Homer nods

[Guy Barry]

From Eric Walker's defence of prescriptivism at
http://owlcroft.com/english/prescrip.shtml :

" In general, the great barrier to any serious consideration of the
descriptivist ideology is this: the descriptivist cannot set forth one
single harm that would befall from anyone, or everyone, punctiliously
speaking and writing 100% textbook-correct English. "

Fused participle, Eric?

--
Guy Barry

[Eric Walker]

Looks like. I scarcely class myself a "Homer" of language use, or
anything, but it does demonstrate that it is easy for even the diligent
to fall into error. The thing really wants recasting for felicity, but I
am not going to bother here and now.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:32:58 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:32:58 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

[Eric Walker]

It also looks like my usenet software had the hiccups there.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[mrucb...@att.net]

not to mention the trend to count generally non-countable mass nouns

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k83v5g$ebv$1...@dont-email.me...

I was actually slightly thrown by the intransitive use of "befall", as I'm
used to seeing it as a transitive; but it appears to be used both ways. Of
course "...cannot set forth one single harm that would befall anyone
punctiliously speaking and writing..." is fine, because it's a true
participle; but the meaning is different.

I'd probably recast it as "...one single harm that would arise if anyone, or
everyone, punctiliously spoke and wrote...". (Unlike you, I don't regard
fused participles as incorrect, merely ugly things that should be avoided
whenever possible.)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k844qh$h57$1...@dont-email.me...

> It also looks like my usenet software had the hiccups there.

"Like" as a conjunction? (And meaning "as if" rather than "as"?) Or is
this use considered acceptable in "correct" AmE?

--
Guy Barry

[Eric Walker]

Ah, again: haste, waste.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:38:19 -0800, mrucbeadco wrote:

> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:32:56 AM UTC-6, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> From Eric Walker's defence of prescriptivism at
>>
>> http://owlcroft.com/english/prescrip.shtml :
>>
>> " In general, the great barrier to any serious consideration of the
>> descriptivist ideology is this: the descriptivist cannot set forth one
>> single harm that would befall from anyone, or everyone, punctiliously
>> speaking and writing 100% textbook-correct English. "
>>
>> Fused participle, Eric?
>

> not to mention the trend to count generally non-countable mass nouns

If you mean "harm", you might want to reconsider.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[mrucb...@att.net]

yes and no

[mrucb...@att.net]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harm?view=uk

[tony cooper]

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.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Guy Barry]

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:dtlca8p11gcu4ivgt...@4ax.com...

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.

--
Guy Barry

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:33:05 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

> "tony cooper" wrote in message
> news:dtlca8p11gcu4ivgt...@4ax.com...

[...]

>> 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, the less prudent I tend to be in
proofing before clicking "post".


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 03:10:22 -0800, mrucbeadco wrote:

[...]

> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harm?view=uk

Pfui.

Finding examples via Google is a pain in the ass owing to the
astonishingly (to me) vast number of people named "Harms", plus the many
verb uses, but here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation

http://neurobonkers.com/2012/08/06/the-largest-ever-study-in-to-drug-
harms-places-alcohol-in-the-top-four/

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1183217

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22632908

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%
2960954-4/fulltext

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%
2961611-0/abstract

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252189.php

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/9/1/16 [PDF]

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=740046

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/smart-growth-working-families/harms-big-
box-retail

As the King of Siam reportedly was wont to observe, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k86lfd$qj5$6...@dont-email.me...

Homer is clearly nodding rather a lot at the moment, then. The "that"
before "I post" appears to be redundant. (Although there was some dispute
about this when I raised the issue fairly recently.)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k86m4v$qj5$7...@dont-email.me...

["harm" as count noun]

> Finding examples via Google is a pain in the ass owing to the
> astonishingly (to me) vast number of people named "Harms", plus the many
> verb uses, but here:

[examples snipped]

They seem to be taken entirely from medical journals. Is it a specialized
term? I don't recall hearing "harm" used this way in general usage.

--
Guy Barry

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:32:12 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:

> "Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k86lfd$qj5$6...@dont-email.me...

[...]

>> Consider the title of the thread. The later at night--or, in most
>> cases, later in the early morning--that I post, the less prudent I tend
>> to be in proofing before clicking "post".
>
> Homer is clearly nodding rather a lot at the moment, then. The "that"
> before "I post" appears to be redundant. (Although there was some
> dispute about this when I raised the issue fairly recently.)

Optional, I think, not redundant; that is, it is (I think) required, but
readily (and commonly) elided.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

First, one at least was not medical. But yes, I noticed that; I suspect
that it is more common in technical uses ("harms" in technical use would
be most likely in medical material), but that in non-technical contexts
it is normal enough but no longer frequent.

I am unable to supply particulars, but I am confident that I have
encountered it in ordinary English prose frequently enough that I find it
not at all extraordinary; but that's anecdotal evidence.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[mrucb...@att.net]

The point was not about whether it is a <possible> usage. If you won't accept what the Oxford Dictionary says about how it is <normally> used, then you won't see the point anyway. Your attention is often given to provide a prescriptivist's 'correct' usage example or statement, which I think you normally defend reasonably. But, to my ear a lot of your examples sound contorted, infelicitous, and strange. As far as climbing trees, it just sounds like you are out on a limb with exercises in 'correctness' that miss the mark for sounding natural, intuitive, and clear. Your examples are often illustrative and useful and textbook correct. They are also often in the sufferability range of the 'fingernails on chalkboard' you experience with substandard usage, but for different reasons. So, mileage and opinions vary. Good Day...

[Whiskers]

"Harms" as a plural, jars; but "wrongs" is as well established as "rights",
and English lawyers are comfortable discussing "torts" and "damages".

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Harrison Hill]

On Nov 17, 3:44 pm, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-11-17, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:37:51 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>

> >> "Eric Walker"  wrote in messagenews:k86m4v$qj5$7...@dont-email.me...

>
> >> ["harm" as count noun]
> >>> Finding examples via Google is a pain in the ass owing to the
> >>> astonishingly (to me) vast number of people named "Harms", plus the
> >>> many verb uses, but here:
>
> >> [examples snipped]
>
> >> They seem to be taken entirely from medical journals.  Is it a
> >> specialized term?  I don't recall hearing "harm" used this way in
> >> general usage.
>
> > First, one at least was not medical.  But yes, I noticed that; I suspect
> > that it is more common in technical uses ("harms" in technical use would
> > be most likely in medical material), but that in non-technical contexts
> > it is normal enough but no longer frequent.
>
> > I am unable to supply particulars, but I am confident that I have
> > encountered it in ordinary English prose frequently enough that I find it
> > not at all extraordinary; but that's anecdotal evidence.
>
> "Harms" as a plural, jars

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 :)

[Whiskers]

If you read the rest of my comment, I think you'll understand that I do not
proscribe the usage, and I can understand it; but still, it jars.

The on-line OED admits the plural form, and quotes inter alia Wycliff and
Longfellow. So those who use it are not without respectable company. But
I don't think I shall join them.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:45:41 -0800, mrucbeadco wrote:

[...]

> The point was not about whether it is a <possible> usage. If you won't
> accept what the Oxford Dictionary says about how it is <normally> used,
> then you won't see the point anyway. Your attention is often given to
> provide a prescriptivist's 'correct' usage example or statement, which I
> think you normally defend reasonably. But, to my ear a lot of your
> examples sound contorted, infelicitous, and strange. As far as
> climbing trees, it just sounds like you are out on a limb with exercises
> in 'correctness' that miss the mark for sounding natural, intuitive, and
> clear. Your examples are often illustrative and useful and textbook
> correct. They are also often in the sufferability range of the
> 'fingernails on chalkboard' you experience with substandard usage, but
> for different reasons. So, mileage and opinions vary. Good Day...

Your most interesting and important opinions have now been duly noted.

En passant, the "Oxford Dictionary" I refer to on occasion is the
unabridged "Oxford English Dictionary", which at "harm" gives 1.b:

With (a) ["Evil (physical or otherwise) as done to or suffered by some
person or thing; hurt, injury, damage, mischief"] and plural.

Included in the examples thereunder is the rather explicit enumerated
plural "They from your harvests keep a hundred harms."

Good night and good luck.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
news:3fe07aac-1554-4436...@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.

--
Guy Barry

[mrucb...@att.net]

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.

[mrucb...@att.net]

yes , varies -vary ... my misteak

[Guy Barry]

mrucbeadco wrote in message
news:06fb4e92-af43-4bf1...@googlegroups.com...

> 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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-11-17 00:24:14 +0000, Eric Walker said:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:33:05 +0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" wrote in message
>> news:dtlca8p11gcu4ivgt...@4ax.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>> 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".


--

athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

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.)




--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It's pluralized all the time in English written by French or Spanish speakers!

> Anything wrong with that?


--

athel

[mrucb...@att.net]

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.

[R H Draney]

Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:

"A rich, usually multilayered, cake that is filled with buttercreams, mousses,
jams, or fruits"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Eric Walker]

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.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Robert Bannister]

Do the French use it any other way?

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Not to be bandied about in a courtroom.

--
Robert Bannister

[James Hogg]

Advice.

--
James

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:48:23 +0100, James Hogg wrote:

> Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message

>> news:3fe07aac-1554-4436-
a268-213...@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"

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.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Whiskers]

Is that what Morton's fork is used for?

[Whiskers]

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.

[Mike L]

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-
>a268-213...@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.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

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...

Chess, checkers, draughts, mah jongg.

("Checkerses" seems to be a proprietary name for a checkers/draughts
variant.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

I think you'll find it used to be.

--
Robert Bannister

[Mike L]

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.)

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

"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

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.)

I've never heard "hockey" for "hockey stick" here, though it's not
like I've played or watched much.

I was disappointed to find four citations at

http://www.wordnik.com/words/omnipotences

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".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Guy Barry]

"Mike L" wrote in message
news:povna810kc9qoq1mf...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:50:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@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.

--
Guy Barry

[CDB]

On 20/11/2012 6:08 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> 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
>>

[plurals are hard]

>>> 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.
>
> I was disappointed to find four citations at
>
> http://www.wordnik.com/words/omnipotences
>
> 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.

[Guy Barry]

"CDB" wrote in message news:k8ihp5$od3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 20/11/2012 6:08 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > 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

[...]

> > http://www.wordnik.com/words/omnipotences
>
> > 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.

--
Guy Barry

[Jerry Friedman]

On Nov 20, 9:15 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mike L"  wrote in message
>
> news:povna810kc9qoq1mf...@4ax.com...
>
> > 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".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Guy Barry]

"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:0dd313d3-a7d1-4ea4...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 20, 9:15 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > 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.

There was a long thread about this a couple of months ago. Did you miss it?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_thread/thread/829f4bc5ba103e3/

My dictionary gives both "draughts" and "checkers" as "plural but singular
in construction", which to me is nonsensical - if they're singular both in
semantics (the name of a game) and in syntax (takes a singular verb), then
they're singular, irrespective of the morphology. However I agree that they
can't form a plural in the usual fashion (similarly with "politics",
"economics" etc.). I wonder whether that's part of the reasoning behind the
"plural but singular in construction" tag.

--
Guy Barry

[Robert Bannister]

There are quite a lot of different ways of playing mah jong so I suppose
they are mjs.

--
Robert Bannister