mine looks normal
It's supposed to be archAeology.
either spelling is correct.
similar is aluminum or aluminium. while I believe the former is "more correct", as you state for archaeology, it really depends on other factors for what is "best". fortunately it is mere spelling, and not meaning nuance as well.
Is it just me, or is the whole idea of arguing/debating the spelling of a field that studies the artifacts left from a time millennia before standardized spelling a bit of a waste?
It's just you.
(Incorrect) Spelling can/may have an impact on search results.
Yes, I agree. With both spellings I get a big difference. With the -aeo- spelling I get 423 resources. With the -eo- I get 10 resources. However, at this time I'm downloading a huge update of over 100mbs.
Is it just me, or is the whole idea of arguing/debating the spelling of a field that studies the artifacts left from a time millennia before standardized spelling a bit of a waste? (Incorrect) Spelling can/may have an impact on search results.
Just to be completely fair, Amazon is loosy-goosy on this type of spelling issue too. Sometimes they get both spellings, sometimes not. Sometimes for some books and not others (the two spellings in the book metadata?).
I think it's originally a UK vs. US English difference (akin to "aether" vs. "ether"), though most Americans now spell it archaeology.
Of course it can. But the ancient world was not all that consistent with things like that... eg. Arnobius Adv. Gent. 1.59:
And yet, you who charge our writings with the disgrace of defective diction, do you not also have these your solecisms in those very great and most wonderful books of yours? Do you not say in one place haec utria288 and in another hos utres; caelus and caelum; likewise pileus and pileum, crocus and crocum; fretus and fretum? Have you not also used hoc pane and hic panis, hic sanguis and hoc sanguen? Are not candelabrum and iugulum in like manner also written iugulus and candelaber? For if each noun cannot have more than one gender and if nouns cannot be of this gender and of that, for one gender cannot pass into another, he sins as much who pronounces masculine genders under the laws of feminines as the one who prefixes feminine genders with masculine pronouns. Notwithstanding we see you making masculine objects <into feminines> and feminine objects into masculines, and what you call neuter you use in this way and that with no distinction. Therefore, it is no fault for us to use these words indifferently; and in vain you say that our works are disfigured by the impropriety of solecisms, or if the manner in which each ought to be used is determined and fixed, you yourselves are involved in the same faults, even though you have on your side all such people as Epicadus, Caesellius, Verrius, Scaurus, and Nisus.297 McCracken, G. E. (n.d.). Arnobius of Sicca: The Case Against the Pagans (pp. 106–107).
That's the best case against pagans he could up with? [:S]
While Americans may pronounce the word ar-KEY-ology, we should remember that it is related to the word "archaic"...which is not "archeic".
In other words, we should probably be pronouncing it ar-KAY-ology...or to be even more precise, AR-kay-O-logy
...or is it spelled archæology?
Yes, I believe you are correct, but given the lack of ability of 101-keyboards to spit out that character, "ae" must suffice.
But I wonder...does that mean it should be spelled "archæic"?
[^o)]
Yes, I believe you are correct, but given the lack of ability of 101-keyboards to spit out that character, "ae" must suffice. But I wonder...does that mean it should be spelled "archæic"?
I know we are having some fun here, but I believe the root issue is still something to be considered as appropriate. especially for some that might be like me that are or are "wannabe" archaeologists, and have Logos (L5) libraries. does the metadata for the resources contain each (3?) spelling, or does the search engine contain the logic to pull these together appropriately?my desktop is doing a full re-index (4%) and my tablet PC (not tablet device) is at 2% re-index. so my search results vary and contain the normal disclaimer about having index in process and not being complete. This may be a valid "bug" report to Logos support because of that, and it may bring other similar spelling/aesthetic issues to light as well, to be addressed.
does the metadata for the resources contain each (3?) spelling
In creating personal books I have found that if the book has the glyph for the combined "æ", that a Logos search (at least for Logos 4 where I tested it) is found when searching for it spelled with a separate "ae". So Encyclopædia and Encyclopaedia are the same for Logos - at least when it comes to searching.
Hmmm ... this thread is starting to sound like RKO Pictures, and the study of 1950s filmography.
RKO-logy. That'd be the well regarded film 'Cartouche' (I thought I'd better get a Logos connect, somehow).
indexing complete:archaeology - in library search box (entire library), no special search coding/strings, results - 463 hitsarcheology - 14 hitsarchæology - 463 hits (apparently must see the character as ae)
the metadata, is obviously not "complete" would this count as a bug to be addressed?
