Data is or data are?
Pan
Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are" - though
gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
is." I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard, just as it
seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
Richard Fontana
> Well, folks, the semester just started for another Freshman
> Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
> getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
>
> The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
> plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are" - though
> gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
> is." I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard, just as it
> seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
>
> Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
> majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
I like "data is". I think "data are" now sounds stilted, and sounded
stilted 25 years ago too.
Don Fleming
I agree. "Data" is a collection of information, referred to in the
singular sense, much like the word "group." My example: "We as a group
are studying the effects of using Usenet posts to gather information.
The data is then compiled in an attempt to reach a conclusive result.
The group is split on the final result, however. While this may seem
an everyday, mundane task, it is, nonetheless, a situation that many
people encounter every day."
Wordy, yes, but I hope it helps.
Til next time,
Don
-- I'm pretty certain I think that...
Franke
Pan wrote:
> Well, folks, the semester just started for another Freshman
> Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
> getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
>
> The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
> plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are"
I always treat it as plural.
> - though
> gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
> is."
There is no point in penalizing students for doing what most
folks in the real world do and get off scot free doing. My wife
insists that I tell my son to stop saying "shit" and that I stop
saying it myself. I thought it was pointless, but I went along.
whenever we are all watching a movie in English, there is
invariably someone who says "shit" and my son invariably
points it out by asking "Daddy, did he say 'shit'?" And I
of course have to say yes.
> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> acceptable,
No, it isn't. It is simply that more and more people who
don't know the difference between "data are" and "data is"
are using "data is". It will never be acceptable, just
predominant.
> and will probably shortly become standard,
Yes, that's true. That's a better word than "acceptable".
> just as it
> seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
"alright" is already standard.
> Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
> majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
Don't bother beating your head against the wall. Use "data are" in your
own writing and speech if you want and let the rest of the world use
"data is" in your classes because they will when they get out anyway.
Majorities are tyrannical and nonconformists are usually despised.
Learn to love it in public and retch in private. What else can you
do?
perchprism
"Pan" <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:3c53b29c...@news.erols.com...
> Well, folks, the semester just started for another Freshman
> Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
> getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
>
> The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
> plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are" - though
> gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
> is." I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard, just as it
> seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
>
> Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
> majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
Would you recommend "how many data have you recorded" over "how much data
have you recorded"?
I know perfectly well that "data" is a plural form, but I usually construe
it as singular. That dead horse has left the barn long since, and one
proclaims oneself a fossil insisting on "data are" in all cases. I can
imagine a case where "are" would be better than "is," such as when referring
to a subset of data ("data sixteen through twenty-four are suspect"), but
you could only put it that way if you thought of the word as plural, and few
now do. You'd love my lab reports--I'd mix the two.
Scientists might have a different preference. I speak only of ordinary
English.
("Everyday" is ignorant, and it's a wonder "alright" isn't already a word.)
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Linda V
> > I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> > acceptable,
Franke wrote
> No, it isn't. It is simply that more and more people who
> don't know the difference between "data are" and "data is"
> are using "data is". It will never be acceptable, just
> predominant.
>
> > and will probably shortly become standard,
>
> Yes, that's true. That's a better word than "acceptable".
Why don't you don't accept Pan's use of "acceptable"?
Bun Mui
> Data is or data are?
>
> From: panNO...@musician.org (Pan)
> Reply to: [1]Pan
> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:00:41 GMT
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.usage.english
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup
>Well, folks, the semester just started for another Freshman
>Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
>getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
>
>The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
>plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are" - though
>gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
>is." I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard, just as it
>seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
>
>Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
>majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
They want to think that their "data is" the best among others and is
second to none,.
Bun Mui
Franke
Linda V wrote:
Because I don't find the usage acceptable even though
it is the new standard. When SONY Beta-max lost
the VCR wars to VHS, the latter became the new
standard, but it still isn't acceptable; it's just all that is
available.
Linda V
> > > > I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> > > > acceptable,
> >
> > Franke wrote
> > > No, it isn't. It is simply that more and more people who
> > > don't know the difference between "data are" and "data is"
> > > are using "data is". It will never be acceptable, just
> > > predominant.
> > >
> > > > and will probably shortly become standard,
> > >
> > > Yes, that's true. That's a better word than "acceptable".
> >
> > Why don't you don't accept Pan's use of "acceptable"?
>
> Because I don't find the usage acceptable even though
> it is the new standard. When SONY Beta-max lost
> the VCR wars to VHS, the latter became the new
> standard, but it still isn't acceptable; it's just all that is
> available.
So you only call something acceptable when it fits your personal standard,
when you personally accept it?
Pan
wrote:
>Would you recommend "how many data have you recorded" over "how much data
>have you recorded"?
[snip]
How much data.
So far, "data is" is a clear winner here.
Pan
[snip]
>"alright" is already standard.
[snip]
I'd like to see documentary evidence for that - some authoritative
reference. As far as I know, "alright" is not a word; if it is, I have
to stop making people write "all right," as I learned to do in
elementary school.
Thanks for your response.
Mark Brader
> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'"
m...@vex.net | -- Jeff Goldberg
Skitt
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:42:22 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >"alright" is already standard.
> [snip]
>
> I'd like to see documentary evidence for that - some authoritative
> reference. As far as I know, "alright" is not a word; if it is, I have
> to stop making people write "all right," as I learned to do in
> elementary school.
>
> Thanks for your response.
There are different views on this:
MWCD10:
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right
itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th
century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its
defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in
common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite
common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the
first two years of medical school were alright -- Gertrude Stein>.
AHD4 has:
Usage Note: Despite the appearance of the form alright in works of such
well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word
spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since
similar fusions such as already and altogether have never raised any
objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether
became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright has only been
around for a little more than a century and was called out by language
critics as a misspelling. Consequently, one who uses alright, especially in
formal writing, runs the risk that readers may view it as an error or as the
willful breaking of convention.
Let's say that it is common usage, except perhaps in formal writing. Wait
another century, and it will be good for that also.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Pan
wrote:
>"Michael" writes:
>> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard...
>
>I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
Meaning what? That the battle is over and the war is lost?
Mark Brader
>>> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>>> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard...
>>
>> I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
>
> Meaning what? That the battle is over and the war is lost?
Well, "lost" if you're still on the losing side, yes.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Constrain your data early and often."
m...@vex.net -- C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:42:22 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >"alright" is already standard.
> [snip]
>
> I'd like to see documentary evidence for that - some authoritative
> reference. As far as I know, "alright" is not a word; if it is, I have
> to stop making people write "all right," as I learned to do in
> elementary school.
>
> Thanks for your response.
The Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives it as a
variant of "all right" with no usage comment of any kind:
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=alright*1+0>. The
OED calls it "a frequent spelling of all right." (No URL. You have
to subscribe.) This is consistent with my experience here at AUE,
which is that most UK speakers find it unobjectionable. I'd say
it's standard in the UK but better avoided in the US.
--
Bob Lieblich
Damned useful things, dictionaries
Franke
Linda V wrote:
I call something "acceptable" when I can accept it, yes.
There is nothing strange in that. AHD asks a panel of
language experts for their opinions about disputed
usages and reports that "77% of our panel found this
usage acceptable", which means that 23% found it
"unacceptable". Often in my clients' profession,
one medical journal will find an article "unacceptable"
and will refuse to publish it, but another will find it
"acceptable" and *will* publish it. Japanese and
Taiwanese teachers find "acceptable" certain student
behaviors that Western EFL teachers don't.
Acceptibility seems to me to be a matter of standards.
If one has different or higher standards than most, then
one will not find "acceptable" everything that others find
"acceptable".
"data is" and "data are" is a disputed usage in many
instances. As long as there is a choice, one can and
may choose to "accept" one choice and "reject" the
other(s).
Franke
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:42:22 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >"alright" is already standard.
> [snip]
>
> I'd like to see documentary evidence for that - some authoritative
> reference. As far as I know, "alright" is not a word; if it is, I have
> to stop making people write "all right," as I learned to do in
> elementary school.
There is a difference between "all right" and "all right"
when "all" is used as a pronoun, as in "Did you get them
all right?" When someone says "Alright, I got them", the
"alright" means "okay", which is what is meant when
someone asks "Is everything alright here?" I suppose
that "Is everything all right here?" means the same thing,
as "Are you alright?" undoubtedly means "Are you all
right?", but in these last four examples, the spellings
suggest how people actually *say* the words. AmE
speakers probably tend to say /alright/ much more often
than /all right/. Perhaps BrE speakers tend to do it the
other way round. Authorities follow.
MW3 says:
Main Entry:alright
Function:adverb or adjective
Etymology:Middle English alright, alriht * more at ALL RIGHT
: ALL RIGHT in reputable use although "all right" is more common
Collin Cobuild says:
all right
If you say that something is all right, you mean that it is
satisfactory or acceptable.
Is everything all right, sir?
All right is the usual spelling. Alright is sometimes
used, but many people think this spelling is incorrect.
(c) HarperCollins Publishers.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says:
alright, all right
Is alright all right? The answer is a qualified yes, with
these cautions. First, all right is much more common
in print than alright. Second, many people, including
the authors of just about every writer's handbook, think
alright is all wrong. Third, alright is more likely to be found
in print in comic strips (like "Doonesbury"), trade journals,
and newspapers and magazines ( Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan,
Punch, or The American Rifleman, for instance) than in more
literary sources, although it does appear from time to time in
literature as well. How did alright come to be in this situation?
It has a complex and somewhat mysterious history. It seems to
have been formed in Old English as ealriht, but was used in
senses that are now obsolete. In those days before printing,
the spelling and compounding of a word depended entirely
on scribal practice, which varied considerably. Early citations
for the word in the OED and Middle English Dictionary show
such variant forms as eall right, alrihtes, al riht, alriht, all rihht,
al rizt, and al right. It is not until Chaucer's "Criseyde was this
lady name, al right" (ca. 1385) that we find an early citation
for what sounds like a modern use. After Chaucer, however,
there is a long gap in the record, and we have no examples of
all right until the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries,
where it appears as part of a longer phrase, all right as my leg,
in which all is a pronoun.
S TAND . Five guineas. [ Gives her money. ]
P AR . Are they right? [ Examines them. ] No
Gray's-Inn pieces amongst 'em.
All right as my leg.
-George Farquhar, Sir Harry Wildair, 1701
(quoted from S.P.E. Tract 18, 1924)
In Robinson Crusoe (1719) we find "desir'd him to ...
keep all right in the Ship" (OED), with all still a pronoun.
Uses of the two words as a fixed phrase begin to turn up
only in the first half of the nineteenth century.
That was all right, my friend. -Percy Bysshe Shelley,
Scenes from Goethe's Faust, 1822 (OED)
'Stand firm, Sam,' said Mr. Pickwick, looking down.
'All right, sir,' replied Mr. Weller. -Charles Dickens,
Pickwick Papers, 1837 ( S.P.E. Tract 18)
I got your letter all right. -Edward FitzGerald, letter,
1844 ( S.P.E. Tract 18)
What happened to the phrase between Chaucer and
Shelley we simply don't know. It may have continued
in oral use all along but have been seldom used in works
that have survived. Or it may have been re-formed in
modern English. At any rate, before the nineteenth century
ended, alright had appeared in print.
I think I shall pass alright - Durham University Jour.,
November 1893 (OED Supplement)
Alright did not appear in a Merriam-Webster dictionary until
1934, but several dictionary users had spotted its omission
earlier and had written to us to urge its inclusion. The earliest
of these was a New York businessman named William E. Scott:
I wish you would submit to your experts the feasibility of
putting the word alright into use. As a matter of fact it is used
quite extensively without the authority of dictionaries because
it is the quick common-sense way of doing. The cable and
telegraph companies are the ones who profit by the lack of
an authoritative ruling that alright is synonymous with all
right -25 Sept. 1913
Scott's letter suggests some of the influences that kept alright
in use. A still stronger force is that of analogy: words like
altogether, already, and although were similarly formed in
Old or Middle English, and had come into modern English
as solid words. When alright came to be a matter of dispute,
many commentators recognized the force of analogy and
then had to devise reasons to deny its applicability. The
controversy over the appropriateness of alright seems to
have begun in the early 20th century. In August 1909, this
answer to a letter from a reader appeared in the Literary
Digest. It was probably written by Frank Vizetelly; his A
Desk Book of Errors in English (1906) carries the same
message. The correct form is "all right"; this is the
commonly accepted form to-day. Formerly "alright" had
some vogue and like "already" was formed of two words,
but altho "all ready" was displaced early in our literature
(1380) by "already" "all right" did not meet with the same fate.
There was reaction against alright in Great Britain too. In
1924 the Society for Pure English published a symposium
on alright (Tract 18), and here H. W. Fowler took up the
cudgels against it. He appears to have been irritated by alright
primarily because he considered it bad spelling. His Modern
English Usage of 1926 condensed his 1924 denunciation; from
that point on nearly all usage commentators fall into line. We
have recorded thirty-five to forty commentators, both British
and American, expressing disapproval; only one or two dissent.
It should be noted, however, that the usual way of disapproving
alright is to append a pejorative label (as illiterate or colloquial )
to it or to deny it exists; no very cogent reasons are presented for
its being considered wrong. Even the critics of alright admit it is
found more often in manuscript than in print; undoubtedly it would
be even more frequent in print than it is if copy editors were less
hostile. (Theodore Dreiser used it repeatedly in the manuscript of
The 'Genius' in 1914; H. L. Mencken had him change it to all right.)
Our evidence shows that it is used in letters, real and fictional:
I hope that this procedure is alright with you -editor, N.Y.
publishing house, letter received at Merriam-Webster, 1964
I had intended to ask you to give a lecture much like you have
in the past. I hope that is alright with you -director, technical
writing institute, letter received at Merriam-Webster, 1984
Yes, I did get your letter alright -Margaret Kennedy, The
Feast, 1950
He told Regina that he had told me and she said that was
alright -Flannery O'Connor, letter, July 1952
Miss O'Connor used both spellings:
... but if so I can do without it all right -letter, 1 Jan. 1956
One of the points involved in the discussion of the propriety
of alright hinges on the assertion that all right represents one
stress pattern in speech, and alright another. Evans 1962
alludes to this point when he says, "My own-dissenting-opinion
is that most people who write alright instead of all right (when
they mean "alright" and not "all right") are not slovenly. They
are simply asking for the privilege of making a distinction in
writing which is accepted in speech." This argument is
difficult to evaluate because stress patterns are observable
only in speech, whereas alright is purely a spelling variant.
But it is a fact of some relevance, perhaps, that when
alright is used in fiction, it is very often used in
representing the speech of the characters:
"My briefing alright, First Sergeant?" -Josiah Bunting,
The Lionheads, 1972
'Alright. O.K. I'll write him a cheque right now.' -Mordecai
Richler, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, 1959
"... It's goin' to be alright...." -Waldo Frank, Not
Heaven, 1953
"Alright, wait a minute," -Langston Hughes, Laughing
to Keep from Crying, 1952
"Well, alright, but you're going to miss your golf...." -Pat
Frank, Hold Back the Night, 1952
Alright, already! I'll turn on the grill! -Gary B. Trudeau,
Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, 1973
It appears in Molly Bloom's soliloquy:
... however alright well seen then let him go to her -James
Joyce, Ulysses , 1922
It is also used in other transcribed speech.
"Alright, darling. I was wrong. I apologise." -Eamonn
Andrews, Punch, 1 May 1974
Mom said, "Yes, it's lonely here alright. It's lonely." -John
Allan May, Christian Science Monitor, 1 Aug. 1953
... so let's look at Bittman. Bittman says he is trying to
blackmail the White House. Alright you called
Bittman -Richard M. Nixon, in The White House
Transcripts, 1974
"Okay honey, I've ironed your blue ensemble if
that's alright...." -Jim Guzzo, Springfield (Mass.)
Republican, 30 Dec. 1984
From the beginning alright seems to have reached
print primarily in journalistic and business publications.
We have plenty of evidence that it continues to appear
in these publications:
There's plenty of luxury here alright - Variety, 28 Jan. 1942
The first batch of aquatic ovines will get by alright -T. J.
McManus, Tasmanian Jour. of Agriculture, May 1962
War is there alright -Richard Gilman, New Republic, 25 Nov. 1967
... came out alright in the end - National Jeweler, January 1942
Berkeley is a weird city, alright -Ralph J. Gleason,
Rolling Stone, 13 May 1971
Alright, alright-I know, it was all the fault of those
confounded British colonialists! -Brian Walker, Bicycling!,
January 1971
We got through it alright -Avery Corman, Cosmopolitan,
October 1974
... the movie tells us it's alright for him to cheat his
customers -David Sterritt, Christian Science Monitor,
11 Sept. 1980
Gutenberg's movable type was alright for the middle
ages - British Printer, February 1976
They will see him alright for food and female company -
Jonathan Sale, Punch, 7 Oct. 1975
Finally, we have a little evidence from books where
speech is not being re-created.
Men don't want a woman to wilt on them. That was alright
in Mother's time -Vivian Ellis, Faint Harmony, 1934
The first two years of the medical school were alright -
Gertrude Stein, The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, 1933
Trying to decide if it is alright to say anxious when you
mean eager -Quinn 1980
Summary: in its modern use alright has reached print
primarily through journalistic and business publication
and is still to be found in those sources. It has appeared
now and again in literature, at least from the mid-twenties,
though mostly in fictional dialogue. Its critics acknowledge
that it is more often to be found in manuscript than in print;
it would likely be much more nearly as frequent as all right
if it were not so regularly suppressed by copy editors. It
seems to have some acceptance in British English-in spite
of disapproval in British handbooks: it is the standard
spelling in Punch and the King's Printer at Ottawa officially
sanctioned its use as far back as 1928. The OED Supplement
calls it simply "a frequent spelling of all right. " It remains a
commonly written but less often printed variant of all right.
It is clearly standard in general prose, but is widely
condemned nonetheless by writers on usage.
Franke
Pan wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 14:30:48 GMT, "perchprism" <gbl...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Would you recommend "how many data have you recorded" over "how much data
> >have you recorded"?
> [snip]
>
> How much data.
I'd have to agree here, but I don't think that this
is sufficient to require "data is", only to argue that
data can be thought of as a singular collective, as
"the company" and "the family" are so considered
in AmE, whereas they are usually thought of as a
group of individuals in BrE.
> So far, "data is" is a clear winner here.
Yes, which tells you only that most copy editors
might not change "data is" to "data are", but don't
count on it. The AMA Manual of Style, which I
am required to follow most of the time in my work,
calls "data is" a "false singular" (9th ed., pp 193-4):
"Also, many now consider acceptable the use of 'data'
as a singular. In this usage, 'data' is thought of as a
collective noun and, when considered as a unit rather
than as the individual items of data that compose it, it
takes the singular verb.AMA's preference, however, is
to retain the use of the plural verb with 'data' in all
situations.
Very few *data wer3e [not _very little data was_]
available to support our hypothesis."
The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
Pan
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>The Cambridge International Dictionary of English gives it as a
>variant of "all right" with no usage comment of any kind:
><http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=alright*1+0>. The
>OED calls it "a frequent spelling of all right." (No URL. You have
>to subscribe.) This is consistent with my experience here at AUE,
>which is that most UK speakers find it unobjectionable. I'd say
>it's standard in the UK but better avoided in the US.
Thanks a lot, Bob.
So I'll change my tune to now telling students that they could
probably use "alright" in Britain, but not in the U.S.
>Damned useful things, dictionaries
Yep!
Best,
Pan
>MW3 says:
>
>Main Entry:alright
>Function:adverb or adjective
>Etymology:Middle English alright, alriht * more at ALL RIGHT
>
>: ALL RIGHT in reputable use although "all right" is more common
>
>Collin Cobuild says:
>
>all right
> If you say that something is all right, you mean that it is
>satisfactory or acceptable.
> Is everything all right, sir?
[snip]
Thank you very much! I had no idea my question would provoke such a
fascinating response!
Pan
[snip]
>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
"The media is" bothers me a bit more than "the data is." "Data," at
least, can refer to a series of bits of information from one source;
"media" refers to newspapers, magazines, radio, and televsion, as well
as to various subdivisions thereof. For me, "the media are." We still
speak about television as "a medium," QED. Anyone disagree?
Pan
wrote:
>"Michael" and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>>>> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard...
>>>
>>> I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
>>
>> Meaning what? That the battle is over and the war is lost?
>
>Well, "lost" if you're still on the losing side, yes.
Alright [smile]. Then you believe that "data is" has been standard
since the 1970s? Do you have evidence to back that up?
Richard Fontana
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
>
>"The media is" bothers me a bit more than "the data is." "Data," at
>least, can refer to a series of bits of information from one source;
>"media" refers to newspapers, magazines, radio, and televsion, as well
>as to various subdivisions thereof. For me, "the media are." We still
>speak about television as "a medium," QED. Anyone disagree?
I disagree with the "QED" part. "The media", with the meaning "the
collection of significant communications media [mediums], print, broadcast
and otherwise, in a society" is evolving into a singular
(plural in concept), separate from "medium" with its plural "media".
Richard Fontana
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:35:21 +0000 (UTC), m...@vex.net (Mark Brader)
>wrote:
>
>>"Michael" and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>>>> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>>>>> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard...
>>>>
>>>> I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
>>>
>>> Meaning what? That the battle is over and the war is lost?
>>
>>Well, "lost" if you're still on the losing side, yes.
>
>Alright [smile]. Then you believe that "data is" has been standard
>since the 1970s? Do you have evidence to back that up?
I think you need to define "standard" before something like this can be
discussed. In one sense it *still* isn't "standard" if "standard" means
"what professional editors let you get away with". That's not how I would
define "standard".
Ben Zimmer
Pan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:35:21 +0000 (UTC), m...@vex.net (Mark Brader)
> wrote:
>
> >"Michael" and I (Mark Brader) wrote:
> >>>> I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
> >>>> acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard...
> >>>
> >>> I think Michael has the right attitude on this subject, for the 1970s.
> >>
> >> Meaning what? That the battle is over and the war is lost?
> >
> >Well, "lost" if you're still on the losing side, yes.
>
> Alright [smile]. Then you believe that "data is" has been standard
> since the 1970s? Do you have evidence to back that up?
If by "standard" you mean sanctioned by dictionaries, then here's a
datum for you: Webster's Third New International (1966) under the
relevant entry for "datum" has the note "_data_ pl but often sing in
constr" and gives the following illustrative quote:
<no general appraisal can be hazarded ... until more data is available
-- Publishers' Weekly>
--Ben
Pan
<bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>If by "standard" you mean sanctioned by dictionaries, then here's a
>datum for you: Webster's Third New International (1966) under the
>relevant entry for "datum" has the note "_data_ pl but often sing in
>constr" and gives the following illustrative quote:
><no general appraisal can be hazarded ... until more data is available
>-- Publishers' Weekly>
Thanks, Ben. That was really helpful.
Mark Barratt
>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
I wonder what they'd say about "dice"?
--
A car is a car; a determiner is a determiner; an inaccurate and
confusing definition is an inaccurate and confusing definition.
- Mark Wallace defines "determiner"
Mark Barratt
Another thought. You know those old women who hold seances to help the
bereaved and gullible make contact with their departed loves? What are
they called? Media?
--
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations."
-- David Friedman
Franke
Mark Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
> >The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
>
> I wonder what they'd say about "dice"?
"Don't use dice in the OR, especially before fully
anesthetising the patient".
> --
> A car is a car; a determiner is a determiner; an inaccurate and
> confusing definition is an inaccurate and confusing definition.
> - Mark Wallace defines "determiner"
A veritable cornucopia of endearing information he is.
Linda V
So you thought Pan was talking about "data is" being acceptable *to you* in
the statement "I do think that 'data is' is gradually becoming more and more
acceptable"? :-)
The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
alexy
>The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
Easy fix: Right click on "My Computer," then choose
properties/advanced/settings, and make sure that "Experience Emotions"
is not checked.
;-)
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Steve Hayes
>Well, folks, the semester just started for another Freshman
>Engineering course at Polytechnic University, and I will shortly start
>getting lab reports to read, correct, and grade.
>
>The subject of whether to treat "data" as a collective singular or
>plural noun has come up here. I tend to insist on "data are" - though
>gently and without penalty to the students who continue to use "data
>is." I do think that "data is" is gradually becoming more and more
>acceptable, and will probably shortly become standard, just as it
>seems "everyday" as a noun phrase and "alright" will.
>
>Right now, there's a split among writing consultants at Poly, with a
>majority opting for "data is." What do you all think?
It depends on the context. I tend to use both in different circumstances, a
bit like committee: "The committee are agreed", "the committee had decided".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
R J Valentine
} On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:24:01 GMT, rfon...@wesleyan.edu (Richard
} Fontana) wrote:
}
}>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:16:06 GMT Pan wrote:
}>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
}>>
}>>[snip]
}>>>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
}>>
}>>"The media is" bothers me a bit more than "the data is." "Data," at
}>>least, can refer to a series of bits of information from one source;
}>>"media" refers to newspapers, magazines, radio, and televsion, as well
}>>as to various subdivisions thereof. For me, "the media are." We still
}>>speak about television as "a medium," QED. Anyone disagree?
}>
}>I disagree with the "QED" part. "The media", with the meaning "the
}>collection of significant communications media [mediums], print, broadcast
}>and otherwise, in a society" is evolving into a singular
}>(plural in concept), separate from "medium" with its plural "media".
}
} Another thought. You know those old women who hold seances to help the
} bereaved and gullible make contact with their departed loves? What are
} they called? Media?
And why are they always so somber? Because people like to strike a happy
medium?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Franke
Linda V wrote:
> [...]
> So you thought Pan was talking about "data is" being acceptable *to you* in
> the statement "I do think that 'data is' is gradually becoming more and more
> acceptable"? :-)
Anybody who asks a question about usage in this ng is going to get one or two
types of answers. The first is the personal opinion of the person who replies
and the second is the opinions of recognized language mavens. When usages are
still being disputed there is nothing but opinion to offer
> The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
See if this is any better. I've been having lots of trouble with the formatting,
so I've been trying to make it easier on my and everyone's else's newsreaders by
providing a narrow column. What does your computer complain about?
Pan
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>Another thought. You know those old women who hold seances to help the
>bereaved and gullible make contact with their departed loves? What are
>they called? Media?
I've heard only "mediums" for that.
Pan
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
>
>I wonder what they'd say about "dice"?
Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
Ben Zimmer
Pan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:02:23 +0100, Mark Barratt
> <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
> >
> >>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
> >
> >I wonder what they'd say about "dice"?
>
> Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
I dunno, dice just isn't my game...
--Ben
Linda V
news:3C55F633...@seed.net.tw...
>
> Linda V wrote:
> > [...]
> > So you thought Pan was talking about "data is" being acceptable *to you*
in
> > the statement "I do think that 'data is' is gradually becoming more and
more
> > acceptable"? :-)
>
> Anybody who asks a question about usage in this ng is going to get one or
two
> types of answers. The first is the personal opinion of the person who
replies
> and the second is the opinions of recognized language mavens. When usages
are
> still being disputed there is nothing but opinion to offer
That might be true, but I think it was clear from the context that Pan was
talking about "data is" becoming more and more acceptable to English
speakers in general. It just seemed funny to me that you answered that with
"No, it isn't" because of your own feelings about it. It seemed as if you
were putting yourself in the position of judging acceptability on behalf of
all English speakers. It just amused me; that's all.
> > The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
>
> See if this is any better. I've been having lots of trouble with the
formatting,
> so I've been trying to make it easier on my and everyone's else's
newsreaders by
> providing a narrow column. What does your computer complain about?
This one looks the same as your previous posts to me, but my computer
doesn't seem to mind it much. I don't know a lot about computers, but your
posts were different in several ways.
* They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
* They opened very slowly (with lots of thinking noises from my computer).
* When I replied, all word processing in the reply window would go
unbelievably slowly.
Today, however, only the first thing on that list applies. It's a mystery
to me.
Thanks for doing whatever you did.
Franke
Linda V wrote:
> [...]
> That might be true, but I think it was clear from the context that Pan was
> talking about "data is" becoming more and more acceptable to English
> speakers in general.
Yes, it was clear.
> It just seemed funny to me that you answered that with
> "No, it isn't" because of your own feelings about it. It seemed as if you
> were putting yourself in the position of judging acceptability on behalf of
> all English speakers.
Well, sometimes I do that and sometimes others in this NG do that. It's a bit of
hyperbole, but I have been told on a few occasions that what I consider to be
hyperbole and perhaps parody comes across as serious. Once I said something here
in a language thread about the only way to handle a certain group of people was
to have them shot. Someone actually accused me of being serious. Strange.
Another time someone labeled me "eccentric" (Sure, why not? I think I probably
am, but I don't care: I wouldn't be eccentric if I did, would I?) and I came up
with a quote from a famous writer who said he valued some other famous person
because of his eccentricity, and she switched her adjective to "strange".
> It just amused me; that's all.
That was the point. Thank you for your reaction. I've finally found someone who
appreciates my sense of humor enough to be amused.
> > > The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
> >
> > See if this is any better. I've been having lots of trouble with the
> formatting,
> > so I've been trying to make it easier on my and everyone's else's
> newsreaders by
> > providing a narrow column. What does your computer complain about?
>
> This one looks the same as your previous posts to me, but my computer
> doesn't seem to mind it much. I don't know a lot about computers, but your
> posts were different in several ways.
It's different. I'm letting the newsreader wrap the sentences at 72 characters
instead of trying to do it all myself by eye.
> * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
I use Times New Roman.
> * They opened very slowly (with lots of thinking noises from my computer).
Ah, what a lovely and sensitive computer you must have to give my posts so much
thought.
> * When I replied, all word processing in the reply window would go
> unbelievably slowly.
Must have been a quantum glitch.
> Today, however, only the first thing on that list applies. It's a mystery
> to me.
> Thanks for doing whatever you did.
You're welcome. Thank you for pointing out the problem. I do my best to oblige.
Steve Hayes
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
>
>"The media is" bothers me a bit more than "the data is." "Data," at
>least, can refer to a series of bits of information from one source;
>"media" refers to newspapers, magazines, radio, and televsion, as well
>as to various subdivisions thereof. For me, "the media are." We still
>speak about television as "a medium," QED. Anyone disagree?
I don't disagree. I agree entirely.
I don't notice much whether people say "the data is" or "the data are". But
when they say "the media is" I always find it obtrusive.
Don Aitken
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:02:23 +0100, Mark Barratt
><mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:46:40 +0800, Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>>
>>>The AMA also considers "media" a false singular.
>>
>>I wonder what they'd say about "dice"?
>
>Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
>
This is a usage unknown in the UK, except possibly among gamblers, who
seem to use a lot of American terms. To the recreational user it is
one dice, two dice. Books on games usually point out the existence of
the singular "die" in terms which show that they don't expect their
readers to have heard it. How general is the use of "die" in the US?
--
Don Aitken
Donna Richoux
Here's some data:
"roll one die" 1790
"roll one dice" 370 Ratio 5:1
Limiting to UK sites gives very small numbers, which makes it
unreliable, but as it happens it goes the same way:
"roll one die" site:uk 84
"roll one dice" site:uk 29 Ratio 3:1
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Richard Fontana
Probably no more extensive than it is in the UK. Perhaps you've got[ten]
the wrong impression from comments on the matter by Americans in AUE. I'm
certain that most Americans use "dice" for the singular, but this is
generally regarded as an incorrect usage by the sorts of people who take
it upon themselves to be aware of such things, which is not most
people, and probably not even most formally educated people. I would
guess that there are a lot of Americans who are aware that "die should be
the singular" but who will nonetheless use "dice" for the singular because
"die" would sound sort of pompously pedantic, and there are some other
Americans who will use "die" with intentional jocularity because they know
it might ordinarily be seen as pompously pedantic. I don't know whether
US gamblers are more likely to use "die" than the average US person,
however.
Linda V
> > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
Franke wrote
> I use Times New Roman.
Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them that
way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming news
messages in my news reader.
> > * When I replied, all word processing in the reply window would go
> > unbelievably slowly.
>
> Must have been a quantum glitch.
This reply I'm writing now is having the same glitchiness, strangely enough.
It only happens with your posts, though.
One more weird thing: When I reply to anyone else's post, the title bar of
my message window contains the subject line. When I reply to a post of
yours, however, it always says "New Message - big5". What's that all about?
:-)
L
Steve Hayes
>And why are they always so somber? Because people like to strike a happy
>medium?
TV is a medium because anything well done is rare.
Skitt
"Linda V" <li...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dpE58.3632$902.266...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Linda wrote
> > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
>
> Franke wrote
> > I use Times New Roman.
>
> Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them
that
> way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming
news
> messages in my news reader.
Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
perchprism
"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a37ge8$16auh3$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Linda V" <li...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:dpE58.3632$902.266...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > Linda wrote
> > > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
> >
> > Franke wrote
> > > I use Times New Roman.
> >
> > Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them
> that
> > way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming
> news
> > messages in my news reader.
>
> Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
>
> Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
I did. The default was Ariel, but capital "I" and "l" and "1" all looked
alike, making ASCII IPA difficult. I don't remember how I finally got it to
change to Courier, but it didn't happen on the first few tries, and I'm not
messing with it now for anybody.
Franke's posts still come through all wierd, though--bigger than others, and
the legend at the top looks like some Martian font. You can tell I haven't
got a clue about all this stuff, can't you?
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Franke
Linda V wrote:
> Linda wrote
> > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
>
> Franke wrote
> > I use Times New Roman.
>
> Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them that
> way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming news
> messages in my news reader.
Not as far as I know. Some of the regulars here are very knowledgeable about
news readers. I use Netscape 4.77. With Netscape it is possible to adjust the
fonts of incoming and outgoing messages. I've been using the HTML editor to
create messages. Perhaps that is one reason my posts look strange. I've just
changed that to plain text editor. Not for this post, but for all future posts.
I thought I had done that already, but . . . That might cause even stranger
effects. I'll have to see.
>
>
> > > * When I replied, all word processing in the reply window would go
> > > unbelievably slowly.
> >
> > Must have been a quantum glitch.
>
> This reply I'm writing now is having the same glitchiness, strangely enough.
> It only happens with your posts, though.
>
> One more weird thing: When I reply to anyone else's post, the title bar of
> my message window contains the subject line. When I reply to a post of
> yours, however, it always says "New Message - big5". What's that all about?
> :-)
I use a Chinese character set because a lot of my e-mail comes in Chinese (Big5
is Taiwan's traditional Chinese character set, not to be confused with the
simplified characters used by the PRC or, it seems, the code page used by Hong
Kong and maybe others). My clients are all Taiwanese doctors, and frequently
they and my EFL students send e-mails with Chinese names in the sender line and
Chinese in the subject line. If I don't use the Big5 character set, I get
gibberish on the screen. That may be the reason things are slow on your reader.
What reader do you use?
Franke
It's been so long since I've touched a set of dice that I have no idea
about that. I am one of those US people aware of the singular and plural
forms and would always use "die" for just one, just as I use "medium"
instead of "media" for a single floppy disk or just TV, and "data are"
for more than one "datum". However, I have not yet encountered "datum"
in any of the medical or technical papers I revise. I don't know how I
would handle it either, but it would probably get changed to "value" or
"level" or whatever might be the appropriate term for that particular
datum (it's too pedantic even for me). I think that Richard is correct
about most Americans using "dice" for a single die, though.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:05:51 GMT, panNO...@musician.org (Pan)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
> >
> > This is a usage unknown in the UK, except possibly among gamblers, who
> > seem to use a lot of American terms. To the recreational user it is
> > one dice, two dice. Books on games usually point out the existence of
> > the singular "die" in terms which show that they don't expect their
> > readers to have heard it. How general is the use of "die" in the US?
I'd say that in the US, if you hear "dice is", it's more likely to be
a speaker who uses "is" for the plural than "dice" for the singular.
> Here's some data:
>
> "roll one die" 1790
> "roll one dice" 370 Ratio 5:1
Ratio about the same (262:59) for "roll a single die/dice".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Pan
Fontana) wrote:
[snip]
> I would
>guess that there are a lot of Americans who are aware that "die should be
>the singular" but who will nonetheless use "dice" for the singular because
>"die" would sound sort of pompously pedantic
[snip]
I take some issue with this! [smile]
I use "die" because that's what I was taught the singular for "dice"
is, not because I'm "pompously pedantic." [chuckle]
Or, at least, I didn't _think_ I was pompously pedantic.
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:30:49 GMT, rfon...@wesleyan.edu (Richard
> Fontana) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I would
> >guess that there are a lot of Americans who are aware that "die should be
> >the singular" but who will nonetheless use "dice" for the singular because
> >"die" would sound sort of pompously pedantic
> [snip]
>
> I take some issue with this! [smile]
>
> I use "die" because that's what I was taught the singular for "dice"
> is, not because I'm "pompously pedantic." [chuckle]
>
> Or, at least, I didn't _think_ I was pompously pedantic.
And yet you participate in AUE ...
--
Bob Lieblich
Pedantically pompous
Linda V
> news:dpE58.3632$902.266...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > Linda wrote
> > > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
> >
> > Franke wrote
> > > I use Times New Roman.
> >
> > Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them
> that
> > way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming
> news
> > messages in my news reader.
>
> Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
>
> Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
Sorry.. I was unclear. What I meant is that there's no effective way of
setting the fonts of incoming messages in my news reader. I have the option
you mention set to Courier, but it doesn't set all messages. Why would that
happen?
L
Linda V
>
> Linda V wrote:
>
> > Linda wrote
> > > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
> >
> > Franke wrote
> > > I use Times New Roman.
> >
> > Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them
that
> > way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming
news
> > messages in my news reader.
>
> Not as far as I know. Some of the regulars here are very knowledgeable
about
> news readers. I use Netscape 4.77. With Netscape it is possible to adjust
the
> fonts of incoming and outgoing messages. I've been using the HTML editor
to
> create messages. Perhaps that is one reason my posts look strange. I've
just
> changed that to plain text editor. Not for this post, but for all future
posts.
> I thought I had done that already, but . . . That might cause even
stranger
> effects. I'll have to see.
It's great on my end!
Outlook Express 6.
Pan
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>Pan wrote:
>> I use "die" because that's what I was taught the singular for "dice"
>> is, not because I'm "pompously pedantic." [chuckle]
>>
>> Or, at least, I didn't _think_ I was pompously pedantic.
>
>And yet you participate in AUE ...
>
>--
>Bob Lieblich
>Pedantically pompous
[chuckle]
M.
perchprism
"Pan" <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:3c576909...@news.erols.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:30:49 GMT, rfon...@wesleyan.edu (Richard
> Fontana) wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I would
> >guess that there are a lot of Americans who are aware that "die should be
> >the singular" but who will nonetheless use "dice" for the singular
because
> >"die" would sound sort of pompously pedantic
> [snip]
>
> I take some issue with this! [smile]
>
> I use "die" because that's what I was taught the singular for "dice"
> is, not because I'm "pompously pedantic." [chuckle]
>
> Or, at least, I didn't _think_ I was pompously pedantic.
I just thought of a point--a lot of board games now use a single many-sided
die, unlike in my youth when there were always two cubic dice, and the
question of what to call one of them was a matter of esoteric knowledge. I
think "die" is well known.
Ben Zimmer
The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
--Ben
Linda V
news:3C57E671...@midway.uchicago.edu...
I find that hard to believe, but then I ain't no die expert.
Linz
>
>
> Linda V wrote:
> > The format of your posts, by the way, makes my computer very unhappy.
>
> See if this is any better. I've been having lots of trouble with the
formatting,
> so I've been trying to make it easier on my and everyone's else's
newsreaders
> by providing a narrow column. What does your computer complain about?
She's having the same problem I have. You post in a non-standard text format
( Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5). This is read differently by
Outlook Express.
You can change your Content-type to something like charset=us-ascii and
it'll read more easily. Or if anyone knows how to make my OE translate any
posts like this into the normal format, I'd be /very/ grateful.
Linz
"Linda V" <li...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dpE58.3632$902.266...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
>
> Franke wrote
> > I use Times New Roman.
>
> Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent
> them that way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the
> fonts of incoming news messages in my news reader.
No, you see them normally in Courier because you have that set. Franke's use
of TNR has nothing to do with what you see.
> This reply I'm writing now is having the same glitchiness, strangely
> enough. It only happens with your posts, though.
No, now and again Fabian turns up strange.
> One more weird thing: When I reply to anyone else's post, the title
> bar of my message window contains the subject line. When I reply to
> a post of yours, however, it always says "New Message - big5".
> What's that all about? :-)
That means he has a non-standard character set selected, and that's what
screws up the settings when you download his posts.
Don Aitken
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes:
>
>> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:05:51 GMT, panNO...@musician.org (Pan)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
>> >
>> > This is a usage unknown in the UK, except possibly among gamblers, who
>> > seem to use a lot of American terms. To the recreational user it is
>> > one dice, two dice. Books on games usually point out the existence of
>> > the singular "die" in terms which show that they don't expect their
>> > readers to have heard it. How general is the use of "die" in the US?
>
>I'd say that in the US, if you hear "dice is", it's more likely to be
>a speaker who uses "is" for the plural than "dice" for the singular.
>
>> Here's some data:
>>
>> "roll one die" 1790
>> "roll one dice" 370 Ratio 5:1
>
>Ratio about the same (262:59) for "roll a single die/dice".
>
And yet we have a number of USians in ths thread who think that "die"
is obscure and unusual. Another example of hearing what you expect to
hear?
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
>"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:a37ge8$16auh3$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
>>
>> Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
>
>Sorry.. I was unclear. What I meant is that there's no effective way of
>setting the fonts of incoming messages in my news reader. I have the option
>you mention set to Courier, but it doesn't set all messages. Why would that
>happen?
>
I have seen this mentioned several times on different ngs, and no-one
has ever come up with an answer. Just another OE mystery. Other
newsreaders do not do this. When reading a plain text message you see
it in the font you have set. Always. That's the way it's supposed to
be.
--
Don Aitken
Skitt
"Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a396lk$185n$1...@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...
Gosh, I have absolutely no problems with any posts in this group, except
when someone (Fabian? Rob Richardson?) was experimenting with some
(Japanese?) fonts a few days ago. Those I could not read. I use OE6. I
also have no problems if someone posts HTML messages -- OE6 takes them all
in stride.
Linda V
Ah.. Well, this has been very educational. Thanks, all!
L
Richard Fontana
I don't think so. What's on the Web (as reported by Google) doesn't
exactly reflect actual American usage. I think Americans (and
others) who are comfortable with "die" are overrepresented in Web
documents. I could go into why I think this is if anyone's interested.
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
Late 1970s.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Ben Zimmer" <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C57E671...@midway.uchicago.edu...
>
> > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
>
> I find that hard to believe, but then I ain't no die expert.
It sounds right to me, although D&D started in 1973. A quick search
indicates that the first dice (>5,000 years ago) were two-sided, four
sided dice were invented in Sumer about 3,000 years ago, and six sided
dice were invented later by the Harappa in the Indus and the
Etruscans. Some history can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/ladysveva/games/DiceHistory.html
But if >6-sided dice were used before D&D, they can't have been very
common.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Bob Stahl
> Ben Zimmer:
> > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > traced to the Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
> Late 1970s.
Many-sided die have been around for a while.
http://www.multimania.com/arjan/an_14.htm
14-sided
Bronze, 13.5 mm
Roman: 2nd-3rd c. AD
(truncated octahedron, I think)
http://www.multimania.com/arjan/an_ramal.htm
'Ramala' Divination Dice
Bronze.
East Mediterranean: 1100 AD.
(four cubic die on a spindle)
---
Bob Stahl
Richard Fontana
Among Early Post-Tet (EPT) kids at least D&D became a fixed focus of
cultural ridicule by no later than 1982 and probably as early as
1981; on the other hand I don't think it was widely known among EPTs
before 1979. 1980 was clearly the high point of actual EPT
interest. Jokes about D&D-playing people were current as late as 1992.
I think general public awareness of Dungeons & Dragons only came about
after that murder by D&D-obsessed teenagers which took place sometime
during the early 1980s -- I forget the details, but it was made into a
TV movie which I remember watching.
Linda V
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020130...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On 30 Jan 2002, Apurbva Chandra Senray wrote:
>
> > Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C57E671...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> >
> > > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > > Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
> >
> > Late 1970s.
>
Is that Tet as in Tet Offensive??
Joe Manfre
> I don't think so. What's on the Web (as reported by Google) doesn't
> exactly reflect actual American usage. I think Americans (and
> others) who are comfortable with "die" are overrepresented in Web
> documents. I could go into why I think this is if anyone's
> interested.
Go for it.
JM
--
807
Joe Manfre
> I think general public awareness of Dungeons & Dragons only came
> about after that murder by D&D-obsessed teenagers which took place
> sometime during the early 1980s -- I forget the details, but it was
> made into a TV movie which I remember watching.
Ah, you mean "Rona Jaffe's Mazes & Monsters".
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kibo-0612980323170001%40ppp0a008.std.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=kibo-0712980444200001%40ppp0a003.std.com
(And we can't forget Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" tract, can we?
Search www.chick.com for it.)
JM
--
807
Matti Lamprhey
> "Linda V" <li...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >"Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> >>
> >> Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
> >>
> >> Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
> >
> >Sorry.. I was unclear. What I meant is that there's no effective way of
> >setting the fonts of incoming messages in my news reader. I have the
> >option you mention set to Courier, but it doesn't set all messages. Why
> >would that happen?
> >
> I have seen this mentioned several times on different ngs, and no-one
> has ever come up with an answer. Just another OE mystery. Other
> newsreaders do not do this. When reading a plain text message you see
> it in the font you have set. Always. That's the way it's supposed to
> be.
An HTML message will display in its own font, of course, which may explain
some of the cases Linda mentions. For plain text OE seems to allow you to
specify different fonts for messages in different character sets, which for
me at least is infinitely more trouble than its worth.
Matti
Richard Fontana
Yes, of course. I'm not sure how far "Early Post-Tet" goes, but I'd
say it covers anyone born during the period 1 February 1968 through 31
December 1970. By 1971, however, you've
left Early Post-Tet behind. Middle Post-Tet runs from about 1971
through 1973. MPTs are characterized by Limited Cultural
Degeneration. Late Post-Tet runs from about 1 January 1974 through
midnight, 4 July 1976. (Whether this is the midnight that *begins* 4
July 1976 or the midnight that *ends* 4 July 1976 is a matter of
current dispute.) LPTs are characterized by More Cultural
Degeneration.
alexy
>>Sorry.. I was unclear. What I meant is that there's no effective way of
>>setting the fonts of incoming messages in my news reader. I have the option
>>you mention set to Courier, but it doesn't set all messages. Why would that
>>happen?
>>
>I have seen this mentioned several times on different ngs, and no-one
>has ever come up with an answer. Just another OE mystery. Other
>newsreaders do not do this.
First, you say no-one has come up with an answer. Then, two sentences
later, you come up with THE answer, IMHO!
Alex (a happy and long-term Agent user)
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Apurbva Chandra Senray:
> > Ben Zimmer:
> > > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > > traced to the Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
> > Late 1970s.
>
> Many-sided die have been around for a while.
>
> http://www.multimania.com/arjan/an_14.htm
> 14-sided
> Bronze, 13.5 mm
> Roman: 2nd-3rd c. AD
> (truncated octahedron, I think)
Well, I'm not sure that establishes "have been around", but it does
give evidence for "were around".
> http://www.multimania.com/arjan/an_ramal.htm
> 'Ramala' Divination Dice
> Bronze.
> East Mediterranean: 1100 AD.
> (four cubic die on a spindle)
Four-sided dice are ancient. The site I cited earlier even stated
(although they showed no pictures) that the Sumerians had tetrahedral
dice, in addition to the more common elongated four-sided dice. The
one 14-sided die you point to is the only one I've seen that uses a
Platonic solid more complex than a cube before the 1970s.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Apurbva Chandra Senray:
>> Ben Zimmer:
>> > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
>> > traced to the Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
>> Late 1970s.
>
>Many-sided die have been around for a while.
>
The singular "dice" I know, but the plural "die" is new to me.
--
Don Aitken
Ben Zimmer
Bob Stahl wrote:
>
> Apurbva Chandra Senray:
> > Ben Zimmer:
> > > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > > traced to the Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
> > Late 1970s.
>
> Many-sided die have been around for a while.
Meant to say the advent of the term's popularity, in the gaming contexts
that Perch mentioned.
--Ben
Robert Bannister
> Linda V wrote:
>
> > Linda wrote
> > > > * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
> >
> > Franke wrote
> > > I use Times New Roman.
> >
> > Do I see everyone else's posts in Courier because they've all sent them that
> > way? As far as I know, there's no way of setting the fonts of incoming news
> > messages in my news reader.
>
> Not as far as I know. Some of the regulars here are very knowledgeable about
> news readers. I use Netscape 4.77. With Netscape it is possible to adjust the
> fonts of incoming and outgoing messages. I've been using the HTML editor to
> create messages. Perhaps that is one reason my posts look strange. I've just
> changed that to plain text editor. Not for this post, but for all future posts.
> I thought I had done that already, but . . . That might cause even stranger
> effects. I'll have to see.
>
> >
> >
> > > > * When I replied, all word processing in the reply window would go
> > > > unbelievably slowly.
> > >
> > > Must have been a quantum glitch.
> >
> > This reply I'm writing now is having the same glitchiness, strangely enough.
> > It only happens with your posts, though.
> >
> > One more weird thing: When I reply to anyone else's post, the title bar of
> > my message window contains the subject line. When I reply to a post of
> > yours, however, it always says "New Message - big5". What's that all about?
> > :-)
>
> I use a Chinese character set because a lot of my e-mail comes in Chinese (Big5
> is Taiwan's traditional Chinese character set, not to be confused with the
> simplified characters used by the PRC or, it seems, the code page used by Hong
> Kong and maybe others). My clients are all Taiwanese doctors, and frequently
> they and my EFL students send e-mails with Chinese names in the sender line and
> Chinese in the subject line. If I don't use the Big5 character set, I get
> gibberish on the screen. That may be the reason things are slow on your reader.
> What reader do you use?
I also use Netscape 4.77, but your messages come through ok for me. Of course, I
have 'View' set to IS)- 8859-1 and 'Font' set to 'fixed-width Courier', although I
actually compose my messages in Palatino.
--
Rob Bannister
John Holmes
There are two ways I can think of:
1. Simplest way. Under Tools/Options, select the "read" tab. Click on
'International settings' at the bottom and put Western European (ISO) in
the box and tick the square below it. It should now display all incoming
messages as that type of encoding., but it means you won't be able to
see any other kinds of characters when you might want to.
2. A bit more involved. Instead of the 'International settings' above,
click on the 'Fonts' button next to it. You should then have a list of
all kinds of encoding. For each of these, select your desired
fixed-width and proportional font and the font size. For Franke's posts
you want to select the Chinese Traditional encoding and set whatever
fonts for that. On mine it says Ming Liu, which displays all the Chinese
characters correctly and the Roman characters in a sort of cheesy toy
typewriter font. But you could change that to Arial or whatever, which
would only display the Roman characters correctly. And remember to set
the font size to 'smaller' or 'medium' or whatever you normally use.
--
Regards
John
Mark Barratt
wrote:
Yes, but Franke's posts aren't in plain text so far as OE is
concerned, that's the point. As far as I recall, (I now use Agent) his
readers can solve the problem by setting their proportional font also
to Courier.
Of course, a more prudent solution would be to switch to a client
program that isn't so prone to malicious attacks from script kiddies,
such as the one posted here on the 28th with the subject "Re: OH NO!
Wet Fart!
I hope not too many OE users got caught by it. From the look of the
code, it appears to just keep opening new mail windows continuously,
which will probably crash Windows.
Mark Barratt
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
[re a google ratio of 5:1 for 'die'/'dice']
>I don't think so. What's on the Web (as reported by Google) doesn't
>exactly reflect actual American usage. I think Americans (and
>others) who are comfortable with "die" are overrepresented in Web
>documents. I could go into why I think this is if anyone's interested.
Not so much interested as morbidly fascinated, I would say. Yeah, feed
the man more rope.
Matti Lamprhey
> >>>
> >>> Sure, there is -- you are using OE.
> >>>
> >>> Go to Tools/Options/Read/Fonts and take your pick.
> >>
> >>Sorry.. I was unclear. What I meant is that there's no effective way of
> >>setting the fonts of incoming messages in my news reader. I have the
> >>option you mention set to Courier, but it doesn't set all messages. Why
> >>would that happen?
> >>
> >I have seen this mentioned several times on different ngs, and no-one
> >has ever come up with an answer. Just another OE mystery. Other
> >newsreaders do not do this. When reading a plain text message you see
> >it in the font you have set. Always. That's the way it's supposed to
> >be.
>
> Yes, but Franke's posts aren't in plain text so far as OE is
> concerned, that's the point. As far as I recall, (I now use Agent) his
> readers can solve the problem by setting their proportional font also
> to Courier.
It looks to me as if OE6 thinks they're plain text:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I can tell HTML ones, because they don't take on the standard background
colour I've set. Franke's are plain-text, but are displayed in a
non-standard font.
Matti
Richard Fontana
Okay. Here's the basic idea:
In the collection of Internet-media documents are a disproporionately
large number of documents authoried by people who are what, for lack of
a better term, I will call PWTGIGWDUS: People who take games, including
games with dice, unusually seriously; these are particularly likely to
be people who get into so-called "role-playing games" and similar woinky
cultural activities.
Another group overrepresented is what, for lack of a better term, I will
call TMPAFT: The mathematics profession and their fellow travellers.
I did a search for "throw one die" on Google and got 71 hits. Here are
the first ten:
(1) "Ask Dr. Math" forum
(2) Internet game-selling shop
(3) Computer science undergraduate class website
(4) Instructions for a role-playing game called "Frontier Post"
(5) "Fantasy gamebook adventure"
(6) Online academic book on probability
(7) Site having something to do with some naval war-simulation game
(8) University math class website
(9) Page about dice aimed at role-playing game enthusiasts
(10) Site otherwise having to do with juggling, about "dice stacking"
I contend that all but possibly the last one are clearly examples of
either the PWTGIGWDUS phenomenon or the TMPAFT phenomenon.
I don't think I need to tell you that the average guy or gal on (= BrE
'in') the street is (a) *not* a role-playing game enthusiast; (b) *not* a
mathematics teacher or mathematics academic; (c) *not* a juggler, and
(d) *not* someone who gets into "fantasy gamebook adventures". However,
if you told me ten years ago that this World Wide Web thing would have
developed into what it has today, and you asked me to predict what sorts
of societal groups might, for a long initial period, be overrepresented in
Web-authored documents, I am confident that I would have listed
(a) role-playing game enthusiasts; (b) mathematicians, computer scientists
and their fellow travellers; (c) "fantasy gamebook
adventure" enthusiasts; and I'd *like* to think that I'd also have listed
(d) jugglers.
Richard Fontana
>
> In the collection of Internet-media documents are a disproporionately
> large number of documents authoried
Argh! "Authored".
alexy
>Okay. Here's the basic idea:
>
> In the collection of Internet-media documents are a disproporionately
> large number of documents authoried by people who are what, for lack of
> a better term, I will call PWTGIGWDUS: People who take games, including
> games with dice, unusually seriously; these are particularly likely to
> be people who get into so-called "role-playing games" and similar woinky
> cultural activities.
>
> Another group overrepresented is what, for lack of a better term, I will
> call TMPAFT: The mathematics profession and their fellow travellers.
>
>I did a search for "throw one die" on Google and got 71 hits. Here are
>the first ten:
>
>(1) "Ask Dr. Math" forum
>(2) Internet game-selling shop
>(3) Computer science undergraduate class website
>(4) Instructions for a role-playing game called "Frontier Post"
>(5) "Fantasy gamebook adventure"
>(6) Online academic book on probability
>(7) Site having something to do with some naval war-simulation game
>(8) University math class website
>(9) Page about dice aimed at role-playing game enthusiasts
>(10) Site otherwise having to do with juggling, about "dice stacking"
How unusual that reference to "throw one die" appeared mainly on web
sites having to do with gaming or using dice to determine probability!
Wonder what kind of site showed "throw one dice"? Just general sites
having nothing to do with gaming or probability, where the web author
just happened to throw that in to show he was an ordinary man on the
street?
Next evidence?
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
>Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
I recall using many-sided dice in Monopoly in the 1950s. Does D&D use only one
die, then?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mark Barratt
OK, I did a google search on "throw one dice", excluding .uk sites,
and got 39 hits. The top ten, excluding duplicates, were:
(1) A game of some sort.
(2) A website about children's games.
(3) A website all about backgammon.
(4) A page about hobbies.
(5) A 404 error.
(6) Something about a game (or maybe a battle) called 'borodin'.
(7) Another site all about backgammon, but with those charming pop-up
adverts.
(8) An interactive novel (i.e. fantasy game) called "Windhammer".
(9) A site talking about a game of Subbeteo football. This one also
contains the plural "2 dices".
(10) A site about the game 'chouette' which is a variety of - you
guessed it - backgammon.
So, basically, dice are associated with games and probability, and 404
errors, and very little else. I can't see that this establishes
anything. It looks as though you're arguing that the standard word is
the one used by people who don't use the word.
I'm not convinced that your classification "People who take games,
including games with dice, unusually seriously" is definable in any
useful way which would allow us to distinguish them from, say, "People
who occasionally play games", or "People who never play games but
think that they know the right terminology".
Joe Manfre
>So, basically, dice are associated with games and probability, and 404
>errors, and very little else. I can't see that this establishes
>anything. It looks as though you're arguing that the standard word is
>the one used by people who don't use the word.
Looking at the two lists that you and Richard submitted (and that I
snipped for space), it looks to me like singular 'dice' is being used
in the context of board games for normal people (or for children)
while singular 'die' is used in the context of NERD GAMES, which is
what I think Richard was getting at.
JM
--
807
Apurbva Chandra Senray
>
> > Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:<3C57E671...@midway.uchicago.edu>...
> >
> > > The advent of the "many-sided die" can probably be traced to the
> > > Dungeons & Dragons boom of the early 1980s.
> >
> > Late 1970s.
>
> Among Early Post-Tet (EPT) kids at least D&D became a fixed focus of
> cultural ridicule by no later than 1982 and probably as early as
> 1981; on the other hand I don't think it was widely known among EPTs
> before 1979. 1980 was clearly the high point of actual EPT
> interest. Jokes about D&D-playing people were current as late as 1992.
Early Post-Tet?
> I think general public awareness of Dungeons & Dragons only came about
> after that murder by D&D-obsessed teenagers which took place sometime
> during the early 1980s -- I forget the details, but it was made into a
> TV movie which I remember watching.
I think you're talking about the temporary disappearance and the
later suicide of Michigan State University student Dallas Egbert,
which was the basis for the movie "Mazes and Monsters" and the book
"The Dungeon Master." The fact that you remember it as a "murder by
D&D-obsessed teen-agers" is testament to the sensationalist reporting
of the story and the hysterical reaction to it. His death had nothing
to do with Dungeons and Dragons and a lot to do with Egbert's
emotional troubles and drug use. See
http://www.alliance-britney.com/ban-2001/netscape/historic.htm.
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> Yes, of course. I'm not sure how far "Early Post-Tet" goes, but I'd
> say it covers anyone born during the period 1 February 1968 through 31
> December 1970. By 1971, however, you've
> left Early Post-Tet behind. Middle Post-Tet runs from about 1971
> through 1973. MPTs are characterized by Limited Cultural
> Degeneration. Late Post-Tet runs from about 1 January 1974 through
> midnight, 4 July 1976. (Whether this is the midnight that *begins* 4
> July 1976 or the midnight that *ends* 4 July 1976 is a matter of
> current dispute.) LPTs are characterized by More Cultural
> Degeneration.
Good God Almighty. I am speechless.
Mark Barratt
wrote:
So, paraphrasing what I said to Richard, can you define the difference
between "board games for normal people (or for children)" and "NERD
GAMES" in such a manner that these phenomena can be evaluated?
James Follett
writes
>> * They were in a different font (instead of plain ol' courier).
>
>I use Times New Roman.
Times Roman was designed for use with narrow columns and allowed fairly
tight tracking. The serifs are just about the right weight to allow the
eye to isolate individual letters in a body text word. Plain ol'
courier, or any mono-spaced font (set to a screen width of 60-65) is
best for coping with the limitations of Usenet, and qualifies you to
become an ASCII art critic for the NYT. Proportional spacemen are
specifically barred from such high office.
Eye line recovery and the need for narrow columns was discovered with
the first London newspaper. The "Courier" was a broadsheet with one
column printed right across the page. A pig to read because when the eye
reached the end of the line, the beginning of the next line on the left
was outside the retina's macula which made it difficult for the reader
to determine which line to pick up on.
The trick is to limit line lengths so that the beginning of the line
being read doesn't stray beyond the macula's periphery, thus making
recovery of the next line easy enough to be unconscious act. It's no
accident that books such as novels with great wodges of text average
about 13 words per line. Courier fits the bill admirably.
Anyone using Times Roman on the grounds that "it looks good" and sends
out letters/reports with about 18 words per line is ignoring 400 years
of hard-learned lessons in typography.
The macula -- the only part of the human eye's retina that functions
properly -- is the high price we pay for binocular vision. It's severe
limitations can be judged with a simple experiment. Focus on one word in
the middle of this paragraph and, without moving your gaze from the
target word, try to read the surrounding words to the left and right,
and on the lines above and below the word. You might be able to
determine the words immediately above and below, and adjacent, but
you're unlikely to be able to read much beyond that even though your
peripheral vision is telling you that the words are there.
Those who've suffered a detached retina often have to cope with a
resulting damaged macula. They have to learn to read by scanning the
line above the line they're actually reading. Try it sometime.
--
James Follett Novelist (Callsign G1LXP) http://www.davew.demon.co.uk Part 1
audio CD of "Mindwarp" (prelude to Earthsearch) with Colin Baker & Neil Henry
now avail from Big Finish Productions http://www.bigfinish.net/earthsearch
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:05:51 GMT, panNO...@musician.org (Pan) wrote:
> >Dice have to be "are"! One is a die!
> >
> This is a usage unknown in the UK, except possibly among gamblers, who
> seem to use a lot of American terms. To the recreational user it is
> one dice, two dice. Books on games usually point out the existence of
> the singular "die" in terms which show that they don't expect their
> readers to have heard it. How general is the use of "die" in the US?
Those of us who grew up with Dungeons and Dragons and other
role-playing games regularly used the word "die" for one die. We'd
even use it in a quasi-plural sense:
There were six kinds of dice used in the game -- four-sided
(tetrahedron-shaped), six-sided (traditional cube-shaped),
eight-sided, 10-sided, 12-sided (dodecahedron-shaped), and 20-sided
(icosadedron-shaped). Various combinations of dice were thrown for
different purposes. If the game required the throwing of six
four-sided dice, then the abbreviated notation used was "6d4," which
was read as "six die-four" rather than "six dice-four."
Mark Barratt
Hi Jim! Long time no see, as they say. Are you staying long?
--
Reality is an hallucination induced by alcohol deficiency.
James Follett
<mark.b...@chello.be> writes
>Hi Jim! Long time no see, as they say. Are you staying long?
Hallo, people, and thanks for the nice welcomes. I've been out of the
Usenet writing game (limiting myself to one or two newsgroups) for a
goodly time, having had a series of ops in 2001 to give me what is known
at Moorfields Eye Hospital as "RAF vision".
Fifty years ago, in 1952, at the age of 12, I was in the capable hands
of a Mr Harold Ridley, an extremely kindly ophthalmic surgeon who saved
my right eye following an accident that cost me my left eye. The lens
had to removed (needled) to prevent infection spreading. His parting
words to me all those years ago were: "Come back in 20-years and we
might be able to put an artificial lens in your left eye." I went back
in the 1960s and got much the same answer from Mr Rigley's successor:
"Sorry -- not enough tissue to anchor a lens in place. Come back in 20
years."
Last year my vision started clouding in my good eye so I hot-footed to
London and got to see the one man who's been working near miracles at
Moorfields. To my astonishment, he was prepared to tackle my defunct
left eye on the grounds that it had been pretty useless for half a
century therefore nothing would be lost if a lens implant operation went
pear-shaped.
The op was carried out and was a success. I ended up with a crystal
clear (why do we use that ridiculous cliché? I've never seen a clear,
unground crystal) acrylic lens in my left eye. In the wrong place -- in
front of the pupil and held in place by the cornea. But it works!
After allowing a few months for everything to settle down, the surgeon
tackled my right eye, which was a routine cataract operation.
My curiosity was aroused so I started doing some digging. I was
astonished to learn that the kindly Harold Ridley was still alive in
1999, he was 94, and received a knighthood that year for his pioneering
work in intra-ocular implants. Digging further revealed that he was more
than a mere pioneer, he actually started implants and developed a
technique that has benefited millions of people worldwide over the last
sixty years.
As with all great discoveries, serendipity played an important role. As
a young eye doctor during WWII he was puzzled to note that the eyes of
some crashed fighter pilots reacted to glass splinters from cockpit
canopies and that some pilots' eyes did not react. He did some research
after discovering that it was pilots of crashed Hurricanes whose eyes
did not react. Hurricane canopies were made of a type of Plexiglas or
Perspex -- acrylic. This gave Harold Ridley the idea of making
artificial lenses from acrylic and implanting them in the eyes of pilots
whose lenses had been damaged or destroyed. Against all odds, and
opposition from his colleagues, he persevered and succeeded.
The rest, as they say, is history.
He died in 2000.
Mark Barratt
<ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>He died in 2000.
Ugh!
Welcome back, Jim. I've just realised how much I've missed your
writing.
--
You mean neither you nor the OED has learned
the futility of disagreeing with Fontana?
- Truly Donovan
Tony Cooper
>
>
> As with all great discoveries, serendipity played an important role. As
> a young eye doctor during WWII he was puzzled to note that the eyes of
> some crashed fighter pilots reacted to glass splinters from cockpit
> canopies and that some pilots' eyes did not react. He did some research
> after discovering that it was pilots of crashed Hurricanes whose eyes
> did not react. Hurricane canopies were made of a type of Plexiglas or
> Perspex -- acrylic. This gave Harold Ridley the idea of making
> artificial lenses from acrylic and implanting them in the eyes of pilots
> whose lenses had been damaged or destroyed. Against all odds, and
> opposition from his colleagues, he persevered and succeeded.
>
> The rest, as they say, is history.
>
Interesting. The radial keratotomy procedure has a similar
history. The RK procedure is where a series of spoke-like
incisions are made in the cornea to correct vision. The
incisions, in essence, change the curvature of the eye and
thus affect the vision. The history is:
"The desire to be able to see without depending upon an
optical device has been one of mankind’s goals for
centuries. The discovery of modern day refractive surgery,
the procedures which ophthalmologists perform to permanently
correct the eye’s incorrect focus, had a most interesting
beginning.
It all started in Moscow, Russia in 1973. A
thirteen-year-old boy by the name of Boris Petrov was
involved in a fight in the school yard. During the fight,
his eyeglasses were broken and pieces of the glass cut the
cornea or clear surface of his eye. The boy was taken to
the Moscow Eye Institute where he was attended to by world
famous eye surgeon Svyatoslav N. Fyodorov. Dr. Fyodorov
cleansed the eye and bandaged it tightly for several days.
When the bandages were removed, the boy remarked to Dr.
Fyodorov on how much more clearly he could see without his
glasses than he could before the injury. Dr. Fyodorov
examined the child’s eye and discovered that the tiny cuts
made by the shards of glass had reshaped the cornea and
corrected the child’s focus. Dr. Fyodorov felt that if a
thirteen-year-old boy could correct his nearsightedness with
broken pieces of glass, then Dr. Fyodorov as an experienced
eye surgeon could do the same for others with delicate
instruments in a careful planned fashion. This became the
beginning of what is known as the refractive surgical
procedures to correct nearsightedness, farsightedness and
astigmatism, the early procedures of radial keratotomy."
(http://www.eyelasercenter.com/FAQ-s/main.htm - an article
that also mentions Dr. Ridley's contributions)
I've met Dr. Fyodorov several times at medical meetings.
His initial surgeries were done manually with knives, but
the slits are now done with lasers. Last year, my daughter
had the laser surgery and has been delighted with the
results.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
James Follett
<mark.b...@chello.be> writes
>On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:56:34 +0000, James Follett
><ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>He died in 2000.
>
>Ugh!
>
>Welcome back, Jim. I've just realised how much I've missed your
>writing.
Thanks. I see Skitt allowed me an aberrant apostrophe in a post. Very
goodness gracious of him.
Which reminds me, Nottingham City Council are fining their minions GBP1
for every mis-placed or not placed apostrophe. "We are an education
authority and must set standards," said a spokesman on the Richard and
Judy Show. Quite right, too; its high time to take a firm stand.