Talk:Superfetation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey, whilst you lot were quibbling over the spelling - didn't one of you think to check the accuracy of the wiki entry??? It says (at the moment anyway) that:
"On the 1st of October 2007, Ame and Lia Herrity, conceived 3 weeks apart, were born in the United Kingdom to Amelia Spence and George Herrity."
If you check other news sources (instead of just relying on the link provided) additional information is provided which makes it clear that they were actually born five months ago. The poster confused the date of the newspaper article with the children's actual date of birth.
refer to: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.98.14 (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Manning, I think it is well within NPOV to say in parentheses ("often so-spelled by false analogy to xxx; medical and scientific language uses superfetation"). I can't think off the top of my head of any exampls other than phoenix and Phoebus Apollo to pop in. And to the person who said 'it's in a dictionary therefore it is a correct form', I say: hmph --MichaelTinkler, who thinks
Michael, what I said is that it's in a dictionary, therefore it's not fair of us to proclaim it as an incorrect use. I would still discourage it at every opportunity, change it whenever it appears, and point out that its use is based on incorrect Latin. But to say that anyone who uses it is wrong seems to be assuming somewhat more authority than we have. -- Josh Grosse
O.K. On the other hand, just because some dictionaries practice non-interventionist descriptive linguistics is no need for us to pretend that the word had an -o- in it. Let's explain why they're - ummm - misguided? Not following best spelling-practices? Wrong? --MichaelTinkler, who is trying to not be a pedant and failing.
[edit] Another case?
Not a credible source, so I'll add it here until somebody digs up some "real evidence".
