4 ms·

You're right, but in the fields of biology, paleontology, etc., "genera" is the commonly used and technically correct pluralization of "genus." (For what it's w

You're right, but in the fields of biology, paleontology, etc., "genera" is the commonly used and technically correct pluralization of "genus." (For what it's worth, I'd make the same argument in strong support of "matrices" over "matrixes.") Since this is a term of art, I'd argue it deserves less leniency than, say, words like "octopus" or "cyclops," for which "octopodes" and "cyclopes" are necessary only to score smartypants points among likeminded friends, and for which "octopuses" (but not "octopi!") and "cyclopses" are perfectly correct and acceptable in English.

bane 11y ago
So they definitely acknowledge that, but also are targeting an audience that probably isn't familiar with the jargon^H^H^H^H^H terms of art of this specific field. Audience matters and when writing for a general English speaking audience, terms of art need to be either explained (boring) or translated. This author chose translation. If fivethirtyeight.com was a life sciences blog, then this is definitely wrong. I definitely am not on the side of proscribing one perfect kind of English, there are lots of beautiful variations of the language. But this use (and the footnote) are completely appropriate given the audience.
- jonnathanson 11y ago
  "Audience matters and when writing for a general English speaking audience, terms of art need to be either explained (boring) or translated. This author chose translation." I agree that audience matters, but I'm not sure how using the proper term and footnoting an explanation would be onerously "boring." Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. At the end of the day, I'm not overly bothered by it, one way or the other. These sorts of things always come down to prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, and that battle can become a holy war in certain circles. Not so much for me. Just chiming into an existing thread about the subject.

bane 11y ago

So they definitely acknowledge that, but also are targeting an audience that probably isn't familiar with the jargon^H^H^H^H^H terms of art of this specific field. Audience matters and when writing for a general English speaking audience, terms of art need to be either explained (boring) or translated. This author chose translation. If fivethirtyeight.com was a life sciences blog, then this is definitely wrong. I definitely am not on the side of proscribing one perfect kind of English, there are lots of beautiful variations of the language. But this use (and the footnote) are completely appropriate given the audience.

jonnathanson 11y ago
"Audience matters and when writing for a general English speaking audience, terms of art need to be either explained (boring) or translated. This author chose translation." I agree that audience matters, but I'm not sure how using the proper term and footnoting an explanation would be onerously "boring." Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. At the end of the day, I'm not overly bothered by it, one way or the other. These sorts of things always come down to prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, and that battle can become a holy war in certain circles. Not so much for me. Just chiming into an existing thread about the subject.