> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> > Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
> > yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
> > physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
> > Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> > that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> Information.
> --
> Guy Barry
The mention was about the out of ordinary 'sound' (for lack of a better word)of referring to what are <usually> considered mass nouns, with a plural usage. HH gives an example where it <is> quite normal sounding. Many examples are not. I asked before if an example (nonsense) was used that way for purpose. It was indicated that it was a 'typo' (not without some sense of equivocation, however). When another incidence (harm) by the same writer was used as a countable noun, referred from an unknown date, but appearing here the next day, I observed it was somewhat of a pattern. I think that when a noun which is normally a mass noun is used in a countable way, if there is not some evident purpose for it, then the author would be well advised consider rephrasing it. Some writers are naturally able to delve into unusual usage, and correct-but-odd-sounding phrasing with great positive result. Most of us are well advised to avoid that, because stilted and unintuitive phrasing is an often an impediment to the objective of communication.
As has been alluded to here many times in the past, plurals and how they are normally employed, varies between population groups. If one wishes to be aware of such things and choose to retain or refrain, then that is fine. Just don't expect to be universally well received.
> > > Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
> > > yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
> > > physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
> > > Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> > > that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> > Information.
> > --
> > Guy Barry
> The mention was about the out of ordinary 'sound' (for lack of a better word)of referring to what are <usually> considered mass nouns, with a plural usage. HH gives an example where it <is> quite normal sounding. Many examples are not. I asked before if an example (nonsense) was used that way for purpose. It was indicated that it was a 'typo' (not without some sense of equivocation, however). When another incidence (harm) by the same writer was used as a countable noun, referred from an unknown date, but appearing here the next day, I observed it was somewhat of a pattern. I think that when a noun which is normally a mass noun is used in a countable way, if there is not some evident purpose for it, then the author would be well advised consider rephrasing it. Some writers are naturally able to delve into unusual usage, and correct-but-odd-sounding phrasing with great positive result. Most of us are well advised to avoid that, because stilted and unintuitive phrasing is an often an impediment to the objective of communication.
> As has been alluded to here many times in the past, plurals and how they are normally employed, varies between population groups. If one wishes to be aware of such things and choose to retain or refrain, then that is fine. Just don't expect to be universally well received.
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:05:44 PM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
> > "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> > > Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> > > that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> > Information.
> The mention was about the out of ordinary 'sound' (for lack of a better > word)of referring to what are <usually> considered mass nouns, with a > plural usage. HH gives an example where it <is> quite normal > sounding. > Many examples are not.
Harrison challenged people to find an English noun that cannot be ordinarily pluralized, and I offered "information". Anything wrong with that?
>>> I doubt if, on reflection, Eric will consider it acceptable. In the
>>> US, though, you will see and hear it frequently. It would not be
>>> considered unacceptable in any informal usage by anyone who is not a
>>> usage junkie.
>> I'm fully aware of that. Indeed it's the type of construction that I'd
>> use myself in informal speech. But from someone who claims to be
>> concerned about "100% textbook-correct English" it's a little
>> surprising.
> Consider the title of the thread. The later at night--or, in most cases,
> later in the early morning--that I post,
I've noticed that. It's only 9.30 on the West Coast at the moment and your first post of today that I saw appeared about eight hours ago. (I've also noticed that Peter (Moylan) seems to be awake at times when most people are in bed.)
> the less prudent I tend to be in
> proofing before clicking "post".
>> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:05:44 PM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>>> Information.
>> The mention was about the out of ordinary 'sound' (for lack of a better >> word)of referring to what are <usually> considered mass nouns, with a >> plural usage. HH gives an example where it <is> quite normal > >> sounding. Many examples are not.
> Harrison challenged people to find an English noun that cannot be > ordinarily pluralized, and I offered "information".
It's pluralized all the time in English written by French or Spanish speakers!
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:05:44 PM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
> > > "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> > > > Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> > > > that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> > > Information.
> > The mention was about the out of ordinary 'sound' (for lack of a better
> > word)of referring to what are <usually> considered mass nouns, with a
> > plural usage. HH gives an example where it <is> quite normal > sounding.
> > Many examples are not.
> Harrison challenged people to find an English noun that cannot be ordinarily
> pluralized, and I offered "information". Anything wrong with that?
> --
> Guy Barry
No, your example points out the unwise choice to say anything about language in terms of 'never' or 'always'. A good answer! I responded in the wrong place, I guess.
>> "Harms" as a plural, jars; but "wrongs" is as well established as "rights",
>> and English lawyers are comfortable discussing "torts" and "damages".
>American lawyers as well, if the novels of John Grisham are to be >believed. (At least, he expects his readers to know what torts are.)
"A rich, usually multilayered, cake that is filled with buttercreams, mousses,
jams, or fruits"....r
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:34:38 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
[...]
> American lawyers as well, if the novels of John Grisham are to be
> believed. (At least, he expects his readers to know what torts are.)
The fictional detective Nero Wolfe once caught out a fellow impersonating a law student by engaging him in conversation and remarking that most lawyers are too verbose, one having once drafted a simple tort for him that ran to eight pages.
>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>>> "Harms" as a plural, jars; but "wrongs" is as well established as "rights",
>>> and English lawyers are comfortable discussing "torts" and "damages".
>> American lawyers as well, if the novels of John Grisham are to be
>> believed. (At least, he expects his readers to know what torts are.)
> "A rich, usually multilayered, cake that is filled with buttercreams, mousses,
> jams, or fruits"....r
>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>> Information.
> Advice.
Nope. AHD5, at "advice":
2. often *advices* Information communicated; news
"advices from an ambassador"
That got me looking, and Lo!
"Most senses of the word 'information' are uncountable. The legal sense, referring to court filings, is one that does form a plural."
(That should be _certain_ court filings: there is an exact but tedious definition.)
I suspect that a lot of nouns commonly considered uncountable have some specialized use in which they are countable.
> On 19/11/12 7:10 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:
>>> On 2012-11-17 15:41:18 +0000, Whiskers said:
>>>> "Harms" as a plural, jars; but "wrongs" is as well established as
>>>> "rights", and English lawyers are comfortable discussing "torts" and
>>>> "damages".
>>> American lawyers as well, if the novels of John Grisham are to be
>>> believed. (At least, he expects his readers to know what torts are.)
>> "A rich, usually multilayered, cake that is filled with buttercreams,
>> mousses, jams, or fruits"....r
>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>> Information.
> Advice.
I've encountered that one in the plural. Horrible.
"News" looks plural but isn't, and can't be, as far as I can imagine.
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:48:23 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>>> news:3fe07aac-1554-4436-
>a268-21355bd6c...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>>> Information.
>> Advice.
>Nope. AHD5, at "advice":
> 2. often *advices* Information communicated; news
> "advices from an ambassador"
_Advices & Queries_ is a little book to help Quakers stick to their
mission.
>That got me looking, and Lo!
> "Most senses of the word 'information' are uncountable. The legal > sense, referring to court filings, is one that does form a plural."
>(That should be _certain_ court filings: there is an exact but tedious >definition.)
>I suspect that a lot of nouns commonly considered uncountable have some >specialized use in which they are countable.
I was going to suggest that the plasticity of English allows us to
make any noun meaningfully countable because I remembered that we're
told that there are at least seven happinesses if you go to the right
pub. I then checked and was pleasantly surprised to see how many
examples OED has of "merriments"; but "cheerfulness" stoutly kiboshed
my theory.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:48:23 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
> >> Guy Barry wrote:
> >>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> >>> news:3fe07aac-1554-4436-
> >a268-21355bd6c...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
> >>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
> >>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
> >>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> >>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> >>> Information.
> >> Advice.
> >Nope. AHD5, at "advice":
> > 2. often *advices* Information communicated; news
> > "advices from an ambassador"
> _Advices & Queries_ is a little book to help Quakers stick to their
> mission.
> >That got me looking, and Lo!
> > "Most senses of the word 'information' are uncountable. The legal
> > sense, referring to court filings, is one that does form a plural."
> >(That should be _certain_ court filings: there is an exact but tedious
> >definition.)
> >I suspect that a lot of nouns commonly considered uncountable have some
> >specialized use in which they are countable.
> I was going to suggest that the plasticity of English allows us to
> make any noun meaningfully countable because I remembered that we're
> told that there are at least seven happinesses if you go to the right
> pub. I then checked and was pleasantly surprised to see how many
> examples OED has of "merriments"; but "cheerfulness" stoutly kiboshed
> my theory.
Chess, checkers, draughts, mah jongg.
("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
variant.)
>>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>>> Information.
>> Advice.
> I've encountered that one in the plural. Horrible.
> "News" looks plural but isn't, and can't be, as far as I can imagine.
<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 3:23 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:48:23 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>> >> Guy Barry wrote:
>> >>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>> >>> news:3fe07aac-1554-4436-
>> >a268-21355bd6c...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
>> >>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
>> >>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
>> >>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
>> >>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
>> >>> Information.
>> >> Advice.
>> >Nope. AHD5, at "advice":
>> > 2. often *advices* Information communicated; news
>> > "advices from an ambassador"
>> _Advices & Queries_ is a little book to help Quakers stick to their
>> mission.
>> >That got me looking, and Lo!
>> > "Most senses of the word 'information' are uncountable. The legal
>> > sense, referring to court filings, is one that does form a plural."
>> >(That should be _certain_ court filings: there is an exact but tedious
>> >definition.)
>> >I suspect that a lot of nouns commonly considered uncountable have some
>> >specialized use in which they are countable.
>> I was going to suggest that the plasticity of English allows us to
>> make any noun meaningfully countable because I remembered that we're
>> told that there are at least seven happinesses if you go to the right
>> pub. I then checked and was pleasantly surprised to see how many
>> examples OED has of "merriments"; but "cheerfulness" stoutly kiboshed
>> my theory.
>Chess, checkers, draughts, mah jongg.
>("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
>variant.)
That's seriously interesting. We do seem to resist giving plurals to
the names of games, even in cases parallel to those in which we
happily give them to other things which are ordinarily uncountable. I
mean, "coffee" is usually a mass, but we don't mind "coffees" for
"kinds of coffee"; on the other hand, we generally say, e.g., "kinds
of hockey", not *"hockeys".
(In India countable "hockey" means "hockey stick" - not in OED, though
to my surprise it shows the usage from AmE. I think the unrevised
entry for "hockey" is a bit of a mess.)
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 3:23 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> >> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:48:23 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
> >> >> Guy Barry wrote:
> >> >>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> >> >>> news:3fe07aac-1554-4436-
> >> >a268-21355bd6c...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>>> Why would *any* everyday noun jas a plural jar? If you can "harm"
> >> >>>> yourself by (let's say) sleeping around then "the harms might include
> >> >>>> physical and emotional harms, and these might cause..."
> >> >>>> Perfectly normal English, and I challenge you to find an English noun
> >> >>>> that cannot be ordinarily pluralised :)
> >> >>> Information.
> >> >> Advice.
> >> >Nope. AHD5, at "advice":
> >> > 2. often *advices* Information communicated; news
> >> > "advices from an ambassador"
> >> _Advices & Queries_ is a little book to help Quakers stick to their
> >> mission.
> >> >That got me looking, and Lo!
> >> > "Most senses of the word 'information' are uncountable. The legal
> >> > sense, referring to court filings, is one that does form a plural."
> >> >(That should be _certain_ court filings: there is an exact but tedious
> >> >definition.)
> >> >I suspect that a lot of nouns commonly considered uncountable have some
> >> >specialized use in which they are countable.
> >> I was going to suggest that the plasticity of English allows us to
> >> make any noun meaningfully countable because I remembered that we're
> >> told that there are at least seven happinesses if you go to the right
> >> pub. I then checked and was pleasantly surprised to see how many
> >> examples OED has of "merriments"; but "cheerfulness" stoutly kiboshed
> >> my theory.
> >Chess,
"By thys deuise it was broughte aboute that
the chylde wythin a fewe days playing, had perfitely
lerned to know & sound all hys letters whych ye cõmõ [common]
sort of teachers be scarse able to brynge to passe in
thre whole yeres whyth their beatynges threatyngs, and
brawlynges. Yet do not I alowe the diligence of some
to [too?] painful, whych drawe out these thyngs by playinge
at *chesses* or dyce. For when the playes them selues
passe the capacitie of chyldren, how shal they lerne
the letters by them?"
Erasmus, /The Education of Children/, translated by Richard Sherry
(presumably), 1550
> >("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
> >variant.)
> That's seriously interesting. We do seem to resist giving plurals to
> the names of games, even in cases parallel to those in which we
> happily give them to other things which are ordinarily uncountable. I
> mean, "coffee" is usually a mass, but we don't mind "coffees" for
> "kinds of coffee"; on the other hand, we generally say, e.g., "kinds
> of hockey", not *"hockeys".
Good point. I thought the final /s/ sounds might have something to do
with it too, but not for "hockey".
Is the plural of "football", in your two countries, "codes"?
> (In India countable "hockey" means "hockey stick" - not in OED, though
> to my surprise it shows the usage from AmE. I think the unrevised
> entry for "hockey" is a bit of a mess.)
I've never heard "hockey" for "hockey stick" here, though it's not
like I've played or watched much.
Nothing for "omnisciences", though. That seems to be a good site for
citations of rare plurals and such, though most of the hits on
"chesses" were typos for "cheeses". I guess it's not "curated".
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[nouns that can't be pluralized]
> >Chess, checkers, draughts, mah jongg.
> >("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
> >variant.)
Do we normally pluralize nouns that are already morphologically plural?
> That's seriously interesting. We do seem to resist giving plurals to
> the names of games, even in cases parallel to those in which we
> happily give them to other things which are ordinarily uncountable.
In what context would you need a plural for "chess"? Normally there's only one type of chess under consideration. I suppose there's also Chinese chess, so I suppose you might theoretically refer to western chess and Chinese chess as "chesses"; but I can't see that the term would be needed that often. Certainly with "mah jongg" I can't think of any context where you'd need a plural.
> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 3:23 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:44:41 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>>> Chess,
> "By thys deuise it was broughte aboute that
> the chylde wythin a fewe days playing, had perfitely
> lerned to know & sound all hys letters whych ye cõmõ [common]
> sort of teachers be scarse able to brynge to passe in
> thre whole yeres whyth their beatynges threatyngs, and
> brawlynges. Yet do not I alowe the diligence of some
> to [too?] painful, whych drawe out these thyngs by playinge
> at *chesses* or dyce. For when the playes them selues
> passe the capacitie of chyldren, how shal they lerne
> the letters by them?"
> Erasmus, /The Education of Children/, translated by Richard Sherry
> (presumably), 1550
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28338/28338-8.txt > Apparently "chesses" means
> "Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
> "A species of peony, /Pœonia officinalis/, naturalized in England."
> "GNU Webster's 1913
> n. The platforms, consisting of two or more planks doweled together,
> for the flooring of a temporary military bridge.
> http://www.wordnik.com/words/chesses
French influence? [Jeu d']échecs. In the past, the "c" in the French word was silent; if the "s" was pronounced (as it was 'way back), then viola: le chess.
> I'm not sure any of these are counterexamples.
>>> checkers, draughts, mah jongg.
>>> ("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
>>> variant.)
>> That's seriously interesting. We do seem to resist giving plurals to
>> the names of games, even in cases parallel to those in which we
>> happily give them to other things which are ordinarily uncountable. I
>> mean, "coffee" is usually a mass, but we don't mind "coffees" for
>> "kinds of coffee"; on the other hand, we generally say, e.g., "kinds
>> of hockey", not *"hockeys".
> Good point. I thought the final /s/ sounds might have something to do
> with it too, but not for "hockey".
> Is the plural of "football", in your two countries, "codes"?
>> (In India countable "hockey" means "hockey stick" - not in OED, though
>> to my surprise it shows the usage from AmE. I think the unrevised
>> entry for "hockey" is a bit of a mess.)
The games may take their name from OF "hoquet" (orig. Germanic), a shepherd's crook. Atilf is doubtful, but in India they might not care about that.
> I've never heard "hockey" for "hockey stick" here, though it's not
> like I've played or watched much.
> Nothing for "omnisciences", though. That seems to be a good site for
> citations of rare plurals and such, though most of the hits on
> "chesses" were typos for "cheeses". I guess it's not "curated".
As for "nonsenses", I've only seen it here, and recently, but the equally countable "a nonsense" is well attested, here and elswewhere.
> > "Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
> > "A species of peony, /Pœonia officinalis/, naturalized in England."
> "GNU Webster's 1913
> > n. The platforms, consisting of two or more planks doweled together,
> > for the flooring of a temporary military bridge.
> > http://www.wordnik.com/words/chesses
> > Nothing for "omnisciences", though. That seems to be a good site for
> > citations of rare plurals and such, though most of the hits on
> > "chesses" were typos for "cheeses". I guess it's not "curated".
Ah, Wordnik. The only occasions on which Wordnik has previously come up for me in the search results have been when a spelling was an obvious error ("foresquare" for "foursquare" and "cohese" for "cohere"). I presume it compiles its list automatically. I tend to treat it with caution.
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> > <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [nouns that can't be pluralized]
> > >Chess, checkers, draughts, mah jongg.
> > >("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
> > >variant.)
> Do we normally pluralize nouns that are already morphologically plural?
Nope. That's one of the things I was pointing out. However, a lot of
nouns that are morphologically plural are sometimes taken as
plural--"politics", "mathematics", etc.--and these were examples that
are definitely singular.
> > That's seriously interesting. We do seem to resist giving plurals to
> > the names of games, even in cases parallel to those in which we
> > happily give them to other things which are ordinarily uncountable.
> In what context would you need a plural for "chess"? Normally there's only
> one type of chess under consideration. I suppose there's also Chinese
> chess,
And Japanese (shogi).
> so I suppose you might theoretically refer to western chess and
> Chinese chess as "chesses"; but I can't see that the term would be needed
> that often.
There are lots of variants of chess, but people usually refer to them
as variants. Anyway, the question was about nouns that can't be
pluralized, not nouns whose plurals aren't needed that often.
> Certainly with "mah jongg" I can't think of any context where
> you'd need a plural.
I've read that in China there are many variants of the game. Probably
there are others elsewhere in the "Sinosphere".
