<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bimonthly Gleanings (July &#8211; August 2008)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/</link>
	<description>Academic insights for the thinking world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: D. Wilson</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/comment-page-1/#comment-147282</link>
		<dc:creator>D. Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2071#comment-147282</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t believe &quot;demodicidosis&quot; contains any &quot;-cid-&quot; associated with &quot;-cide&quot; referring to killing. I believe &quot;demodicidosis&quot; = &quot;demodicid&quot; + &quot;-osis&quot;, i.e., disease related to a demodicid. Similarly &quot;demodicosis&quot; = &quot;demodic-&quot; (i.e., &quot;demodex&quot;) + &quot;-osis&quot;, i.e., disease related to a demodex. A demodicid may be considered to be a member of the family Demodicidae, while a demodex may be considered to be a member of the genus Demodex. Since Demodex is the only genus in the family Demodicidae, AFAIK, both terms seem equivalent, and I think both are reasonably well formed. Of course &quot;demodicid&quot; = &quot;demodic-&quot; (i.e., &quot;demodex&quot;) + &quot;-id&quot;.

Should an alternative taxonomy show an additional (non-Demodex) genus within family Demodicidae, then one may (in principle) consider demodicidosis to be the more general term (also encompassing the additional genus).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t believe &#8220;demodicidosis&#8221; contains any &#8220;-cid-&#8221; associated with &#8220;-cide&#8221; referring to killing. I believe &#8220;demodicidosis&#8221; = &#8220;demodicid&#8221; + &#8220;-osis&#8221;, i.e., disease related to a demodicid. Similarly &#8220;demodicosis&#8221; = &#8220;demodic-&#8221; (i.e., &#8220;demodex&#8221;) + &#8220;-osis&#8221;, i.e., disease related to a demodex. A demodicid may be considered to be a member of the family Demodicidae, while a demodex may be considered to be a member of the genus Demodex. Since Demodex is the only genus in the family Demodicidae, AFAIK, both terms seem equivalent, and I think both are reasonably well formed. Of course &#8220;demodicid&#8221; = &#8220;demodic-&#8221; (i.e., &#8220;demodex&#8221;) + &#8220;-id&#8221;.</p>
<p>Should an alternative taxonomy show an additional (non-Demodex) genus within family Demodicidae, then one may (in principle) consider demodicidosis to be the more general term (also encompassing the additional genus).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JMD</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/comment-page-1/#comment-147270</link>
		<dc:creator>JMD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2071#comment-147270</guid>
		<description>You note that &quot;artifact&quot; is &quot;from arte, the ablative singular of ars &#039;art&#039; and fictum, the neuter past participle of facere &#039;make, do.&#039;&quot;  However, &quot;fictum&quot; is not the past participle of facere - the principle parts of facere are &quot;facio, facere, feci, factum.&quot;  &quot;Fictum&quot; is the neuter perfect passive participle of &quot;fingo, fingere, finxi, fictum,&quot; to shape, mould, arrange, devise.  The participle in particular can mean feigned or false.  See Cassell&#039;s Latin Dictionary.  As the meanings of the verbs are similar, I am not sure which one you meant, though I suspect you meant to say factum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You note that &#8220;artifact&#8221; is &#8220;from arte, the ablative singular of ars &#8216;art&#8217; and fictum, the neuter past participle of facere &#8216;make, do.&#8217;&#8221;  However, &#8220;fictum&#8221; is not the past participle of facere &#8211; the principle parts of facere are &#8220;facio, facere, feci, factum.&#8221;  &#8220;Fictum&#8221; is the neuter perfect passive participle of &#8220;fingo, fingere, finxi, fictum,&#8221; to shape, mould, arrange, devise.  The participle in particular can mean feigned or false.  See Cassell&#8217;s Latin Dictionary.  As the meanings of the verbs are similar, I am not sure which one you meant, though I suspect you meant to say factum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Carlson</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/comment-page-1/#comment-147268</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Carlson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2071#comment-147268</guid>
		<description>As to dwarfs vs. dwarves: Tolkien wrote that he preferred the -ves ending for his little people exactly because of the OE influence. Wolf ~ wolves was right to him, thus dwarf ~ dwarves. The -fs ending so favored by Disney rankled Tolkien (had anyone ever asked him).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As to dwarfs vs. dwarves: Tolkien wrote that he preferred the -ves ending for his little people exactly because of the OE influence. Wolf ~ wolves was right to him, thus dwarf ~ dwarves. The -fs ending so favored by Disney rankled Tolkien (had anyone ever asked him).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Cowan</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/comment-page-1/#comment-147266</link>
		<dc:creator>John Cowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2071#comment-147266</guid>
		<description>I will add that the plural of &lt;i&gt;dwarf&lt;/i&gt; &#039;human being of short stature&#039; is everywhere &lt;i&gt;dwarfs&lt;/i&gt;. Additionally, though I realize that &lt;i&gt;opponent&lt;/i&gt; may mean simply &#039;a person who maintains a contrary position&#039; (OED 1b), your use of the word carks me, for we are on the same side, that of truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will add that the plural of <i>dwarf</i> &#8216;human being of short stature&#8217; is everywhere <i>dwarfs</i>. Additionally, though I realize that <i>opponent</i> may mean simply &#8216;a person who maintains a contrary position&#8217; (OED 1b), your use of the word carks me, for we are on the same side, that of truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kiwi Carlisle</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/08/gleanings-5/comment-page-1/#comment-147265</link>
		<dc:creator>Kiwi Carlisle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/?p=2071#comment-147265</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a Missourian as well. I&#039;ve grown up with &quot;Bossy&quot; used as such a generic cow name that &quot;Bossy&quot; is practically a synonym for cow. My Dad, who grew up in Texas, even used to call cows &quot;bossies&quot;.  Admittedly, his father was a classically-trained minister, which might skew the sample just a tad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a Missourian as well. I&#8217;ve grown up with &#8220;Bossy&#8221; used as such a generic cow name that &#8220;Bossy&#8221; is practically a synonym for cow. My Dad, who grew up in Texas, even used to call cows &#8220;bossies&#8221;.  Admittedly, his father was a classically-trained minister, which might skew the sample just a tad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
