I'll contine to fight this. Over and out from me,
Nick
[email protected]
Marcello Pagano
> Of course, here at Statalist we know, but others may
> disagree. So as another
> source I turned to the Merriam-Webster Second Edition, 1949, which is
> probably the last prescriptive dictionary at hand, wherein I find:
>
> polychotomous [poly+chotomous as in dichotomous] Dividing,....
>
> I know, I know, wrong side of the Atlantic and all that, .....
> (silly colonials!) but maybe it is too late to stop the purported
> malformation. Plus, I prefer the sound of polychotomous.
>
> m.p.
>
>
> Nick Cox wrote:
>
> >The OED works on descriptive, not prescriptive, principles,
> >so does not even purport to judge on correctness.
> >
> >Nick
> >[email protected]
> >
> >Marcello Pagano
> >
> >
> >
> >>If it is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary,
> >>it is good enough for me:
> >>
> >>Divided, or involving division, into many
> >>(or more than two) parts, sections, groups, or branches:
> >>= POLYTOMOUS
> >><http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/cgi/crossref?query
> >>_type=word&queryword=polychotomous&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_s
> >>how=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha&xrefed=OED&xrefword=polytomous>.
> >>So polychotomy, division into more than two
> >>parts or groups, as in classification: = POLYTOMY
> >><http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/cgi/crossref?query
> >>_type=word&queryword=polychotomous&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_s
> >>how=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha&xrefed=OED&xrefword=polytomy>.
> >>
> >>*1858* MAYNE
> >><http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/help/bib/oed2-m2.h
> >>tml#mayne>
> >>/Expos. Lex./, /Polychotomus/, applied to a body that is
> >>divided into numerous articulations..: polychotomous. *
> >>1887* /Amer. Naturalist/ Oct. 915 Polychotomy is probably never more
> >>than provisional, and all classification will eventually be
> >>dichotomous.
> >>
> >>So until we eventually reach the dichotomy where some of us
> >>are right and some of us are wrong, let's allow polychotomous.
> >>
> >>m.p.
> >>
> >>Nick Cox wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>My only advice is marginal to your main question.
> >>>
> >>>The term "polychotomous", although common in the
> >>>literature, is malformed and based on a misparsing
> >>>of the word "dichotomous", whose elements
> >>>are "dicho" and "tomous". The term "polytomous",
> >>>also common in the literature, is more nearly correct.
> >>>
> >>>Help stamp out this linguistic monstrosity!
> >>>
> >>>Nick
> >>>[email protected]
> >>>
> >>>N.B. this is a different kind of argument from
> >>>those in favour of "heteroskedasticity" rather than
> >>>"heteroscedasticity". In the latter case, there are
> >>>plenty of precedents for rendering the Greek letter
> >>>kappa into the English letter c, so one could be
> >>>sceptical about that argument.
> >>>
> >>>"polychotomous" just got into the literature because someone
> >>>didn't understand the etymology of "dichotomy" and other people
> >>>copied that mistake. It's still wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >*
> >* For searches and help try:
> >* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> >* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> >* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
> >
> >
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
