Dear Donald:
> I found it interesting that Alexander Bogomolny cites additional
> dictionaries, but does not address the question of how to deal with the
> fact that definitions may actually be incorrect in the dictionary (or
> any other reference, for that matter) that one is consulting; and that
> even what appear to be multiple reference sources (but may very well NOT
> be independent sources!) can ALL be wrong.
Why is that interesting? If there were alternative definitions,
a discussion would be interesting. At the time of my first post,
I was aware only of a single definition that was found in two
mathematics dictionaries and a statistics book. This is also
how I learned it years ago.
At the time I replied to Dennis Roberts response there still was
only 1 definition quoted. For Dennis chose to discuss the merits
of Harper's definition. Which I thought (and think) was irrelevant.
His second post, cites alternative definitions. These are to the
point. Now, that there are alternatives we may discuss their
merits - which in fact I do not care about. If there is anybody
out there who may authoritatively point to the right definition,
that would be interesting.
> Dictionaries commonly supply abbreviated (sometimes tantalizingly so!)
> etymological derivations of the words they define; and OED frequently
> supplies some historical information (often, who first used it, and in
> what (again, abbreviated!) context); but I have not seen a semantic
> derivation, nor citation of the dictionary's source(s), (either of which
> would permit the reader to judge its credibility) for any technical
> definition it supplies. We do tend to take rather a lot on faith ...
I am at a loss here. I may have learned a wrong definition some 30
years ago and used it since. This may be interesting. But what makes
a definition right or wrong? I do not know whether the first usage
and the common usage are always the same. And if they are not,
what is right or wrong there?
Also, since you mentioned etymology of the word, here's an item from
"The Words of Mathematics: An Etymological Dictionary of Mathematical
Terms Used in English" by Steven Schwatzman. (Follows my signature.)
What do you make out of it? The base width or its variability is not
mentioned here. Does it mean that Harper Collins is wrong?
All the best,
Alexander Bogomolny
histogram (noun): the second element, -gram, is
indisputably from Greek gramma "piece of writing,
picture," from the Indo-European root gerbh- "to
scratch," because diagrams were originally scratched
on earth, clay, etc. Reference books explain the first
element, histo-, in two ways.
(1) It may be from Greek histos "anything upright,"
but particularly "the upright beam of a loom," and
then, by extension "anything woven, a web, a tissue."
If Greek histos is the source, then the Indo-European
root is sta- "to stand," as seen in the native English
cognate stand. According to this explanation, the upright
bars of a histogram account for its name. (2) Histo- may
be a contraction of history, from Latin historia, in turn
from Greek istoria "inquiry, observation." Greek his-tor
"a learned man," represents a presumed wid-tor, from
the Indo-European root weid- "to see." Compare the native
English cognate wise. Etymologically speaking, history is
"what has been seen (and presumably also understood)."
According to this explanation, a histogram is a "picture
history" of a statistical distribution. (3) Whoever coined
the term histogram may have had both of the above associations
in mind, since each is plausible. [208, 244, 68]
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
