Microscopy or Microscopies

[Raghu Parthasarathy]

*****
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
[hidden email]


Associate Professor
Department of Physics
1274 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1274
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/

[Tobias Baskin]

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

Raghu,
        That is an interesting question. And to be sure, no answer
here can be as a result of a derivation. Here is my take on the
situation and forgive me but the following is rambling. It comes to
the point eventually! I don't know how to say this in a more compact
way, sorry.

           It is useful to distinguish countable and uncountable
nouns. A countable noun refers to a concrete thing, for example a
'dog' or a 'pencil'.  These take plurals happily. But an uncountable
noun refers to an abstract category or concept, not a real thing,
like 'knowledge' or 'magnesium'. As an abstraction, it doesn't make
sense to pluralize them. What woud you mean by 'magnesiums'? As a
rule, I would say that it is preferable to keep a category/abstract
noun singular, unless there is some good reason not to. For example,
maybe if you were talking about the product of different mines you
might compare say South African and Venezualan 'magnesiums'. But when
you do that, what I think you are doing in fact is to treat these
magnesiums as things (ie, output of specific mines).

        Note that you can also turn a countable noun into an
abstraction ('the domestic dog') but that is a different story.

        Added to this mix is my sense that different abstract nouns
are more or less 'resistant' to taking the plural. So for example, I
don't think I have ever seen 'knowledges' whereas 'philosophies' is
not so rare. Perhaps this has to do with the ease with which we can
think of say Plato's and Kant's philosophy as wholly different things
compared to Plato's and Kant's knowledge (which are different flavors
of a single thing). I am not sure. It strikes me that 'microscopy' is
rather closer to knowledge than philosphy in being plural averse.
Note that 'microscopy' leads 'microscopies' by more than 100 times on
Google.

        Coming back to your title, all things being equal, I agree
with your reviewer. But if you do want to emphasize the difference in
the methods, you could write: "..using confocal and light sheet
fluorescence microscopes".  A microscope is a good old countable noun
and takes the plural with ease.

        Good luck with your revisions.

        Tobias

>*****
>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
>[hidden email]
>
>
>Associate Professor
>Department of Physics
>1274 University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/

--
       _      ____          __   ____  
      /  \   /          / \    /   \ \       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

[Paul Rigby-2]

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

Hi Tobias and Raghu,
Thank you Tobias for a very eloquent and thought provoking discussion on the wonderfully diverse grammar rules in the English language.

Upon reading Raghu's original post, I thought "microscopies" sounded better (whether it was grammatically correct or not). Now I'm not sure having read Tobias's post. I suppose, if you consider microscopy as a technique, then we could have multiple microscopy techniques (and the abstraction becomes concrete). Hence, maybe "microscopies" is valid and could be considered grammatically correct.

I think, ultimately, you are the author and how you word the title is up to you (providing you don't break major grammatical rules and you can convince the editor why you chose the wording you did). Reviewers aren't always right.

Good luck with your manuscript.
Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tobias Baskin
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 6:14 AM
To: [hidden email]
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
*****

Raghu,
        That is an interesting question. And to be sure, no answer here can be as a result of a derivation. Here is my take on the situation and forgive me but the following is rambling. It comes to the point eventually! I don't know how to say this in a more compact way, sorry.

           It is useful to distinguish countable and uncountable nouns. A countable noun refers to a concrete thing, for example a 'dog' or a 'pencil'.  These take plurals happily. But an uncountable noun refers to an abstract category or concept, not a real thing, like 'knowledge' or 'magnesium'. As an abstraction, it doesn't make sense to pluralize them. What woud you mean by 'magnesiums'? As a rule, I would say that it is preferable to keep a category/abstract noun singular, unless there is some good reason not to. For example, maybe if you were talking about the product of different mines you might compare say South African and Venezualan 'magnesiums'. But when you do that, what I think you are doing in fact is to treat these magnesiums as things (ie, output of specific mines).

        Note that you can also turn a countable noun into an abstraction ('the domestic dog') but that is a different story.

        Added to this mix is my sense that different abstract nouns are more or less 'resistant' to taking the plural. So for example, I don't think I have ever seen 'knowledges' whereas 'philosophies' is not so rare. Perhaps this has to do with the ease with which we can think of say Plato's and Kant's philosophy as wholly different things compared to Plato's and Kant's knowledge (which are different flavors of a single thing). I am not sure. It strikes me that 'microscopy' is rather closer to knowledge than philosphy in being plural averse.
Note that 'microscopy' leads 'microscopies' by more than 100 times on Google.

        Coming back to your title, all things being equal, I agree with your reviewer. But if you do want to emphasize the difference in the methods, you could write: "..using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopes".  A microscope is a good old countable noun and takes the plural with ease.

        Good luck with your revisions.

        Tobias

>*****
>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
>[hidden email]
>
>
>Associate Professor
>Department of Physics
>1274 University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/

--
       _      ____          __   ____  
      /  \   /          / \    /   \ \       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

[George McNamara]

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

Hi Raghu,

"microscopies" has 724 PubMed hits, probably more papers than all your
reviewers combined (the quotes are needed, without them, 577075 hits,
but PubMed expands unquoted items). For comparison, pcr (no quotes) has
291601 hits, though is a younger technique.

Your title is shorter and is backed by PubMed - I recommend you
encourage the editor to stick with "microscopies".

Best wishes,

George


On 10/8/2012 9:22 PM, Paul Rigby wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Tobias and Raghu,
> Thank you Tobias for a very eloquent and thought provoking discussion on the wonderfully diverse grammar rules in the English language.
>
> Upon reading Raghu's original post, I thought "microscopies" sounded better (whether it was grammatically correct or not). Now I'm not sure having read Tobias's post. I suppose, if you consider microscopy as a technique, then we could have multiple microscopy techniques (and the abstraction becomes concrete). Hence, maybe "microscopies" is valid and could be considered grammatically correct.
>
> I think, ultimately, you are the author and how you word the title is up to you (providing you don't break major grammatical rules and you can convince the editor why you chose the wording you did). Reviewers aren't always right.
>
> Good luck with your manuscript.
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tobias Baskin
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 6:14 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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
> *****
>
> Raghu,
> That is an interesting question. And to be sure, no answer here can be as a result of a derivation. Here is my take on the situation and forgive me but the following is rambling. It comes to the point eventually! I don't know how to say this in a more compact way, sorry.
>
>   It is useful to distinguish countable and uncountable nouns. A countable noun refers to a concrete thing, for example a 'dog' or a 'pencil'.  These take plurals happily. But an uncountable noun refers to an abstract category or concept, not a real thing, like 'knowledge' or 'magnesium'. As an abstraction, it doesn't make sense to pluralize them. What woud you mean by 'magnesiums'? As a rule, I would say that it is preferable to keep a category/abstract noun singular, unless there is some good reason not to. For example, maybe if you were talking about the product of different mines you might compare say South African and Venezualan 'magnesiums'. But when you do that, what I think you are doing in fact is to treat these magnesiums as things (ie, output of specific mines).
>
> Note that you can also turn a countable noun into an abstraction ('the domestic dog') but that is a different story.
>
> Added to this mix is my sense that different abstract nouns are more or less 'resistant' to taking the plural. So for example, I don't think I have ever seen 'knowledges' whereas 'philosophies' is not so rare. Perhaps this has to do with the ease with which we can think of say Plato's and Kant's philosophy as wholly different things compared to Plato's and Kant's knowledge (which are different flavors of a single thing). I am not sure. It strikes me that 'microscopy' is rather closer to knowledge than philosphy in being plural averse.
> Note that 'microscopy' leads 'microscopies' by more than 100 times on Google.
>
> Coming back to your title, all things being equal, I agree with your reviewer. But if you do want to emphasize the difference in the methods, you could write: "..using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopes".  A microscope is a good old countable noun and takes the plural with ease.
>
> Good luck with your revisions.
>
> Tobias
>
>
>    
>> *****
>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> 1274 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>>      
>
>    

[gradice]

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

I'll dissent. Although "microscopies" is grammatically correct and has been used, the word sounds odd and jarring to my ear. For example, would anyone say, "how many different microscopies do you have in your core facility?"

How about substituting the word "optics," or "imaging."  I.e, "...using confocal and fluorescent light sheet optics." (or "optical systems", but that seems too wordy), or "using confocal and fluorescent light sheet imaging"?

Gary

On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:40 PM, George McNamara wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
>
> Hi Raghu,
>
> "microscopies" has 724 PubMed hits, probably more papers than all your reviewers combined (the quotes are needed, without them, 577075 hits, but PubMed expands unquoted items). For comparison, pcr (no quotes) has 291601 hits, though is a younger technique.
>
> Your title is shorter and is backed by PubMed - I recommend you encourage the editor to stick with "microscopies".
>
> Best wishes,
>
> George
>
>
> On 10/8/2012 9:22 PM, Paul Rigby wrote:
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>>
>> Hi Tobias and Raghu,
>> Thank you Tobias for a very eloquent and thought provoking discussion on the wonderfully diverse grammar rules in the English language.
>>
>> Upon reading Raghu's original post, I thought "microscopies" sounded better (whether it was grammatically correct or not). Now I'm not sure having read Tobias's post. I suppose, if you consider microscopy as a technique, then we could have multiple microscopy techniques (and the abstraction becomes concrete). Hence, maybe "microscopies" is valid and could be considered grammatically correct.
>>
>> I think, ultimately, you are the author and how you word the title is up to you (providing you don't break major grammatical rules and you can convince the editor why you chose the wording you did). Reviewers aren't always right.
>>
>> Good luck with your manuscript.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tobias Baskin
>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 6:14 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> 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
>> *****
>>
>> Raghu,
>> That is an interesting question. And to be sure, no answer here can be as a result of a derivation. Here is my take on the situation and forgive me but the following is rambling. It comes to the point eventually! I don't know how to say this in a more compact way, sorry.
>>
>>   It is useful to distinguish countable and uncountable nouns. A countable noun refers to a concrete thing, for example a 'dog' or a 'pencil'.  These take plurals happily. But an uncountable noun refers to an abstract category or concept, not a real thing, like 'knowledge' or 'magnesium'. As an abstraction, it doesn't make sense to pluralize them. What woud you mean by 'magnesiums'? As a rule, I would say that it is preferable to keep a category/abstract noun singular, unless there is some good reason not to. For example, maybe if you were talking about the product of different mines you might compare say South African and Venezualan 'magnesiums'. But when you do that, what I think you are doing in fact is to treat these magnesiums as things (ie, output of specific mines).
>>
>> Note that you can also turn a countable noun into an abstraction ('the domestic dog') but that is a different story.
>>
>> Added to this mix is my sense that different abstract nouns are more or less 'resistant' to taking the plural. So for example, I don't think I have ever seen 'knowledges' whereas 'philosophies' is not so rare. Perhaps this has to do with the ease with which we can think of say Plato's and Kant's philosophy as wholly different things compared to Plato's and Kant's knowledge (which are different flavors of a single thing). I am not sure. It strikes me that 'microscopy' is rather closer to knowledge than philosphy in being plural averse.
>> Note that 'microscopy' leads 'microscopies' by more than 100 times on Google.
>>
>> Coming back to your title, all things being equal, I agree with your reviewer. But if you do want to emphasize the difference in the methods, you could write: "..using confocal and light sheet fluorescence microscopes".  A microscope is a good old countable noun and takes the plural with ease.
>>
>> Good luck with your revisions.
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>>  
>>> *****
>>> 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
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Department of Physics
>>> 1274 University of Oregon
>>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>>>    
>>
>>  

[phil laissue-2]

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

you can argue about it, i guess, but 'microscopies' just sounds weird to
me. it's an area of study, you wouldn't write about molecular and cellular
biologies.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Raghu Parthasarathy <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> 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
> [hidden email]
>
>
> Associate Professor
> Department of Physics
> 1274 University of Oregon
> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>

--
_____________________________________
Philippe Laissue, PhD, Bioimaging Manager
School of Biological Sciences, Room 4.17
University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
(0044) 01206 872246 / (0044) 07842 676 456
[hidden email]

[George McNamara]

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

Hi Phil,

120 PubMed hits for "biologies" disagree with you. Not as popular as
"biologics" with 5487 hits (including the name of a journal - including
PMID 22956860 - the first "biologies" hit).


George


On 10/9/2012 6:06 AM, phil laissue wrote:

> *****
> from Phil ...
>
> you can argue about it, i guess, but 'microscopies' just sounds weird to
> me. it's an area of study, you wouldn't write about molecular and cellular
> biologies.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Raghu Parthasarathy<
> [hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> *****
>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> 1274 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>>
>>      
>
>
>    

[phil laissue-2]

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

Hi George,

indeed - but it would seem that it's used in the sense of a particular
organism, or 'distinct diseases with differing biologies', not in terms of
a whole study area.
Merriam-Webster on biology:
1     a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital
processes
2 a: the plant and animal life of a region or environment
   b: the life processes especially of an organism or group; broadly :
ecology

Again, you can argue about it (life processes of an organism are just a
smaller branch of knowledge), and make a fair case for 'microscopies'.
Boils down to preference.

Phil


On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM, George McNamara
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy>
> *****
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> 120 PubMed hits for "biologies" disagree with you. Not as popular as
> "biologics" with 5487 hits (including the name of a journal - including
> PMID 22956860 - the first "biologies" hit).
>
>
> George
>
>
> On 10/9/2012 6:06 AM, phil laissue wrote:
>
>> *****
>> from Phil ...
>>
>>
>> you can argue about it, i guess, but 'microscopies' just sounds weird to
>> me. it's an area of study, you wouldn't write about molecular and cellular
>> biologies.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Raghu Parthasarathy<
>> [hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/**wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy<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
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Department of Physics
>>> 1274 University of Oregon
>>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~**raghu/<http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
_____________________________________
Philippe Laissue, PhD, Bioimaging Manager
School of Biological Sciences, Room 4.17
University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
(0044) 01206 872246 / (0044) 07842 676 456
[hidden email]

[Chris Booth]

*****
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

[Engstrom, Lars]

*****
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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[Glen Tibbits]

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

gft

Sent from the iPad of Glen Tibbits
www.sfu.ca/~tibbits


On 2012-10-10, at 0:04, "Engstrom, Lars" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> 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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> 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

[Teng-Leong Chew]

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

Hi all,

Chris Booth has already given the solution in the last sentence of
his previous e-mail.

"...confocal and light sheet microscopy techniques."

I recently finished an institutional report that sums up and lists
all the services offered by our core and it was frustrating to
encounter this dilemma in almost every paragraph (another such
example is the word software, which is always singular). I basically
adopted the sentence structure above, using the word "techniques"
as the grammatical solution when I had to talk about 10 different
'microscopies' in one sentence.

Best,
Leong

--
Teng-Leong Chew, PhD

Director, Cell Imaging Facility & Nikon Imaging Center
Northwestern University
312-503-2841




On 10/9/12 12:04 PM, "Engstrom, Lars" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>*****
>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:[hidden email]]
>On Behalf Of Chris Booth
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
>To: [hidden email]
>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

[Raghu Parthasarathy]

*****
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
[hidden email]


Associate Professor
Department of Physics
1274 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1274
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/


________________________________
 From: "Engstrom, Lars" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[Johannes Helm]

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

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
> [hidden email]
>
>
> Associate Professor
> Department of Physics
> 1274 University of Oregon
> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
> http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>

--
P. Johannes Helm

Voice: ([phone] (office)
Fax: [phone] (office)

[Oshel, Philip Eugene]

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

This reminds me of the British comedy troupe Beyond the Fringe, and
Jonathan Miller's routine as Bertrand Russell meeting George Moore.
Can be seen at:
www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=-JPfVGotIQI

Phil

>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
>>  [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>  Associate Professor
>>  Department of Physics
>>  1274 University of Oregon
>>  Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>  http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>>
>
>
>--
>P. Johannes Helm
>
>Voice: ([phone] (office)
>Fax: [phone] (office)

--
Philip Oshel
Microscopy Facility Supervisor
Biology Department
024C Brooks Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
[phone]

[Tobias Baskin]

*****
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
>>  [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>  Associate Professor
>>  Department of Physics
>>  1274 University of Oregon
>>  Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>  http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/
>  >
>
>
>--
>P. Johannes Helm
>
>Voice: ([phone] (office)
>Fax: [phone] (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

[Engstrom, Lars]

*****
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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Raghu Parthasarathy
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:16 PM
To: [hidden email]
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
[hidden email]


Associate Professor
Department of Physics
1274 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1274
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/


________________________________
 From: "Engstrom, Lars" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
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:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Chris Booth
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 6:33 AM
To: [hidden email]
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

[rjpalmer]

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

Perhaps I might suggest a less divisive way to finish the sentence  
(and one that is applicable to many situations other than that  
contested here):

[...] using confocal as well as light-sheet fluorescence microscopy.

This clarifies a couple of problems.  First, it becomes absolutely  
clear that two techniques are employed even though "microscopy" is  
singular.  In other words, the microscopy is not confocal AND light-
sheet.  Second, it makes clear that the latter technique is based on  
sheets of light as opposed to light sheets (vs heavy sheets).

Scientific English, regardless of the side of the ocean on which one  
sits, has become a mangled and colloquial bastardization of its former  
self.  Other Indo-European languages generally do not face such  
difficulties because word order is much less important, although I  
must admit to not having read any German or French journals of late.


On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Engstrom, Lars wrote:

> *****
> 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!
>
>
>

Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health
Oral Infection and Immunity Branch
Bldg 30, Room 310
30 Convent Drive
Bethesda MD 20892
ph 301-594-0025
fax [phone]