*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

Johannes and listers,
		In America, when math gets too intense, a student 
turns to sports; in England, when maths get too intense, the student 
turns to sport.

	This example illustrates the ideosyncracies of English and 
ingoring them shows the same disregard for your reader as shown by 
filling somone's cup with coffee who obviously doesn't want any. 
Pubmed lists 10^5 hits for 'microscopy' but 10^2 for 'microscopies' 
which shows that writers of English have a strong preference for the 
singular. I would argue that following the preferences of readers is 
in fact logical if your goal is to communciate.

	But in any case, English allows the same word (e.g., 
'microscopy') to be used not only as a category (which is indeed 
illogical to make plural) but also as an exemplification of that 
category (which makes perfect sense to pluralize). So in this case, 
direct logic cannot really help.

	As many of the listers have suggested if the author wishes to 
emphasize the individual nature of the different systems then, to 
avoid the averse plural, the author can choose a differerent word 
('techniques' or 'microscopes'). Otherwise, the author can emphasize 
the science in question--namely microscopy.

	Write on!
		Tobias

>
>Good morning,
>
>another aspect of this interesting and important discussion might be:  To
>which degree is one willing to trade logical correctness for
>comprehensivity.
>
>When starting university studies, I became a student of mathematics
>before, later, switching to physics. I remember very clearly that the
>Professor presenting the lecture on Linear Algebra made the following
>statement:
>
>"In science, Do NOT care about how people use language in everyday life.
>The only, the very only demand is to be logically correct as far as ever
>possible, how difficult ever it will be for a reader to understand your
>sentences."
>
>Tobias mentioned Kant in an earlier contribution to this discussion. I am
>NOT an expert in Kant. Nevertheless, I have read some of Kant's oeuvres.
>He seems to be logically quite correct. However, it is NOT a task too easy
>to read Kant.
>
>I still stick to the principle presented by the aforementioned Professor
>in maths - and often get comments.
>
>Example:
>
>During a Friday afternoon group meeting, I was supplying the entire gang
>with coffee. A colleague retracted her cup when I was approaching. I asked
>her: "Du you not want any coffee?" and she answered: "No, thank you!". I
>poured coffee into her cup and she protested. There was not any intention
>on my side on making jokes on her, I just behaved "logically correct". "I
>have become that way during maths studies", I explained, what was accepted
>by all colleagues with a general smile. Another colleague replied: "In
>biology, we behave normal!"
>
>
>Best,
>Johannes
>
>
>>  *****
>>  To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>  *****
>>
>>
>>  It?s a bit strange to send a grammar question to this email list, but
>since it deals with microscopy and has perhaps come up in other
>contexts,
>>  I thought someone reading may have insights.  We?ve written a paper
>whose
>>  title contains the phrase ?[...] using confocal and light sheet
>>  fluorescence microscopies? (i.e. in which we use both confocal
>microscopy
>>  and light sheet fluorescence microscopy to image things).  A reviewer
>suggests replacing ?microscopies? with ?microscopy.?  I think
>>  ?microscopies? sounds better, but as a counter-point, I would think ?...
>comparing left-handed and right-handed calligraphy? would sound better
>than ?calligraphies? if I were writing about handwriting.  Thoughts?
>(Sorry for stretching the boundaries of the confocal list ? hopefully it?s
>>  not too annoying!)
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Raghu
>>
>>  --
>>  Raghuveer Parthasarathy
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>  Associate Professor
>>  Department of Physics
>>  1274 University of Oregon
>>  Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>  http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>  >
>
>
>--
>P. Johannes Helm
>
>Voice:	(+47) 228 51159 (office)
>Fax:	(+47) 228 51499 (office)


-- 
       _      ____          __   ____  
      /  \   /          / \    /   \ \       Tobias I. Baskin
     /   /  /          /   \   \      \        Professor
    /_ /   __      /__ \   \       \__    Biology Department
   /      /          /       \   \       \        611 N. Pleasant St.
  /      /          /         \   \       \	      University of 
Massachusetts
/      / ___   /           \   \__/  \ ____ Amherst, MA, 01003
www.bio.umass.edu/biology/baskin
Voice: 413 - 545 - 1533 Fax: 413 - 545 - 3243