Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: RE: mlogit and IV? polychotomous logistic model and endogenous explanatory variable


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: RE: mlogit and IV? polychotomous logistic model and endogenous explanatory variable
Date   Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:16:54 +0100

The OED works on descriptive, not prescriptive, principles, 
so does not even purport to judge on correctness. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Marcello Pagano
 
> If it is good enough for the Oxford English Dictionary,
> it is good enough for me:
> 
> Divided, or involving division, into many
> (or more than two) parts, sections, groups, or branches:
> = POLYTOMOUS 
> <http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/cgi/crossref?query
> _type=word&queryword=polychotomous&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_s
> how=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha&xrefed=OED&xrefword=polytomous>. 
> So polychotomy, division into more than two
> parts or groups, as in classification: = POLYTOMY 
> <http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/cgi/crossref?query
> _type=word&queryword=polychotomous&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_s
> how=10&single=1&sort_type=alpha&xrefed=OED&xrefword=polytomy>.
> 
> *1858* MAYNE 
> <http://dictionary.oed.com.ezp2.harvard.edu/help/bib/oed2-m2.h
> tml#mayne> 
> /Expos. Lex./, /Polychotomus/, applied to a body that is
> divided into numerous articulations..: polychotomous. *
> 1887* /Amer. Naturalist/ Oct. 915 Polychotomy is probably never more
> than provisional, and all classification will eventually be 
> dichotomous.
> 
> So until we eventually reach the dichotomy where some of us
> are right and some of us are wrong, let's allow polychotomous.
> 
> m.p.
> 
> Nick Cox wrote:
> 
> >My only advice is marginal to your main question.
> >
> >The term "polychotomous", although common in the 
> >literature, is malformed and based on a misparsing 
> >of the word "dichotomous", whose elements 
> >are "dicho" and "tomous". The term "polytomous", 
> >also common in the literature, is more nearly correct.  
> >
> >Help stamp out this linguistic monstrosity! 
> >
> >Nick 
> >n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 
> >
> >N.B. this is a different kind of argument from 
> >those in favour of "heteroskedasticity" rather than 
> >"heteroscedasticity". In the latter case, there are 
> >plenty of precedents for rendering the Greek letter
> >kappa into the English letter c, so one could be 
> >sceptical about that argument. 
> >
> >"polychotomous" just got into the literature because someone 
> >didn't understand the etymology of "dichotomy" and other people 
> >copied that mistake. It's still wrong. 
> >

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index