Another Damned Medievalist delivers her spiel.
Especially when the latter has such a succinct and clear verb form, gah!For my part, I'm just tired of seeing "impacted" referring to everything except a wisdom tooth. . . .
Both are OK in science, but I can give you the former. However, unlike Ancarett, I think "reference" is OK..."I referenced that paper in my manuscript" is NOT the same as "I referred to that paper". (On the other hand, perhaps 'cite' is the right word instead, but 'refer' is not.)
I *might* use reference as a verb, but I couldn't imagine the other. But guess what? The OED online has 'reference' as a verb from the late 19th century and 'evidence' from the 17th century (although a lot of the usages for the latter are given as obsolete. And after all in the 17th century they used to call witnesses 'evidences'). So they're not so new after all.The first usage of 'to trial' (grrr), on the other hand, is 1981. The 1980s have a lot to answer for.
grrrrr......pepzoo -- a place where you can go to see cheerleaders in their natural habitat
Ianqui, "cite" seems much more common in my little intersection of the humanities and social sciences. And used intelligently in another discipline, those words could work well. What irks me is reading something such as this:"I referenced websites and articles on Rommel for this paper" which, I suppose, means something along the lines of "read bits of this stuff and included them in my bibliography" -- but don't quote me on it.
Post a Comment