Computer Mouses--why not?
Yohanan
the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
plural).
(The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
Indo-European.)
It would make sense to apply the same economy to the word "mouse" when
it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
show the distinction in meaning.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Robert Lieblich
>
> When you see the word "louses" you know implicitly that it's meant in
> the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
> if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
> regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
> economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
> morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
> plural).
>
> (The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
> plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
> Indo-European.)
>
> It would make sense to apply the same economy to the word "mouse" when
> it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
> saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
> show the distinction in meaning.
Alt.usage.english (a different group, please note) has beaten this exact
question almost to death, and if you can figure out how to use the new
interface at deja.com (formerly DejaNews.com) you can find dozens of
postings taking just about every possible approach to this issue. My
contribution is usually to point out that in some uses of "goose,"
"gooses" is the plural. "Louses" has probably also come up at one time
or another.
I agree with your conclusion. Many others don't.
Bob Lieblich
Richard Fontana
> When you see the word "louses" you know implicitly that it's meant in
> the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
> if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
> regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
> economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
> morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
> plural).
>
> (The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
> plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
> Indo-European.)
Did you take that from the American Heritage, more or less?
I remember reading a similar sentence when I was 8 or 9 years old (in what
I think was the first edition) and being fascinated.
> It would make sense to apply the same economy to the word "mouse" when
> it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
> saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
> show the distinction in meaning.
Some people are definitely using "mouses" already. I still prefer "mice"
though.
RF
Clay
Yohanan wrote in message <7ihmq1$c82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>When you see the word "louses" you know implicitly that it's meant in
>the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
>if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
>regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
>economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
>morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
>plural).
>
>(The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
>plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
>Indo-European.)
>
>it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
>saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
>show the distinction in meaning.
After years in the computer industry in New Zealand, I can say that the only
people I have heard use the word "mice" for the computer device, were either
fairly new in computing, or American. For me, "mouses" are what they are!
Cheers,
Clay
Ellen Mizzell
> When you see the word "louses" you know implicitly that it's meant in
> the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
> if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
> regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
> economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
> morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
> plural).
> (The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
> plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
> Indo-European.)
> It would make sense to apply the same economy to the word "mouse" when
> it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
> saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
> show the distinction in meaning.
It would make even more sense to find a new name for pointers
("pointers", perhaps?) which would take in trackballs, wheels,
light pens and touchpads, as well as all the combinations thereof.
The standard mouse will have vanished from use long before the
English-speaking world agrees on its plural. Roll on the day.
The damned thing ought to be banned.
http://archive.abcnews.com/sections/living/mice1117/index.html
--
Ellen Mizzell
Matti Lamprhey
news:7ihmq1$c82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> When you see the word "louses" you know implicitly that it's meant in
> the metaphorical sense -- 'men of despicably bad character'. Because
> if it were meant literally, it would be "lice". This use of the
> regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
> economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
> morphological umlaut (changing a back vowel to a front vowel in the
> plural).
>
> (The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
> plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since proto-
> Indo-European.)
>
> It would make sense to apply the same economy to the word "mouse" when
> it refers to the computer input device. So far everybody has been
> saying "computer mice," but it would be neat to call them "mouses" to
> show the distinction in meaning.
The FAQ of the alt.usage.english newsgroup discusses this issue. It seems
that "mouses" was proposed -- rather retrospectively -- as the plural for
the device "as /mice/ is just too suggestive of furry little creatures." It
didn't stick, however.
The FAQ is at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-usage-english-faq/
Matti
Yohanan
> > (The two household-pest words *mus and *lus, with their umlauted
> > plurals *mis and *lis, have been paired in this way ever since
proto-
> > Indo-European.)
>
> Did you take that from the American Heritage, more or less?
> I remember reading a similar sentence when I was 8 or 9 years old (in
what
> I think was the first edition) and being fascinated.
Yes--good memory! That was from Calvert Watkins's article "Indo-
European and the Indo-Europeans" in the back of AHD1 (1969) -- still
the best AHD!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
P&D Schultz
> The FAQ of the alt.usage.english newsgroup discusses this issue. It seems
> that "mouses" was proposed -- rather retrospectively -- as the plural for
> the device "as /mice/ is just too suggestive of furry little creatures." It
> didn't stick, however.
>
> The FAQ is at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-usage-english-faq/
It may have been proposed retrospectively, but that is not to the point. The
fact is that numerous people in many places had been calling the devices mouses
for many years before that rather after-the-fact comment was made. Numerous
people STILL say mouses, and they do so because it seems right to them.
//P. Schultz
Yahya M
>regular plural suffix -es instead of the umlauted plural is a neat
>economy afforded by one of the quirks of the Germanic languages,
>show the distinction in meaning.
Arabic, like the Germanic languages, makes plurals by internal vowel changes
rather than by suffixation. There's a variety of different plural patterns in
Arabic. It's interesting that when an Arabic word has a figurative meaning
besides the literal meaning, it uses different plural forms to distinguish
them. For example:
The plural of `ayn 'eye' is `uyūn;
the plural of `ayn 'notable person' is a`yān.
The plural of bayt 'house' is buyūt;
the plural of bayt 'hemistich of verse' is abyāt.
Daniel James
> It would make even more sense to find a new name for pointers
> ("pointers", perhaps?)
>
No, not pointers, because the pointer is the moving icon thingy on the
screen that the rodent moves.
The pointer is not to be confused with the "cursor" which is a text
input point (which can also be moved using the rodent).
The cursor is now often called the "caret" which in turn should not be
confused with the caret symbol (known around here as "up arrow", but
which looks more like an estranged circumflex accent).
Up-arrow should, of course, not be confused with the cursor movement
key of the same name - which is sometimes used to move the caret, but
at other times the input focus, or a window.
The terminology is tricky, isn't it? That's what comes of speaking in
metaphors all the time.
I originally thought a colleague's use of "rodent" as a general term
for any pointer input device was a nice conceit, but I'm afraid it got
it's teeth into me and won't let go.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Graham Howe
--
Daniel James <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.000001c...@barney.sonadata...
I smell a rat ! I have a shrew-d suspicion that all this talk of rodents is
not to be taken seriously.....
Graham
Matti Lamprhey
news:VA.000001c...@barney.sonadata...
> In article <7iinmb$db$1...@tictac.demon.co.uk>, Ellen Mizzell wrote:
> > It would make even more sense to find a new name for pointers
> > ("pointers", perhaps?)
> >
>
> No, not pointers, because the pointer is the moving icon thingy on the
> screen that the rodent moves.
>
> The pointer is not to be confused with the "cursor" which is a text
> input point (which can also be moved using the rodent).
>
> The cursor is now often called the "caret" which in turn should not be
> confused with the caret symbol (known around here as "up arrow", but
> which looks more like an estranged circumflex accent).
>
> Up-arrow should, of course, not be confused with the cursor movement
> key of the same name - which is sometimes used to move the caret, but
> at other times the input focus, or a window.
>
> The terminology is tricky, isn't it? That's what comes of speaking in
> metaphors all the time.
>
> I originally thought a colleague's use of "rodent" as a general term
> for any pointer input device was a nice conceit, but I'm afraid it got
> it's teeth into me and won't let go.
I think "pointing device" has become the generic term for mice/mouses,
trackballs, touchpads etcetera.
It won't be long before our brainwaves are the pointing device, I suspect,
and the old terms will be history.
Matti
Ellen Mizzell
[..]
> I think "pointing device" has become the generic term for mice/mouses,
> trackballs, touchpads etcetera.
Yes, you're right.
> It won't be long before our brainwaves are the pointing device, I suspect,
> and the old terms will be history.
Eyes. Not suitable for everyone, obviously.
--
Ellen Mizzell