*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Turnout at the polls this year was low... but here are the results:
How would you complete this sentence: [...] using confocal and light sheet fluorescence...
Microscopy 78%
Microscopies 22%
N=41 opinionated microscopists
I had the idea that this may be a geographical preference but I really don't have time to identify the location of each IP address. Furthermore, one's current location is not necessarily reflective of their exposure to the English language.
The problem I see of looking at keywords (microscopy and microscopies) in pubmed, filtered by title and or title/abstract, is that microscopic techniques are usually used in a singular context. As others have pointed out, microscopy is used 99% of the time. However, you could also assume microscopy is used in a singular context 99% of the time. Comparing these keywords without context can be misleading.
Having said that, I like microscopy primarily because microscopies does not feel right. The English language has many exceptions and I think this is one.
I did look through a couple pages of titles containing "microscopy" and here is the first title I found as a true plural microscopy:
Light, polarizing, and transmission electron microscopy: Three methods for the evaluation of sperm quality.
If it is good enough for my 1N gametes, it is good enough for me.
Good luck Raghu!
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Raghu Parthasarathy
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Microscopy or Microscopies
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
I'm looking forward to the grammar poll results! Thanks to all of you, by the way, for these well-thought-out and interesting responses.
best wishes,
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/
________________________________
From: "Engstrom, Lars" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Microscopy or Microscopies
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
I think the best scientific approach is to support your decision with data, similar to the Google and Pubmed searches previously presented but with more context.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5R25WGP
I will report the data on Friday morning.
-Lars
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Microscopy or Microscopies
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Hey George,
I would like to address the way that it would possibly sound to someone who
isn't currently knowledgeable about advanced microscopy techniques, and not
on this list serve like we are. Personally, I think the way that it is worded could
create confusion as far as what type of microscopy/microscopies you are
talking about. When you say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence
microscopies" it would read that you are using multiple types of microscopy,
both confocal and light sheet fluorescence, due to the plural of microscopy.
Grammatically I think this is correct, but it doesn't sound as good. However, if
you were to say "using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopy" it
reads as if the imaging technique used was confocal/light sheet fluorescence
microscopy, which all of us on this listserve understand as two completely
different techniques, but to a foreigner of advanced microscopy, they wouldn't
know the difference and it would be confusing. Therefore, I think grammatically
it would be better if you added the word "both" before confocal and light
sheet... thus it would read "...using both confocal and light sheet microscopy" In
this case, microscopy would be the correct form since you are talking about a
single confocal microscopy technique and a single light sheet technique due to
the separation provided by the word both. I think the reviewer is overseeing the
fact that microscopies is talking about multiple types/forms of microscopy
techniques while microscopy is only talking about a single instance. Thus,
without the word both before confocal OR the plural of microscopy, there is no
indication of difference between confocal and light sheet microscopy techniques.
I hope this helps!
-Chris
|
