RE: Are we WRITERS????

["Kathi Knill" <kathi -at- inline-software -dot- com>]

Well, I personally would not contradict those two authorities, however
my Webster's dictionary indices is the plural of index. No mention
of indexes.
So go figure.
Sorry if I offended you. (which it sounded like from the
tone of your message)
It never fails to irk me when words are
used in ways that are incorrect (irregardless, prioritize, etc.) and then
they
end up in the dictionary because so many people make the mistake.
I'm all for new words to mean new things, but the misuse of words turning
into valid English is just too much for me to feel good about.

Don't slam me on this one, I'm leaving for the weekend.
Have a good one everyone.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hawkins [mailto:ihawkins -at- telusplanet -dot- net]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:24 PM
To: Kathi Knill
Subject: Re: Are we WRITERS????


On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:12:55 -0600, in techwr-l you wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>sorry if this sounds nasty but it just hit a nerve....
>we are writers (most of us)...
>the plural of index is indices   NOT indexes!!
>
>Sorry again but I just couldn't let it go.
Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the current usage is
indices for most meanings of the word index, EXCEPT for "an
alphabetical list . . . of the names, subjects, etc. occurring in [a
book], with indication of the places in which they occur." In that
case, the currently accepted usage is indexes.

The Chicago Manual of Style uses indexes.

Personally, I would feel awkward and a little unsure contradicting
either of those authorities. Both of them at the same time? You must
be made of stronger material than I am.

Last time I had this discussion, it was with a mathematician. In his
field, he was correct. In my field, I was. We both learned a little
bit that day.

All the best,
Ian Hawkins