On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
> I wrote
> > > Probably not, unless the trend change is enormous or the
> > > random variation miniscule. Fitting a three-degree-of-freedom
> > > model with ten ...
>
> and Rich Ulrich commented
> > = minuscule [ here is my minor effort to preserve the word ]
>
> Your point, sir!
>
> I *do* know that perfectly well, and the etymological reasons
> for it, and all that, ... < snip >
> My understanding is that this error begins with genuine
> confusion with "minimum", and a folk-etymology conflating it with
> "miniature", which apparently has nothing to do with smallness.
> It's from "minium", red lead oxide, used as a pigment.
> Unfortunately, once you hear it, it's contagious.
< snip, the rest >
The other -- error? possibly too strong an expression -- is the use of
a word that originally meant "a little smaller" (< "minus", neuter sing.
of "minor" = "less", + "-cula" = a suffix meaning "a small thing" as in
"molecule") is often used, as in Robert's instance, as though it meant
"really tiny" or "negligibly small", though not (usually?)
"infinitesimal". Mediaeval usage was mostly as "majuscula littera" and
"minuscula littera", meaning "a somewhat bigger (or smaller) letter",
corresponding to what we now call "upper case" (or "capital") and "lower
case". (And which in French is to this day "en majuscule/minuscule".)
Pedantry, doubtless: but I couldn't resist...
> <grin, duck, & run>
Indeed. -- Don.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
56 Sebbins Pond Drive, Bedford, NH 03110 (603) 626-0816
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
