And yeah, Mark Meckes, the final "er" in Nöter should be pronounced like in gangster -- "gangsta", I mean. Or lover -- luvva.
]]>Either you have to pronounce the name with the emphasis on the wrong syllable (read: second), or you have to change the way that you say the word entirely! Try this when you get home:
Noether
Noethersch (German) (Corrected!)
Noetherian (English)
Note how the emphasis changes! This would be like pronouncing your last name "Wib-sturrr".
]]>"At my signal, unleash the gerunds."
]]>Aside: when it comes to language use, I would much rather that people stopped using "alternate" as a synonym for "alternative", but that battle is I think lost (and History to the defeated may say Alas but cannot help nor pardon). Don't even get me started on "given free reign" [sic] ...
]]>In any case, I am not policing anything. I just pointed out my discomfort, and if others find the word to their comfort, they are of course free to continue using it. Who am I to stop anyone!
]]>Why are you being the made-up-word police? Let people be. We're happy with "discussiony"!
]]>To others: It is possible that good linguistics and good math may go hand in hand. We must not forget that Gauss the prince of mathematicians(at any rate the force behind modern number theory) was also immersed in linguistics. "Complexify" has a natural context and is legitimate, and serves a mathematical purpose. Discussion-y is on the other hand not a mathematical word; it is general parlance. So one should follow what linguists say about that.
So, cdicanio, the problem is that so far there is no alternate word. How about discussive, for instance? If there is a better word, hopefully it will be easier to convince (reasonable) people.
]]>Though the discussion there veered off topic quite a bit ... !
]]>Personally, I love it when non-native English speakers say things like that.
]]>(I can see, though, that if I was communicating in a second or third language then I might not get so much "joy" from people messing around with words.)
]]>Could you add some stuff to the FAQ? Something explaining the consensus on discussion questions and also add an anchor so we can link to it?
It's already there: http://mathoverflow.net/faq#discussion
Perhaps I should add links to the relevant meta threads. What are the relevant meta threads? This one for sure. Any others?
]]>As used on MathOverflow, discussiony has a very specific meaning that isn't captured by dialectical, which usually refers to the dialectic method. The term discursive is much closer, but still a bit off since it is often used as a synonym for rambling and may be wrongly perceived as a derogatory term. I think discussiony is actually just right for MathOverflow.
]]>On the other hand, there's a strong argument against "discussiony" in that it presupposes on the part of the reader all the background about mathoverflow's unsuitability for questions requiring discussion. I realise that we (hanging out on meta) have talked about this a million times, but it's important to remember that many of the people you may be using "discussiony" in front of aren't already aware of this consensus. It's hard to find the patience sometimes (I know!) but it probably would help to actually spell out the idea every single time someone asks something "discussiony".
]]>I propose "dialectical". At least the literal meaning is "discussiony". You could also call such questions colloquial.
]]>