Is the word "E-mail" countable?
Takuji Shimada
I'm wondering whether the word "E-mail" countable or not. For instance,
can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also
uncountable.
Also, which is the correct spelling, E-mail, e-mail, or email? I have
seen all of them and I've got a feeling that "E-mail" is the most formal.
Can anyone tell me?
Martin A. Mazur
In article <tshimada-100...@ppp004omy.tky.threewebnet.or.jp>,
tshi...@tky.threewebnet.or.jp (Takuji Shimada) wrote:
>
>I'm wondering whether the word "E-mail" countable or not. For instance,
>can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
>Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also
>uncountable.
>
"mail" in this regard. I have heard "I have received a lot of e-mail (not
"emails") on this subject". I have also heard "Send me an e-mail about that
meeting" or "I just got 5 e-mails on that presentation you made!"
>Also, which is the correct spelling, E-mail, e-mail, or email? I have
>seen all of them and I've got a feeling that "E-mail" is the most formal.
>
considered most formal. I think this has been covered recently, but I did't
follow that thread. It is not covered in the FAQ as a topic, but Mark
Israel, the author of the FAQ, uses "e-mail" in the FAQ. If I have to get
really formal (e.g. if I have to reference it in a paper), I say
"correspondence".
--
Martin A. Mazur | 2nd Century thoughts on MTV:
The Applied Research Laboratory | "There is no public entertainment which
The Pennsylvania State University | does not inflict spiritual damage"
| - Tertullian
Joseph C Fineman
tshi...@tky.threewebnet.or.jp (Takuji Shimada) writes:
>I'm wondering whether the word "E-mail" countable or not. For instance,
>can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
>Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also
>uncountable.
So I would suppose too, but the majority seems to have come down on
the side of making e-mail countable rather than coin what seems to me
the obvious word for a piece of e-mail: "e-letter".
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
495 Pleasant St., #1 (617) 324-6899
Malden, MA 02148
DT Friedman
Many Japanese people, in my experience, like to use it as a countable noun.
They shouldn't do so, just as we do not use "snail mail" as a countable noun.
One might create a neologism, like "e-letter/s," and use it countably.
Lee S. Bumgarner
> >can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
> >Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also
> >uncountable.
> So I would suppose too, but the majority seems to have come down on
> the side of making e-mail countable rather than coin what seems to me
> the obvious word for a piece of e-mail: "e-letter".
In this case, "e-mail" _means_ "e-letter." It's just a shift in the
language er something.
-l
---
----> Undertoad<---
http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/
"God is a concept / by which we measure our pain." -John Lennon
"Klaatu barada nictow"
Joseph C Fineman
bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S. Bumgarner) writes:
>In this case, "e-mail" _means_ "e-letter." It's just a shift in the
>language er something.
I dare say; but why has it happened only for the compound? No one
says "I got three mails from my sweetie yesterday".
Rich Veraa
In article <Dr7MD...@world.std.com>,
j...@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) wrote:
>>I'm wondering whether the word "E-mail" countable or not. For instance,
>>can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
>>Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also uncountable.
>So I would suppose too, but the majority seems to have come down on
>the side of making e-mail countable rather than coin what seems to me
>the obvious word for a piece of e-mail: "e-letter".
The plural I've heard most commonly is "e-mail messages." That might be
because the people around me fear that if I hear them say "e-mails" I'll
defenestrate 'em.
Cheers,
Rich
Have you kissed your parrot today? 0
rve...@netside.net rve...@newssun.med.miami.edu ///{|}\\\
http://www.netside.net/~rveraa FIDONET (1:135/907) /|\
GE/L/FA H+>+++ g+ w+ v+@ C+++ OS/2 Y++ b+++ e+++ u** r++(---)>+++ y+>+++
Ken West
In article <tshimada-100...@ppp004omy.tky.threewebnet.or.jp>,
tshi...@tky.threewebnet.or.jp (Takuji Shimada) wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the word "E-mail" countable or not. For instance,
> can I say "I received three E-mails" or "I received a lot of emails"?
> Since the word "mail" is uncountale, I assume "E-mail" is also
> uncountable.
>
> Also, which is the correct spelling, E-mail, e-mail, or email? I have
> seen all of them and I've got a feeling that "E-mail" is the most formal.
>
> Can anyone tell me?
There is no reason to capitalize, and the hyphen makes sense since we're
talking about joined words.
regards,
Ken West
Donnie Lee Waters
>I dare say; but why has it happened only for the compound? No one
>says "I got three mails from my sweetie yesterday".
"I got two mails yesterday." English was his first language, so it wasn't a
translation mistake either.
DLW
Colin Fine
In article <144362287...@fca.cyber.ad.jp>, DT Friedman <dfriedman
%tut...@fca.cyber.ad.jp> writes
>Many Japanese people, in my experience, like to use it as a countable noun.
>They shouldn't do so, just as we do not use "snail mail" as a countable noun.
>One might create a neologism, like "e-letter/s," and use it countably.
But plurals are generally optional in Japanese, so the English habits of
Japanese speakers are probably not indicative of very much in this area.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Colin Fine 33 Pemberton Drive, Bradford, W Yorks. BD7 1RA, UK |
| Tel: 01274 733680 e-mail: co...@kindness.demon.co.uk |
| God gave me eyes so that I could see you, |
| and gave you eyes so that I could see myself" -K.B.Brown|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Gould
In article <177889A39S...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
Did your Indian friend also refer to "informations"? I've come across this
usage with several Indian acquaintances in the UK over the years.
Given that mail is usually meant to impart information, maybe there's a link.
--
William Gould |===== Gweddw crefft heb ei dawn=========|
Reference-book Writer & Editor | (Bereft is craft with no inborn gift) |
+44 (0)181 650 4284 |==================== university motto ==|
wil...@harmony.demon.co.uk | 30 Eden Park Avenue, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3HN
Donnie Lee Waters
In article <832242...@harmony.demon.co.uk>
William Gould <wil...@harmony.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Did your Indian friend also refer to "informations"? I've come across this
>usage with several Indian acquaintances in the UK over the years.
interesting thing I noticed about his speech was the way he stressed reflexive
pronouns when used for emphasis.
e.g. I would say, "I ate it mySELF."
He would say "I ate it MYself."
Any comments?
DLW
Robert Gurfinkel
According to my Math book, "e-mail" is countable if it can be put into
a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.
Matthew Rabuzzi
Donnie Lee Waters <DLWA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
: William Gould <wil...@harmony.demon.co.uk> writes:
:
: >Did your Indian friend also refer to "informations"? I've come across this
: >usage with several Indian acquaintances in the UK over the years.
:
: I don't remember that he did, but he often spoke of "candies."
Well, that is after all also a Hindi word (I don't know how Hindi produces
plurals, though).
.............................................................
Theriatrics: the treatment of old hoofers
Matthew Rabuzzi
Gareth Rees
bob...@ix.netcom.com(Robert Gurfinkel ) wrote:
> According to my Math book, "e-mail" is countable if it can be put into
> a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.
Your mathematics book is wrong, or you are misreading it. A set is
countable if it can be put in a one-to-one correspondence with a
*subset* of the natural numbers.
If a set can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of
natural numbers it is *countably infinite* in addition to being
countable.
Followups to sci.math.
--
Gareth Rees
Berna SLIKKER
rve...@netside.net (Rich Veraa) wrote:
[...]
>The plural I've heard most commonly is "e-mail messages." That might be
>because the people around me fear that if I hear them say "e-mails" I'll
>defenestrate 'em.
You'll remove Windows from their system? ;-)
-
Berna Slikker bsli...@bart.nl -- http://www.bart.nl/~bslikker
Please correct any errors in this post.
Tom Heathcote
[ Article crossposted from sci.math ]
[ Author was Tom Heathcote ]
[ Posted on 23 May 1996 01:25:59 GMT ]
Gareth Rees (gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Followups to sci.math.
: --
: Gareth Rees
On the contrary, Robert's maths book is quite correct. A set is indeed
countable if it can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondance with the set of
natural numbers. (Notice that Robert said "if" and not "only if".)
It is true that this also makes it countably infinite. However every
countably infinite set is also countable. (This follows from your own
definition, since the set of natural numbers, like every other set, is
a subset of itself).
The way that I would state it is:
A set is countable if and only if there exists a bijection between it
and a subset of the natural numbers.
A set is finite if and only if there exists a bijection between it and
a bounded subset of the natural numbers.
A countably infinite set is simply one that is countable and not finite.
Of course this is the same as saying that there exists a bijection between
it and the set of natural numbers.
Tom Heathcote.
K. Edgcombe
In article <4o0f5h$j...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>,
Tom Heathcote <t...@sna.co.umist.ac.uk> wrote:
>[ Article crossposted from sci.math ]
>[ Author was Tom Heathcote ]
>[ Posted on 23 May 1996 01:25:59 GMT ]
>
>Gareth Rees (gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: bob...@ix.netcom.com(Robert Gurfinkel ) wrote:
>: > According to my Math book, "e-mail" is countable if it can be put into
>: > a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers.
>
>
>A set is countable if and only if there exists a bijection between it
>and a subset of the natural numbers.
>
>A set is finite if and only if there exists a bijection between it and
>a bounded subset of the natural numbers.
>
>A countably infinite set is simply one that is countable and not finite.
>Of course this is the same as saying that there exists a bijection between
>it and the set of natural numbers.
subsets of the natural numbers, and the bijection might be to one of these. It
would of course be straightforward to convert this to the bijection you want.
Are we a tiny bit off-topic here?
Katy
Polar
I just want to know what is a "bijection"!
Polar
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed to
s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) who on Thu, 23 May 1996
19:40:14 GMT wrote:
>I just want to know what is a "bijection"!
I wonder too.
From Latin "iacere", to throw.
A very productive root:
in jection throw in
e jection throw out
ab ject throw away
re jection throw again
de jection throw down
pro jection throw forth
ob jection throw against
sub jection throw under
AHD3 lacks "bijection". Is there a "trijection"?
I suspect "bijection" means "throw between" but could mean
"twice thrown" or "thrown to both".
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
Martin A. Mazur
In article <4o4adb$n...@cronkite.polaristel.net>,
mathematics. It has a very precise meaning, but in terms of your suspicions
it is probably closest to "thrown to both".
In mathematics, there are objects of study called "functions". A function f is
a rule which assigns to each member of one set X (called the "domain" of f) a
member of another set Y. (A set is an abstract object containing "elements".
For our purposes, we can consider a set to be a collection of numbers). The
"range" R of a function is a subset of Y consisting of all the members of Y
that are assigned by f to members of X (another usage: "f maps X _into_ R"). A
function is an "injection" if every member of R corresponds to only one member
of X (another usage: "f is a _one-to-one_ function of X into R" ). If the
range R consists of all of Y, then f is a "surjection" ("f maps X _onto_ Y").
If a function is both an injection and a surjection (both "one-to-one" and
"onto", in another usage), then it is a "bijection". Thus a bijection is a
rule that assigns to every member of the domain X a unique member of the range
R, and the the range exhausts Y. One way to see why a bijective f is "thrown
to both" is that for bijections, an "inverse function" (say, "g") can be
defined that assigns to each member of Y a unique member of X such that if "a"
is a member of X, then g(f(a)) = a. (g acting on the result of f acting on "a"
is "a"). There is no technical mathematical term "trijection" that I know of.
I could give examples of all this to interested parties by e-mail.
Lee Rudolph
Ode...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) writes:
>>I just want to know what is a "bijection"!
>
>I wonder too.
Wonder no longer: it's a "one-to-one correspondence".
The systematic French, in the avatar of "N. Bourbaki", coined
"bijection" and "surjection" to accompany "injection"; English-
speaking mathematicians glommed onto the words (changing the
pronunciation of course, but not the spelling) because, well,
French mathematics is so prestigious (why, Lacan has even
written a monograph on knot theory!), and--let's face it--there's
something nice about this particular bit of systematization:
the triple that "injection/surjection/bijection" replaced was
"one-to-one function/onto function/one-to-one correspondence",
which was not only ugly but highly imperspicuous.
Here's the definition from the horse's mouth (Dieudonn\'e,
_Foundations of Modern Analysis_; his own English, though
he was French and a member of "Bourbaki"):
Let F be a mapping of X into Y. F is called _surjective_ (or _onto_)
or a _surjection_ if F(X) = Y , i.e., if for every y \in Y, there is
(at least) one x \in X such that y = F(x). F is called _injective_
(or _one-to-one_) or an _injection_ if the relation F(x) = F(x')
implies x = x'. F is called _bijective_ (or a _bijection_) if it
is both injective and surjective.
Some people (not me) might say "monic/epic/iso" for
"injective/surjective/bijective" (in some contexts),
and/or "monomorphism/epimorphism/isomorphism" for
"injection/surjection/bijection".
Lee Rudolph
Mathematics is the opiate of the Jargonmeister!
Bob Cunningham
Ode...@ptel.net (Mark Odegard) wrote:
>Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed to
>s.m...@ix.netcom.com (Polar) who on Thu, 23 May 1996
>19:40:14 GMT wrote:
>
>>I just want to know what is a "bijection"!
>
>I wonder too.
>
[...]
>AHD3 lacks "bijection". Is there a "trijection"?
The Random House Second Unabridged says "bijection" is a
mathematics term meaning a mapping that is one-to-one and onto.
"Onto" (also called "surjective") describes a mapping from one set to
another whose range is the entire second set.
No "trijection". There are botanical terms "bijugate" and
"trijugate".
Lee Rudolph
m...@arlvax.arl.psu.edu (Martin A. Mazur) writes:
>If a function is both an injection and a surjection (both "one-to-one" and
>"onto", in another usage), then it is a "bijection".
...
>One way to see why a bijective f is "thrown
>to both"
...
I suspect that it's the double nature of a bijection (both an injection
and a surjection; both a floor wax and a dessert topping) that caused
"Bourbaki" to choose that name, and not anything about being "thrown
to both" its domain and its range.
Another possibility (which in some sense supports the "thrown to
both" idea) is that "Bourbaki" had, in the back of its group mind
or on the tip of its group tongue, the older French mathematical
adjective for "one-to-one and onto", namely, "biunivoque"
("application biunivoque"="one-to-one correspondence");
there, I guess, the "bi" does mean to indicate that the
uniqueness goes both ways, and so when coining the new word
"Bourbaki" might have wanted to echo that syllable from
the old word for that reason.
But the "throwing" metaphor is buried very deep in
the coinages of "surjection" and "bijection", for
the "-jection" has (as I said in another post)
been taken from "injection", and I refuse to believe
that even the French have much of an image of throwing
in their minds when they use the noun "injection"
or the verb "injecter".
Lee Rudolph