but there will be a time we're you may write something and someone wont understand it because there is no apostrophe's in the sentance. i can see where your coming from but there is and will be need for the apostrophe. If we're going to talk about useless puncuation then why not get rid of slashes yeah you can go s/he and things like that but cant you just type things like he or she etc. and why not get rid of & and then again get rid of % and just type in percent and get rid of $ and type in dollars. Everything has a purpose.


----------



## Todd Bardoni

But that's my point, the apostrophe doesn't serve a practical purpose.  The only reason it is used is because of the old cliche, "it has always been done that way."  Yeah, and Man used to run around in a loin cloth hunting with sharp sticks and stones.  But, eventually more efficient ways to hunt came about and we left the useless sticks and stones behind.  It is time to move on from this nonsense as well.

Death to the apostrophe!


hehehe


----------



## tails

Removing things from the english language can become very inefficient. We have used the apostrophe for so long we might as well keep it. It would be like changing socks to pants. You can change it but it will cause mass confusion to us all. there will be people who can pick up on it straight away but there will be a lot of people that will not be able to stop using it. Plus the apostrophe allows us to shorten words from do not to don't and things like that. So maybe it is worth keeping.


----------



## Babydum

Recommended reading:

_Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation _by Lynne Truss.


----------



## Norie

Formulae all the way.


----------



## Zack Barresse

Formula.


----------



## scrupul0us

How my simply question morphed into this thread... lol... i cant help but laugh


----------



## tails

Yeah well make up one topic and its just like chinese whispers. It will go around the circle and more than likely by the end it has been changed slightly or may even be changed completely. Now just by me saying this people will probably start talking about chinese whispers  :wink:


----------



## P Sitaram

Formulae eggs, while Formulas are for the lawyers!


----------



## scrupul0us

Well I think we can all agree,
that no matter how you FORM your computation,
as long as it FORMULATES the correct answer,
we're all happy


----------



## tails

well we can kinda agree on that. but still i think it should be formula. It just sounds better and is used everywhere. i have never actually seen the word formulae until i joined on this board so this is how i'm going to put it. i will stick with what i know and what i feel comfortable using. Everyone else should do the same...


----------



## Fergus

> i have never actually seen the word formulae until i joined on this board


Try the Oxford English Dictionary


----------



## tails

i dont sit down and read the dictionary for hours on end i find it a waste of time and a waste of my life. why would i read a dictionary when i can go to pubs, nightclubs, go catch up with friends, work and whatever else i decide to do with my spare time. there is no point, plus i dont have a dictionary.


----------



## Fergus

Case rests.


----------



## tails

what are you on about??? just because i dont read the dictionary means nothing...


----------



## scrupul0us

Fergus said:
			
		

> Try the Oxford English Dictionary



I quite agree with tails... Who cares if its there and he didn't know about it... Don't be so critical of other peoples vernacular...

Besides... all you really need is a Scrabble dictionary to get by 

**** yuppie oxfordians, making up wordy words


----------



## Andrew Fergus

Why use big words when a diminutive word will suffice?


----------



## Todd Bardoni

tails said:
			
		

> Removing things from the english language can become very inefficient. We have used the apostrophe for so long we might as well keep it. It would be like changing socks to pants. You can change it but it will cause mass confusion to us all. there will be people who can pick up on it straight away but there will be a lot of people that will not be able to stop using it. Plus the apostrophe allows us to shorten words from do not to don't and things like that. So maybe it is worth keeping.



It is this type of thinking that has kept the U.S. from changing over to the metric system of measurement.


----------



## tails

scrupul0us said:
			
		

> Fergus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try the Oxford English Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quite agree with tails... Who cares if its there and he didn't know about it... Don't be so critical of other peoples vernacular...
> 
> Besides... all you really need is a Scrabble dictionary to get by
> 
> **** yuppie oxfordians, making up wordy words
Click to expand...


I totally agree with that. All these big words that are made up, i believe are made so that people who use them think they're smart. Why do we need huge scientific words that mean simple things like dinosaur, or even mearly chair. They go and create words so that either only they understand it. Or they make themselves believe that they're smarter than the rest of us. Why use big words, when all we need to use is the original word itself. bugger the rest of them.


----------



## Legacy 1363

tails said:
			
		

> All these big words that are made up, i believe are made so that people who use them think they're smart. Why do we need huge scientific words that mean simple things like dinosaur, or even mearly chair. They go and create words so that either only they understand it. Or they make themselves believe that they're smarter than the rest of us. Why use big words, when all we need to use is the original word itself. bugger the rest of them.



I'm having difficulty in understanding how your comments are applicable to the topic of formulas versus formulae.


----------



## tails

well if you go back and read the original posts through to the last post it will help in understanding what and how we have changed over the topic of conversation. As we go on, the topic slowly either changes or extends to open more things to be discussed.


----------



## Legacy 1363

tails said:
			
		

> well if you go back and read the original posts through to the last post it will help in understanding what and how we have changed over the topic of conversation. As we go on, the topic slowly either changes or extends to open more things to be discussed.



Do you mean that your previous comments were not directed at the discussion of formulas versus formulae?

If so, exactly what thing are you attempting to discuss at present?


----------



## Babydum

> If so, exactly what thing are you attempting to discuss at present?



Whether or not language is sometimes used as a show of intelligence, perhaps?


----------



## Legacy 1363

Babydum said:
			
		

> If so, exactly what thing are you attempting to discuss at present?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not language is sometas a show of intelligence, perhaps?
Click to expand...


How do arrive at that deduction?


----------



## Babydum

> How do arrive at that deduction



_Firstly, my deduction didn´t come out as intended - my internet explorer must have stopped registering my keystrokes for a few seconds, and I sent it without realising. (I´ve edited the post to reflect what I actually typed in the first place)._

To clarify:

Tails explained that he felt that people use big words to give the impression that they are, in fact, more intelligent than those with whom they are communicating but who cannot or choose not to use the same big words themselves. He feels that to use words only understood by the few is to disregard the needs of the many.

Ergo, this is the answer to your question: "what thing are you attempting to discuss at present?"


----------



## NateO

Does 'the many' have access to this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/

?

Looks like that particular dictionary accepts both formulas and formulae, while I would prefer the latter.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=formulas


----------



## Todd Bardoni

Understanding your audience and getting your message across to that audience is in of itself an art form and requires intelligence.  Using "big" words alone not only shows that you know "big" words but also shows a lack of communication skills if the message is not received by the intended audience.  Some would say that is why John Kerry lost the presidential election.


----------



## NateO

That's probably speculative. 

In any case, let's stick to the language and leave politics out of this.

Are we proposing to speak to the lowest common denominator here? I'm not exactly sure where that lies, and I can't be sure that I want to find out.


----------



## tails

It's not really that we need to speak lower than we are. I was getting onto the point of these hard to pronounce words that are being made up by people like scientists and doctors that no one can understand, when you talk to them and they say things like that it makes up either feel like you dont belong there or are too stupid to be talking to this person (some people will beg to differ). but if you dont understand them you are constantly asking whats that mean, or you will just smile and nod. These sort of people that talk to you about things dont always get their message out because you dont know what there on about.


----------



## NateO

Well, I find it hard to fault someone for using the correct technical terminology. That's the language, if you want to speak it, perhaps you should learn it. If I don't understand a term and want to, I conduct some research. 

The very same concept might explain why members take part in the forums here, a technical Q&A forum for the most part, to learn technical information and terminology.


----------



## tails

I'm not putting them at fault. what im saying is that they make up words for simple things like animals and things like that. why do they need to make up these 'big' words when they can simply say that its a tiger of a bear etc. The correct terminology is the name the was given to each thing first, so if your saying they need to use correct terminology then why dont they use tiger. They use words that dont give out a message to an audience, and they have 'made up' words for it to make themselves sound smarter.


----------



## NateO

Why would a scientist use Latin in a naming convention? Erm, because they want to be like Ace Ventura, _Pet Detective:_


			
				Ace said:
			
		

> [to Lt. Einhorn] Whew... Now I feel better. 'Course, that might not do any good you see nobody's missing a Porpoise. It's a Dolphin that's been taken. The common Harbor Porpoise has an abrupt snout, pointed teeth and a triangular thoracic fin. While the Bottlenose Dolphin, or Tursiops Truncates, has an elongated beak, round cone shaped teeth and a serrated dorsal appendage. But I'm sure you already knew that. That's what turns me on about 'cha, your attention to detail.


  

Really, I don't know the semantics of all scientific naming conventions, the significance of such, or the impact this all has on us as MrExcel.com members and/or individuals...

Incidentally, what does this have to do with the word _formulae_ again?


----------



## tails

> Incidentally, what does this have to do with the word formulae again?



best idea would be to go back and read to the part where it changes. take too long to explain.


----------



## NateO

Not sure I can find the turning point, as you put it. The following?


			
				tails said:
			
		

> scrupul0us said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fergus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try the Oxford English Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quite agree with tails... Who cares if its there and he didn't know about it... Don't be so critical of other peoples vernacular...
> 
> Besides... all you really need is a Scrabble dictionary to get by
> 
> **** yuppie oxfordians, making up wordy words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with that. All these big words that are made up, i believe are made so that people who use them think they're smart. Why do we need huge scientific words that mean simple things like dinosaur, or even mearly chair. They go and create words so that either only they understand it. Or they make themselves believe that they're smarter than the rest of us. Why use big words, when all we need to use is the original word itself. bugger the rest of them.
Click to expand...

Erm, I suspect that Latin is older than English. English transformed Latin into what we know it to be today. And not because you don't speak Latin, it was a natural progression.

I also suspect the people at OED are more so in the documentation business versus the word creation business; to help inquisitive individuals like myself.  

I doubt the word Formulae came into existence/usage as the result of someone setting themselves up for a dramatic ego trip.


----------



## tails

your probably right, but its there that the subject changed into an almost new topic. I'm not saying that formulae was made up to boost someones ego, just other words like pilomidal sinus which also means ingrown hair and things like that. i could probably find a list somewhere of words that are made up by people like scientists and doctors etc and their meanings in the english language.


----------



## NateO

Do you mean Pilonidal?  

Latin as well:


			
				http://www.freemedicineprogram.com/healthcare/Pilonidal/ said:
			
		

> Pilonidal: Refers to an embedded (ingrown) hair or tuft of hair. Literally, a nest of hair. From the Latin pilus (meaning hair) and nidus (meaning nest).


This term's usage is probably not with the intent of triggering an ego trip either.


----------



## tails

well it seems to be. i didn't know what it meant, and it was pretty obvious i didn't know what it would mean so why didn't he just say ingrown hair...?


----------



## NateO

I suspect for the same reason that I would not refer to an American Call Option as 'the right to buy an asset at a fixed price from the time of purchase through the maturity date of that right (or the expiration date of that right).' It's not the technical term, it's a description.

Are you upset that you don't know every technical term in every field of practice? Or all languages, including Latin?

Like learning VB, it's in part a matter of practice and retention.


----------



## tails

It really doesn't bother me that i dont know the technical meaning for these 'descriptive' words as you say. I would just like for scientists, doctors, etc. to respect the fact that people dont know the proper words and would like to have a simplier or more basic explanation of what they are talking about. The same goes for animals, you said in that last post that you wouldn't call the American Call Option as 'the right to buy an asset at a fixed price from the time of purchase through the maturity date of that right (or the expiration date of that right).' because it is a descriptive thing not a name for it. Well what about animals then, lions, tigers, cheeters, etc. They all have scientific names, but they dont need them they have names already. And like in Pilonidal Sinus, pilonidal comes from the latin word pilus (meaning hair) and nidus (meaning nest). isn't that still a way to describe what it is, its not a name its more of a description in a different language.


----------



## Fergus

tails said:
			
		

> I would just like for scientists, doctors, etc. to respect the fact that people dont know the proper words and would like to have a simplier or more basic explanation of what they are talking about.


 As an IT Administrator/programmer do you never use technical jargon which is specific to the IT world? and if so why do you apply different standards to other professions? Furthermore why should English be dumbed down just because some people can't or won't be bothered to make the correct use of it?


----------



## Babydum

In fairness to doctors, scientists, etc, most probably try to "dumb it down" to a certain degree when they are addressing the layman. But when you think about it Tails, there are probably different types of ingrowing nasal hair problems, so, to a medical professional, "Pilonidal Sinus" hits the right spot and helps the doctor understand precisely what the problem is (if, indeed, a person with a Pilonidal Sinus needs a doctor!).

There is a book by Michael Behe called Darwin´s Black Box. He apologises in advance for the extremely technical language he uses and the detail he goes into, but explains that the proof of his argument is in the detail and so he needs to use it.

So there is a need for good language use. It´s not just Show.

But I also agree that some people highlight the linguistic errors of others not to educate, but to humiliate. When that is the case, it´s nothing more than intellectual bullying.


----------



## tails

Fergus said:
			
		

> tails said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would just like for scientists, doctors, etc. to respect the fact that people dont know the proper words and would like to have a simplier or more basic explanation of what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> As an IT Administrator/programmer do you never use technical jargon which is specific to the IT world? and if so why do you apply different standards to other professions? Furthermore why should English be dumbed down just because some people can't or won't be bothered to make the correct use of it?
Click to expand...


I dont use jargon when i am talking to clients/users and friends. I find there to be no need to do so i dont use technical language when telling them what is wrong with it. When i am talking to other administrators i use technical language in little bits. Even when talking to someone who is an it administrator i still use common language. Lets just put it this way fergus, if you had a problem with your computer what would be the point in me telling you that you had an error 83 or something like that, although i may know what it is, i still wouldn't say it because i know that the user would not understand me. Therefore i use a more common language to explain problems with their computer so that they can understand, take in, and know what will have to be done.


----------



## NateO

Hello again,



			
				tails said:
			
		

> I dont use jargon when i am talking to clients/users and friends. I find there to be no need to do so i dont use technical language when telling them what is wrong with it.


With all due respect, I find it difficult to believe that this can be true in every case.

I know that I simply cannot avoid it. If I'm troubleshooting a MS Query issue, it's simply a matter of time before the terms ODBC and SQL part from my mouth, irrespective as to whether whomever knows what I'm talking about.

Another example: I remember talking to my friend about breaking down digital images into a byte array one day; it became apparent that he had no clue what I was talking about. And, while I tried to explain it to him, I still had to use the correct terms.

I guess if you're looking to get some frustration of your chest, you have my condolences. Because I do agree, for better or worse, technical terminology is not necessarily based on plain English as you know it.


----------



## tails

You may find it hard to believe, but the courses that i have been doing, we have been constantly taught to not use technical language when talking to clients etc. There may have been a couple of times (i cant remember any) where i may have used some technical language when talking to people that dont know as much about computers. but everyone i've spoke to has understood what i'm talking about. I really cant recall any one time where the person i have been talking to has not understood what i have told them. but then again i haven't been in the computer industry as long as some of you have, i've only been in it for about 3-4 years. So maybe as a result of being taught right from the start not to use technical language it has allowed me to speak to people without confusion.


----------



## scrupul0us

Quote from Seinfeld:

"Whats email?"

Who remembers when they first heard that piece of Jargon?


----------



## PA HS Teacher

> I really cant recall any one time where the person i have been talking to has not understood what i have told them.



As a teacher, I can assure you that you can not possibly  know for sure that others understand you, technical jargon or not. Nodding, smiling, and yesing do not provide proof of understanding.

I find it best to use the correct terminology, but explain terms that may not understand, and then reinforce the idea with an anology and or example.  How else are others to learn? There are many times, when the subtleties of a problem require the precision that only a technical term can provide.

Besides, haven't you ever felt patronized by someone who avoided using the necessary terminology?


----------



## tails

You say that you use the jargon to allow people to learn more of what you are speaking of, but you do not realise that they have been employed to do what they are good at, not to know what you are good at. Im guessing you are a teacher from you title/name so it could be a different situation. You are trying to teach people the technical jargon required for them to learn, but where i am i am employed to fix and maintain the network system. i haven't been employed to teach others how to do it, or what means what. So different situations require different methods, but where i am, i try to use the simpliest words and descriptions so that the users can understand what is wrong or what requires fixing


----------



## Zack Barresse

PA HS Teacher said:
			
		

> ..proof of understanding..


Or better yet proof of Learning.  

The adult learner is sooo much different than the child learner.  It's two different worlds.    

Okay, that's another 2¢.


----------



## NdNoviceHlp

I can't believe I read the whole thing. Epic almost in its' proportions. Tom why don't you make nice with the evil "," As for this thread, it's fairly simple, formulea is plural for formula ie. "I conjured up a number of formulea that didn't work"     As for the rest of this thread, finally a topic that met the sticky restrictions. Dave


----------



## Fergus

> it's fairly simple, formulea is plural for formula


No it's not, formulae is.


----------



## hamonoakira

The Tamer said:


> Formulae, though correct, sounds too , er, latin for my liking.  i feel like a snob when I say it.
> 
> oh man...  I'm bound to upset someone now.



I need to like this reply. Is there a like button?


----------



## Leebles

Personally I prefer formulae.


----------



## xlHammer

Definitely formuleaux. :wink:


----------



## mikerickson

RichardS said:


> The other issue with formulas, where does the apostrophe go?
> 
> Richard


That depends on the usage

"The formula's author left the company last year."

"The formulas' lengths varied from 5 to 20 characters."

or should that be "The formulae's lengths varied.." or is it "The formulaes' lengths varied..."

BTW, has anyone used Excel's spell checker to see if either "formulae" or "formulas" is a word?


----------



## Scott Huish

No, but I bet you got everyone to do it just now.


----------



## xenou

The formulaengths varied.


----------



## Colin Legg

The formularum lengths varied.


----------



## Jon von der Heyden

You say tom-ay-to I say tom-aaaaaaah-to!


----------



## SuperFerret

Jon von der Heyden said:


> You say tom-ay-to I say tom-aaaaaaah-to!


 
And in my area it's tu'marter 

I prefer Formulas...I once used formulae and got a chorus of _"Ooooh 'ark at you!"_ from my colleagues... now I only use it to the management


----------



## JamesW

The formulae for bringing ancient threads back to life is very simple, yet it still boggles my mind...


----------



## Jon von der Heyden

SuperFerret said:


> And in my area it's tu'marter



Yeh and there's something else about your area people here should know.  All the men call each other 'love' (pronounced loov) and 'duck' (pronounced dook)...  

I lived there for about 6 months.  Good rock-climbing area though.


----------



## SuperFerret

Jon von der Heyden said:


> Yeh and there's something else about your area people here should know. All the men call each other 'love' (pronounced loov) and 'duck' (pronounced dook)...
> 
> I lived there for about 6 months. Good rock-climbing area though.


 
Yes...the problem is even within the confines of Yorkshire you get different pronunciations and words, choc'let or chotlet, snicket or ginnel (or gennel?!), and the one that my parents still correct each other on: _chimn'y_ or _chimly _

I used to love rock-climbing, but I am completely useless at it now


----------



## Domski

SuperFerret said:


> now I only use it to the management



Whose looks go from blank to utterly vacant?

I'm still not sure if there's a difference between snicket and ginnel and I've lived here nearly 20 years!


----------



## Jonmo1

Formulas vs Formulae ?
I say both are correct, but I prefer formulas


Scientists making up big fancy words for something simple.
I reckon it was the Big Fancy words that came first.
And it was actually the Layman who made up the simpler words.

We need the big fancy words, because they are specific.
Someone mentioned why do we need a big fancy word for Tiger?
Because there are more than 1 kind of Tiger.


Do we _really_ want our Doctors and Scientists using laymans terms??
I think not.
We need them to be fluent in the big fancy scientific terms.
A doctor using a layman's term for something more specific could be the difference between a kidney transplant, and an Eye Transplant.
An unlikely example, but you get the idea.

In order for Doctors and Scientists to maintain fluency in those terms, they need to use them often.
So if my doctor tends to talk above my knowledge level, so be it.
I will gladly ask for clarification as needed.
And I'm sure my doctor doesn't mind doing that.


Can't believe I read that whole thread, there's an hour of my life I won't get back...


----------



## RobMatthews

I don't know what either a snicket or a ginnel is...


----------



## mikerickson

"Snicket" a small stifled laugh; snicker+ette >> snicket

"Ginnel" a famous female drunk from San Francisco; gin+Nell >> ginnel


----------



## xenou

I suppose these are scientific terms ...


----------



## Domski

RobMatthews said:


> I don't know what either a snicket or a ginnel is...



It's a Yorkshire thing. They're a bit odd but mostly okay.

Dom


----------



## SuperFerret

Domski said:


> It's a Yorkshire thing. They're a bit odd but mostly okay.


 
Which classification do I come under then?


----------



## JamesW

RobMatthews said:


> I don't know what either a snicket or a ginnel is...


 
A Ginnel is a small alleyway between 2 houses, usually seperated by fence panels.

I assume a Snicket is the same... I'm unsure as I'm a Lancashire lad, none of that Yorkshire rubbish!


----------



## Jon von der Heyden

None of you*z* lot speak proper English!


----------



## SuperFerret

At least no-one here uses text speak *shudders* a horrific insult to language.


----------



## Nalani

jonmo1 said:


> Can't believe I read that whole thread, there's an hour of my life I won't get back...


 
*ME TOO ! !*

After the thread title started changeing between *Tails* and *Todd Bardoni* and a few others on the use of an apostrophe, capitalization, spelling,etc.

It brought to mind the following. So why not "hy-jack" this thread again.



> fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
> 
> Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
> 
> i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


 
Simple Example:
1. waaht is the frmla for divsion
2. how many formlae


----------



## sous2817

SuperFerret said:


> At least no-one here uses text speak *shudders* a horrific insult to language.



I read an article about this, wish I could find it so I could link it.  The crux of it was this is the same arguement that has been used every time language goes through an evolution.  Text speak is here to stay, might as well get used to it.  Or I to appease our new language overlords: "txt spk S hre 2 stay, myt as wel gt uzd 2it"


----------



## Jon von der Heyden

ugh I hate text speech!


----------



## mikerickson

People who use "formulae" are unlikely to get used to text speech. 
(People who use "formulae" are unlikely to refer the abbreviations used in texting as "speech".)


----------



## Taul

Text speech is the avoidance of thumb fatigue


----------



## Greg Truby

Domski said:


> It's a Yorkshire thing. They're a bit odd but mostly okay.


 


Jon von der Heyden said:


> None of you*z* lot speak proper English!


 
Musta been 'bout fourteen years ago now... I spent an hour seated at the kitchen table of a Yorkshire farmer and a chap from my company's UK subsidiary who was from Newcastle upon Tyne. In the course of that hour I don't reckon I followed more'n 10%, maybe 15% of what that Yorkshireman said. Try as I may, my ears just never could get the knack of that ol' boy's accent and cadence. 

Oh, and I always reckoned that it was "formulers" as in "weeeellll doggies, if'n them ain't jus' a right purdy bunch o' formulers right dere".


----------



## Michael M

Welll, I'm here to plead guilty to using formulae.
I think it may have something to do with age, in my primary school it was 4 of the best for the incorrect use of grammer and punctuation.
Having seen many a summer, both of them have slipped dramatically, but some things stick forever.
Having spent a few years teaching adults, "beginner computing", I found the use of "big" words made them ask questions like "what does that mean ?", ergo, they improved both their computer knowledge and their knowledge of terminology, AND  something new !!
and finally
Tails, the lounge threads can be a little intimidating when the posts get warmed....but I can assure you everyone here will throw barbs at each other in jest....and to wind each other up as much as possible...just to keep the thread going....!!!

Cheers from the bush !!


----------



## Expiry

I haven't read all of the 92 posts before this, but i don't see anyone pointing out to the OP that the question really isn't formulae vs formula. It's formulae vs formulas. Everybody uses formula (unless they were exclusively breast-fed).

Interesting that someone said that formulae sounds too latin to use, even though it's correct.

I've noticed in my work a tendancy to use 'myself' instead of 'me', as in "He will report into myself", particularly from Directors and Managers because they think that it sounds better. It really winds me up.


----------



## Greg Truby

Don't you mean "It really winds myself up" ?


----------



## RoryA

I hate it when people use 'I' instead of 'me' in phrases like "He came with Bob and I". And 'could of'. And 'mute point'. Thinking about it, I may be a bit of a pedant...


----------



## Expiry

We also use the word colleague here, instead of staff. It's mostly misused, as in a "colleague discount".


----------



## RoryA

"thy rod and thy colleague, they comfort me"...


----------



## arkusM

Bloodly 'ell, this is verbose thread, like a long Seinfeld episode.

Edit: Can't believe I read it all.


----------



## Michael M

Rory
Maybe more Curmudgeon than Pedant.


----------



## xenou

A modest proposal: we call these buggers a "recipe", and circumlocute the problem.  For example: _Enter the following recipae in Cells A1 and A2 ..._.


----------



## Norie

xenou

Then people will ask what the ingredients are and where the best place to source them is.

Also, it could provoke arguments about who has the best recipe and claims that they, or a relative, invented it.


----------



## Expiry

Here's another one - data or datum?

Almost everyone says "where is the data?", instead of correctly saying "where are the data?"


----------



## arkusM

Expiry said:


> Here's another one - data or datum?
> 
> Almost everyone says "where is the data?", instead of correctly saying "where are the data?"


 
Though technically correct, I always find it sounds weird to read/hear "where are the data".


----------



## mikerickson

arkusM said:


> Though technically correct, I always find it sounds weird to read/hear "where are the data".


"Where are the data?" is better than "Where's the data?"


----------



## xenou

I thought Data was a person.


----------



## Ruddles

Expiry said:


> Here's another one - data or datum?


Datum is one piece of information; data is more than one.

Here's another: do agenda start out as an agendum?


----------

