the numbers, was something else

Nathan Lange
Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:52:42 PDT


If the word "flower" was technical, and if "bloom" didn't also 
already have an alternate meaning in horticulture that is very 
relevant to growing ornamental plants, then your point might be 
valid. Neither condition exists. I am not talking about every day 
speech, I am talking about the PBS Wiki which I understand as a place 
where people go to learn, not validate there previous held beliefs. 
When I see a word on the PBS Wiki I don't understand then I just look 
it up on Google. Bloom is already in use on the PBS Wiki referring to 
both flowers and, correctly to the waxy bloom on some flowers and 
leaves. Having both definitions in use is unnecessary, dated, and 
potentially confusing, especially if one needs to use the search function.

I'm communicating to you what I know. I don't know what that proves 
but if that makes you laugh, then that's icing on the cake (Better 
yet, "bloom on the leaf." Get it?).


At 04:47 PM 10/14/2014, you wrote:
>Nathan, what in the world are you trying to prove?
>Haven't you overlooked that how the word "bloom" is used in plant 
>science is not likely to be  a good measure of how the word is (and 
>I would say properly may be) used in everyday speech? The PBS wiki 
>is like nomenclature itself: it straddles the worlds of both science 
>and art. To conform too rigidly to some minority group's (i.e. plant 
>scientists') standards of meaning might be appropriate when 
>addressing that group, but such usage is likely to cause confusion 
>when addressed to persons outside that group (some of whom might be 
>people who belong to other groups which define the words in question 

More information about the pbs mailing list