in the answer about apricot pits, you used the term cyanogenetic; what you mean is cyanogenic
Hi WWoodland. We normally include links to the column so people knwo what we are referring to. In this case: Are apricot seeds poisonous
To address your comment:
So while “cyanogenic” seems to be the more popular form, plenty of biochemists and nutritionists are using “cyanogenetic”.
If “Cyanogenetic” is acceptable to the FAO, the NAS, both the American *and *British Societies of Nutrition and the editors of the journal “Nature”, then Cecil is in prety good company.
Blake, I take it that your first link was to cyanogenetic glycoside rather than cyanogentic glycoside. The difference in popular use in the two terms that WWoodland pointed out is enough to be significant.
Googling for cyanogenetic glycoside brought 390 hits and the query “Did you mean cyanogenic glycoside?”
Googling for cyanogenic glycoside brought 4,080 hits and no similar suggestion that I need search further.
Also, almost all of the articles containing the “cyanogenetic” usage are quite dated. The more contemporary usage seems to me to be with the “cyanogenic.”
Since linguistics is the science of language, I think these differences were worth examining more closely. I have no knowledge of the empirical science itself.
Maybe samclem has further input on the language shift.
They’re links. Click on them and find out. Surprise yourself.
Astounding, that’s exactly what my links say as well.
They are? Get 111 since 2000. IOW about 2/3 are somewhat dated. Not what I would call “almost all”.
Not really. 1, 890 are post 2000. IOW about half are somewhat dated. It seems to be more a case that these compounds aren’t a current hot field of research, rather than that the either term is more current. At best we can say that “cyanogenetic” is currently more common. Whether that has changed or not over time, and in what direction we have no evidence for. For all we know it could be moving *towards * “cyanogenetic”
And whether the difference in usage of the terms is significant or not, what Cecil said was cyanogenetic, and what he meant was cyanogenetic. He didn’t use an incorrect term, unless Nature and PNAS also misused it.
And FWIW the column itself was written in 1974.
You misspelled I.
What does IBM’s top of the line have to do with anything?