Talk:3095: Archaea
great, next time I get a disease caused by archea, I'll know who to blame 172.70.111.123 23:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- After ruling out absolutely everything else (primarly that being sunshine, moon light and good times), I'm gonna suggest that it's "the boogie". 162.158.216.115 23:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
"Archaea has" in the caption is unfortunate, as it denotes that a lineage (a branch of a phylogenetic tree) has become pathogenic. Pathogens are living cells, not lines on a page. "Archaeans have" would have been better. I'm not 100% sure on the way Archaea is used grammatically in English, but isn't Archaea the plural of Archaeon, so it should be Archaea have? Is the word Archaeans normally used?162.158.233.117 07:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- In math(s), the original latin and greek has remained kinda pristine in modern english. In medicine and taxonomy, it's a dumpster fire of vagary and inconsistency comparable to the US tax code. As far as I'm concerned, use whatever pluralisation you want, you won't degrade the language any further. --DW 162.158.187.177 15:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- 'Archaea' is indeed the plural of 'archaeon', and congratulations for getting this correct! In an English-speaking world in which 'bacteria/bacterias' (bacterium/bacteria), 'algae/algaes' (alga/algae), and, for that matter, 'stadium/stadiums' (stadium/stadia) have become commonplace even in scientific publications [see dumpster fire, above], knowledge of how to handle the singulars and plurals of Latin and latinized Greek loanwords is increasingly rare. The domain name 'Archaea' is in the plural, because it stands for a group of organisms. The same is generally true for the names of taxonomic groups above genus. However, because the name stands for one group of organisms, it is possible to treat the name as a collective noun which takes a singular verb form. Thus, [the domain name] Archaea has and Archaea [in the specimen/culture collection] have are both correct, with context the determining factor. Replacing Archaea with Archaean ducks the Latin and places singulars and plurals more in line with common English constructions (archaean/archaeans). Therefore, Archaea have and Archaeans have are both appropriate for the caption, whereas Archaea has is not. Confused yet? 162.158.41.36 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- It all depends if you think Latin and Greek words (and others) used in English are visitors, or have become English words. The former gives Octopus and Octopodes (it's Greek) or latter Octopuses. For non-academic use I think it's the latter. Remember, English (all varieties UK, USA, CDN, AUS, NZ st al) doesn't have an academy ruling over it, but is a rouge language responding to its speakers constantly evolving use. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that "Archaea has" is, in fact, grammatically correct here. Because it is grammatically singular (even though others have pointed out that the word "Archaea" is a plural). I read it as a shorter version of "The Archaea Domain has finally started harming humans." There could be other contexts where you would see "Archaea have." For example, "Our culture has bacteria and Archaea cells in it. The Archaea have finally started harming humans." But in the examples I can think of, that would shorten to "The Archaea have finally started harming humans," not "Archaea have..." without the "The." I can come up with other sentences where "Archaea have" (no "The") would work, but in this context, I don't think it works. So, I think the grammar is correct as is, assuming that Randall is referring to "the Domain Archaea" which makes sense to me in this context. Mootstrap (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- We come full circle. "The domain Archaea has" is grammatically correct. But "the domain Archaea" is a label. The label contains no organisms (one hopes; and even if some sort of contamination were to occur, the organisms would be highly unlikely to be archaeans). If labels on phylogenetic trees start harming humans, we can only hope that the relative rarity of phylogenetic trees as a mode of communication is sufficient to save humanity. If the intended sense is that "organisms within the domain Archaea" have become human pathogens, then "Archaea have" is correct. Yes, this is pedantic, and prescriptivist. But Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is already in charge of our politics, here in these Untied States in North America, and if he gains mastery of our language as well, we may as well all go full I/O error.172.71.150.47 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- By that reckoning, you couldn't say something like "the human race has colonised every continent on Earth", because "the human race" is 'just a label' and 'contains no organisms'. In fact, you couldn't say anything much at all, because all words are 'just labels' (signifiers) and don't contain the things they signify.172.70.160.234 11:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- "Letters"... ;) 172.69.224.60 16:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- By that reckoning, you couldn't say something like "the human race has colonised every continent on Earth", because "the human race" is 'just a label' and 'contains no organisms'. In fact, you couldn't say anything much at all, because all words are 'just labels' (signifiers) and don't contain the things they signify.172.70.160.234 11:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- We come full circle. "The domain Archaea has" is grammatically correct. But "the domain Archaea" is a label. The label contains no organisms (one hopes; and even if some sort of contamination were to occur, the organisms would be highly unlikely to be archaeans). If labels on phylogenetic trees start harming humans, we can only hope that the relative rarity of phylogenetic trees as a mode of communication is sufficient to save humanity. If the intended sense is that "organisms within the domain Archaea" have become human pathogens, then "Archaea have" is correct. Yes, this is pedantic, and prescriptivist. But Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty is already in charge of our politics, here in these Untied States in North America, and if he gains mastery of our language as well, we may as well all go full I/O error.172.71.150.47 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that "Archaea has" is, in fact, grammatically correct here. Because it is grammatically singular (even though others have pointed out that the word "Archaea" is a plural). I read it as a shorter version of "The Archaea Domain has finally started harming humans." There could be other contexts where you would see "Archaea have." For example, "Our culture has bacteria and Archaea cells in it. The Archaea have finally started harming humans." But in the examples I can think of, that would shorten to "The Archaea have finally started harming humans," not "Archaea have..." without the "The." I can come up with other sentences where "Archaea have" (no "The") would work, but in this context, I don't think it works. So, I think the grammar is correct as is, assuming that Randall is referring to "the Domain Archaea" which makes sense to me in this context. Mootstrap (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- It all depends if you think Latin and Greek words (and others) used in English are visitors, or have become English words. The former gives Octopus and Octopodes (it's Greek) or latter Octopuses. For non-academic use I think it's the latter. Remember, English (all varieties UK, USA, CDN, AUS, NZ st al) doesn't have an academy ruling over it, but is a rouge language responding to its speakers constantly evolving use. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- That's always been a problem, a la [Self Driving Issues]. Those of us who use language to accomplish things will eventually (hopefully) outcompete those of the above Humpty Dumpty/monkey tacos persuasion. --DW 172.69.135.109 15:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps they've risen up en masse, forming a state of Archaea, with a war cabinet and army to take on the humans.172.71.241.51 10:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Be careful what you wish for ... 162.158.41.36 15:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
