Difference between revisions of "Talk:3095: Archaea"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
''"Archaea has" in the caption is unfortunate, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. Pathogens are living cells, not lines on a page. "Archaeans have" would have been better.'' I'm not 100% sure on the way Archaea is used grammatically in English, but isn't Archaea the plural of Archaeon, so it should be ''Archaea have''? Is the word Archaeans normally used?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 07:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) | ''"Archaea has" in the caption is unfortunate, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. Pathogens are living cells, not lines on a page. "Archaeans have" would have been better.'' I'm not 100% sure on the way Archaea is used grammatically in English, but isn't Archaea the plural of Archaeon, so it should be ''Archaea have''? Is the word Archaeans normally used?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.117|162.158.233.117]] 07:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
:Perhaps they've risen up en masse, forming a state of Archaea, with a war cabinet and army to take on the humans.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.51|172.71.241.51]] 10:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC) | :Perhaps they've risen up en masse, forming a state of Archaea, with a war cabinet and army to take on the humans.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.51|172.71.241.51]] 10:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : In math(s), the original latin and greek has remained kinda pristine in modern english. In medicine and taxonomy, it's a dumpster fire of vagary and inconsistency comparable to the US tax code. As far as I'm concerned, use whatever pluralisation you want, you won't degrade the language any further. --DW [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.177|162.158.187.177]] 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:19, 29 May 2025
great, next time I get a disease caused by archea, I'll know who to blame 172.70.111.123 23:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- After ruling out absolutely everything else (primarly that being sunshine, moon light and good times), I'm gonna suggest that it's "the boogie". 162.158.216.115 23:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
"Archaea has" in the caption is unfortunate, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. Pathogens are living cells, not lines on a page. "Archaeans have" would have been better. I'm not 100% sure on the way Archaea is used grammatically in English, but isn't Archaea the plural of Archaeon, so it should be Archaea have? Is the word Archaeans normally used?162.158.233.117 07:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps they've risen up en masse, forming a state of Archaea, with a war cabinet and army to take on the humans.172.71.241.51 10:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- In math(s), the original latin and greek has remained kinda pristine in modern english. In medicine and taxonomy, it's a dumpster fire of vagary and inconsistency comparable to the US tax code. As far as I'm concerned, use whatever pluralisation you want, you won't degrade the language any further. --DW 162.158.187.177 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
