Re: paleonet Welcome to The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group

["Jere H. Lipps" <jlipps@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope they reject it then.   Something is missing with just 2 "o"s, 
and I am generally a critic of language use and spelling.   It just 
doesn't seem to break well like that, and makes the oology part too 
degraded and therefore perhaps raising questions in the mind of a 
first-time reader.   So I vote for clarity of communication over 
rules on this one.  I am biased by my enthrallment of so many vowels 
in a row made possible by all the "o"s.

At 05:57 AM 9/11/2006, you wrote:
>I'm an adviser to the Oxford English Dictionary, and have forwarded 
>the message to the appropriate editor. I'd guess they'd standardize 
>it to palaeoology if the word and its cognates continue to be used. 
>The first occurrence may be
>
>Estudios Geologicos 60, no.3-6 (2004) p. 179: "Most sites contain 
>bony remains, but there are also paleoichnological and paleoological 
>sites, with dinosaur and other reptilian tracks and eggshells."
>
>Gary Rosenberg
>
> >>> jlipps@berkeley.edu 09/10/06 05:54PM >>>
>palaeooobiology
>
>I like this word.    You should nominate it for the Oxford English
>Dictionary.   But you spelled it with only 2 "o" earlier in the
>email.   Which is correct.   I hope it's the 3 "o" version, although
>a purist would insist on a hyphen, I'd guess, between no. 1 and no. 2.