Attention, language Genii: "PERVAENCE."

Factual Questions
1

Hello,

Please help me out here, brethren and sistren.

A friend of mine was trying to find the meaning of the word “pervaence,” (note spelling, v-a-e) that he had seen reference to somewhere in some technical literature.

After ascertaining that he wasn’t talking about “purveyance,” “prevalence,” or similar, I looked it up, and found “perveance.” (note spelling v-e-a)

I told him that the v-a-e spelling was probably just a typo, and the word was “perveance.” He insists that they must be two separate words, I assume because one of the references to the v-a-e spelling is in a document pertaining to CERN.

Dictionary.com and Wikipedia list “perveance,” but not “pervaence.” He says it’s probably a highly technical term of which they are unaware.

Is there any such word as “pervaence?”

Is it even an alternate spelling?

2

Show him the technical article from Wikipedia for perveance (ea spelling) to see if it’s the technical area he was interested in. (Like you, I suspect it’s an ae/ea transposition.)

3

It doesn’t appear anywhere in the OED. That’s a pretty good indicator that it’s not a real word.

4

It’s “perveance.” The CERN document (which is online, and is the only place I see it, and probably the only place he’s seen it), says:

Photodiodes display perveance.

5

With they way his made-up word would have been pronounced, the nearest homophone would be purveyance. But if he’s not looking for a word with that meaning, I’m going to agree with the previous posters that he’s not looking for a real word.

I did check the glossary for Jabberwocky, just to make sure it’s not in there… it’s not. :smiley:

6

Well, I emailed him and said, “Are not two different words. I have proof.” (planning to cite this thread.)

He emailed me back saying, “Are too two different words. I have proof.”

Well, I work for him on Wednesdays and Thursdays, so I’ll find out tomorrow what sort of proof he’s referring to, and let you all know.

Another survey of Scroogle (Google without the spying) results breaks down into three categories:

  1. misspellings of “prevalence”

  2. misspellings of “purveyance”, and

  3. possible misspellings of “perveance.”

The instances of #3 are as follows:

The CERN page, here.

A page from Harvard, identical in content to the above CERN page, here.

An eBay page offering a vaccuum tube for sale, here, and

A comment in an audio-related forum, here.

Seeing as the third and fourth instance can probably be attributed to personal misspellings; and the first and second instances, while from more reliable sources, are identical and therefore suggest a single source, I say that somebody didn’t catch the smart guy’s mistake while proofreading, and that’s the way it is.

In further support of my argument is the fact that words in English seldom use “ae” in mid-word. Latin-derived taxonomic words, sure. But apart from that I can only think of the variant spellings of “encyclopaedia” and “paedophile;” oh, and “paean.”

I feel silly making such a big deal out of this, and I do love the guy dearly, but he can be so smug about things that he’s decided without rational support.

So, Dopers, am I sure about this?

7

I would say so. Let us know what comes of it.

8

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1054710?ln=en :smiley:

9

yoyodyne: Ammunition! Awesome! Great search-fu ya got there.

10

Would Dopers engage in the purveyance of misinformation? :wink:

11

Now the only question is whether “of” and “og” are the same or different words…

12

Og smash subatomic particles! :smiley:

13

Fizzisists donut spel to gud.