Already a subscriber? Log in
There is such a word as homogenous, but it is not the one called for here. Homogenous is a synonym for homogenetic, meaning ‘having a common ancestor’. The riot panel did not intend to discuss whether the rioters had a common ancestry. Darwin used homogenous in the sixth edition of The Origin of Species, commenting on Ray Lankester’s distinction between structures that resemble each other in different animals ‘owing to their descent from a common progenitor’ (homogenous) and ‘resemblances which cannot thus be accounted for’ (homoplastic).
The marvellous complication was that surgeons later came to use homogenetic and homoplastic in the same sense, for transplant tissue taken from an individual of the same species. So homogenous became a synonym for two words with opposite meanings. It makes the theological distinction between homoousion and homoiousion look simple. In that case, Gibbon pretended that the difference of one letter was risible and ‘almost invisible to the nicest theological eye’ — as if the difference between cat and coat were negligible on a cold day.
No, the word the riot panel wanted was homogeneous. The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the erroneous spelling of homogenous for homogeneous is less common that its mispronunciation, which it suggests is influenced by the verb homogenise, used since 1904 to describe something done to milk. The mistaken form homogenous to mean ‘of like kind’ is matched by the erroneous heterogenous, ‘of unlike kind’, also pronounced with the stress on the o. It is odd that earlier dominant forms heterogeneal and homogeneal disappeared.
If enough people use the erroneous homogenous, have they won and changed the form of the word? I’d say that with such a grandly technical word they have not, or not yet.
Also in Society
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in