The OED works on descriptive, not prescriptive, principles,
so does not even purport to judge on correctness.
Nick
[email protected]
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
> >[email protected]
> >
> >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/
