Antennae vs. antennas

[Anne Kilmer]

So, Okay. Do you say Antenn-ay or antenn-eye? 
Children adore long words .. I think their splendid ability to handle
the scientific names of dinosaurs proves that. 
	Thunder-lizard? I don't think so.
It is for adults that we dumb things down. One's ability to learn new
words and new languages does slack off considerably after 13 or so. 
	Those of us who, past 50, 60, 70, are still acquiring new skills  have
a little trouble being sorry for folks who don't want to work that hard.
Luckily, children are very good at teaching their grownups.
	I have brushed up agaoinst quite a few of the professions in my time,
and am amused by the notion that if we have named a phenomenon we
somehow have understood it. However, names are handy when you want to
talk about things. 
	If this is a club language, then people need only learn the language to
be welcomed into the club. And, in fact, the members of the club are
enthusiastic about helping each other learn. 
	I think Jeff's fondness for the English language is sweet. And as
English seems to be the language of the Internet, perhaps ... no.
	We are left with the situation that both scientific and vernacular
names change as the wind blows, and that our intention is to
communicate. There are few on this list that feel it necessary to
correct, quibble and mock; an exemplary group. 
	I use a lot of long words when I talk, but I always include a
translation where it seems necessary. (And am I popular? you ask ...)
	This works fine when you're lecturing on butterflies, or anything else.
I have to admit though that I teach people more about relationships than
about anatomy. We're gardening, after all. 
cheers
Anne Kilmer
South Florida  
Pierre A Plauzoles wrote:
> 
> In a previous article, dyanega at mono.icb.ufmg.br (Doug Yanega) says:
> 
> >        Gee, it took me a long time to chime in here...
> >It appears to me that perhaps the problem, and the approach of the two
> >opposing camps, can be (over)simplified thus:
> >        There are highly self-motivated laypeople who already know the
> >proper terminology, names, etc. or will learn it regardless of what we do;
> >there are laypeople interested and motivated enough to learn it *if* we
> >offer it; and there are laypeople who *might* be interested but will avoid
> >entomology altogether if it is not offered at their level.
> >        Presumably, if we "dumb down" (there's a nice loaded term), we
> >won't lose the folks in the first group, we will bring people from the last
> >group into the fold, but we will do a major disservice to those in the
> >middle group.
> >        Presumably, if we *don't* dumb things down, we serve the first two
> >groups, and lose the third.
> 
> A good teacher will know how to teach all three and yet not allienate
> that "third" group.  I think that Phil's attitude (that dumbing down is
> inherently bad) is right.  I see it as divisive as well as insulting and
> detrimental to the teaching process.  Its origins in the "liberal camp
> are something I had not thought of but I can see where someone could
> think of it that way.
> --
> Pierre Plauzoles   ae779 at lafn.org
> Canoga Park, California