From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4504 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Barr Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: abutment = aboutement? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019987 13605 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:46:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:46:27 +0000 (UTC) To: categories Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Aug 21 09:36:33 2008 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:36:33 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1KW9N9-0006rQ-HK for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:34:39 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 39 Original-Lines: 86 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4504 Archived-At: I am NOT about to change a word that has apparently existed for over 50 years just because it is not particularly meaningful. Does "ring", which originally referred to Z/nZ, still have any connection with the notion? How about "field" or as the French and Germans call them "body" have any connection with fields. The worst thing is to create a fork in the language. I have my own idea on what a better word would be but I'll be damned if I state it in a public forum. Anyway, I gather that Grothendieck's definition is hardly used today. It is interesting that the less important question (and ultimately unimportant) question has flooded the list, while the serious one (what was Grothendieck's supposed to be) has been ignored. I have no suggestion, save my own, for what definition was actually intended. Michael On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, edubuc@dm.uba.ar wrote: > > > I agree with Vaughan. > > Further, I have the feeling that "abutment" is not the appropriate way of > rendering into mathematical english the meaning of the word > "aboutissement" as it was used by Grothendieck. > > I repeat, we should analyse the whole french sentence to come up with a > good translation. > > Is it not possible that somebody (not very versant in either french or > english) had first the need to translate Grothendieck's "aboutissement", > and unlike Michael Barr who asked advise, just came up with "abutment" > (out of some dictionary). > > and then, other people (also not very good at either french or english) > in the same area just keep copying him and each other? > > and generated the whole cascade coming out of google . . . > > who is to blame for the first use of "abutment" for Grothendieck's > "aboutissement" in mathematical english ? ja !!! > > are we all going to follow ? > > I will be the first to use "abutment" if the word has a long tradition, > and some prestigious mathematicians have used it. > > I finish with a question: Is it the case here ? > > Eduardo Dubuc > >> I'm with Michel on this one: >> >> > Just a remark about "abutment": it translates the French "aboutement", >> > with a rather different meaning than "aboutissement". The latter is >> > closer to the "ending" (of some process; with possibly a little shade >> > of "fatality" in it). >> > >> > The two words are related, and I don't know whether the mathematical >> > idea behind makes "abutment" good, or even better, but I just wanted >> > to mention the difference. >> >> Not a single abutment in any of the following YouTube videos posted by >> their proud aboutisseurs. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aboutissement&search_type= >> >> Evidently G needed a word with the sense of "limit" or "completion" that >> didn't overload terms that already had technical meanings in that >> context while itself having a technical ring to it, which >> "aboutissement" seems to do nicely in French. Something like "terminus" >> might serve this purpose in English. >> >> An abutment is an engineering construct for butting two things together, >> often in the context of bridges, whether over a river or between teeth, >> and seems quite unsuitable for this purpose. >> >> Vaughan >> >> > > > >