VAXen as a plural of VAX
Tim ffrench-Lynch
document?
Tim
Steve Lionel
Back around 1979, there was a (humorous) attempt to answer this question, with
a number of alternatives proposed. My favorite at the time was "VAXoth",
which was alleged to be Hebrew.
Of course, the lawyers would want you to say "VAX systems", (with (TM)
acknowledgement), and if I were writing a technical paper, I would choose
something like that rather than trying to be clever and pluralize a trademark.
Steve
H Vlems
"Tim ffrench-Lynch" <tim-DOT-ffrenc...@selex-sas.com> schreef in
bericht news:4315BA48...@selex-sas.com...
> Is VAXen a well enough established plural of VAX to use in a technical
> document?
>
> Tim
If VAX is considered to be a noun then in dutch you'd be correct. In
english, a foreign language for me, I'd hesitate. IMHO the plural of VAX is
VAX systems.
That said, modern use of the english language is confusting to the extent
that VAXen won't even register ....
Hans
WhoDat?
VAX is trademarked (in the US), but not by Digital, Compaq or HP. See:
< http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=p6nnrr.3.7 >
##
VAX
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: WEARING APPAREL, NAMELY, SHIRTS, HATS,
SHORTS, JACKETS, AND PANTS. FIRST USE: 20010323. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
20010323
##
<:^)
WhoDat?
Oops. Sorry, our type of VAX (tm) is still LIVE, renewed by Compaq for
6 years on 2002/03/07 -- on page two along with the VAX vacuum cleaner.
Jim MacKenzie
"H Vlems" <nos...@what.ever.com> wrote in message
news:c725d$431600c5$513b9a2c$21...@news.versatel.nl...
>
> If VAX is considered to be a noun then in dutch you'd be correct. In
> english, a foreign language for me, I'd hesitate. IMHO the plural of VAX
> is
> VAX systems.
If "VAX systems" is the plural, then "VAX system" is the singular.
If we can use "VAX" as a singular, then it must have a plural form. "ax"
(sometimes spelled "axe") is "axes" in the plural, but "ox" is "oxen".
If it were my paper, I'd be inclined to use "VAXen" - it seems well
accepted - but I'd insert a footnote at the first iteration, explaining why
I chose it.
Jim
Steve Lionel
>VAX is trademarked (in the US), but not by Digital, Compaq or HP. See:
>
>< http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=p6nnrr.3.7 >
>
>##
>VAX
>IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: WEARING APPAREL, NAMELY, SHIRTS, HATS,
>SHORTS, JACKETS, AND PANTS. FIRST USE: 20010323. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE:
>20010323
>##
><:^)
DEC never registered VAX as a trademark - its philosophy was not to register
trademarks in general. Also, trademarks are product-line specific. When the
DEC VAX was introduced, there was a VAX vacuum cleaner line in the UK
("Nothing sucks like a VAX!") For a time in the 1980s, Sears imported these
into the US, and I see now that Circuit City (I think) is selling VAX-branded
vacuums.
There is no conflict here, though DEC and the VAX vacuum people did discuss
the matter and come to some sort of agreement. There is Cadillac dog food,
for example. As long as the product lines are distinct enough to avoid
confusion, different companies can share a trademark. (Consider, though,
Apple Music's lawsuit against Apple Computer for violating its agreement not
to enter the music business...)
Nevertheless, you should acknowledge trademarks claimed by others when you
know of them, at least when writing formally. A common way of doing this is
to use an asterisk and then add a footnote that trademarks are property of
their respective owners, or some such.
Steve Lionel
Software Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH
User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://developer.intel.com/software/products/support/
AEF
I don't see why people tend to like the term "VAXen". It reminds me of
fauna, centaurs, oxen, and fairy-tale space -- not exactly what I like
to think of when I think of VAX.
(What a cool name: VAX. Then there's the ever popular VAX/VMS. And the
older VAX-11. Hard to beat! How can you beat -- VAX -- or -- VAX/VMS?)
Do you pay taxen and send faxen to order VAXen which come in boxen
dragged by oxen? Do you cut open the boxen with axen?
I prefer VAXes or VAX systems.
Hey, different strokes...
JMHO
Galen
English just meant a female fox. If VAXen had been a singular form and
if they came in two genders the other might be called a VOX or
something similar. (I'm not at all clear on M.E. vowel mutations, or
whatever they might be called.)
The few English plurals in "(e)n" derive from the "weak declension"
nouns in early English and its Germanic ancestors. In this context
VAXen is mentioned in a Wikipedia article on English plurals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Irregular_Germanic_plurals
The Wikepedia article also mentions these other plurals in "n(e)",
some archaic or dialect: "kine" (cows), "shoon" (shoes), children (from
an earlier plural form "childre"), "eyen" (eyes).
Big John
Since the plural of 'appendix' is 'appendices'
What's wrong with 'VAX' -> 'VACES' ?
: John )
S
> What's wrong with 'VAX' -> 'VACES' ?
It points to our Vices.
S
norm.r...@metso.com
"Big John" <john....@airwidesolutions.com> wrote on 09/01/2005 07:04:34
AM:
> Well, I've always preferred..
>
> Since the plural of 'appendix' is 'appendices'
Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."
The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes."
[Not all words migrate exactly from Latin to English. For example,
"agenda" is a Latin plural form, but in English it means a list,
and so can take an English plural of "agendas," which to a Roman
would be like "listses," which is absurd.]
We also, except in jest, do not use "hippopotami" for hippopotamuses.
VAXen, to the point, is probably a corruption suggested by Oxen, and
has made a place in our argot because it appeals to the desire to
be slightly obscure and too strange by half. I would not use it in
the non-VAX world.
> What's wrong with 'VAX' -> 'VACES' ?
>
Bob Koehler
> VAXen, to the point, is probably a corruption suggested by Oxen, and
> has made a place in our argot because it appeals to the desire to
> be slightly obscure and too strange by half. I would not use it in
> the non-VAX world.
I was always under the impression that VAXen was a half-joking slang.
At best jargon peculiar to the VMS community (I've never had an
ULTRIX lover say "VAXen").
I would not use it in formal writing. But I use it on c.o.v. a lot.
Bob Kaplow
> I don't see why people tend to like the term "VAXen". It reminds me of
> fauna, centaurs, oxen, and fairy-tale space -- not exactly what I like
> to think of when I think of VAX.
>
> (What a cool name: VAX. Then there's the ever popular VAX/VMS. And the
> older VAX-11. Hard to beat! How can you beat -- VAX -- or -- VAX/VMS?)
>
> Do you pay taxen and send faxen to order VAXen which come in boxen
> dragged by oxen? Do you cut open the boxen with axen?
>
> I prefer VAXes or VAX systems.
I thought the plural of VAX was VAXcluster.
Although I've liked and used VAXen ever since I first heard the term. My dad
used to quote the old cartoon strip line "Ox Oxen Box Boxen".
I recently asked my wife the corresponding question about Alpha. Her
response was that Alpha IS the plural form.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about
repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the
struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
> We also, except in jest, do not use "hippopotami" for hippopotamuses.
This is different since "hippopotamus" is not a Latin word (it's Greek),
so the plural "hippopotami" was never a real plural. I believe "octopus"
is Latin, but not second declension, so "octopi" is also bogus.
Of course, bogus terms can enter a language if they become established.
"An orange" was originally "a norange", "an umpire" originally "a
numpire", "a napkin" originally "an apkin". That's a whole nother
process. :-)
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
kapl...@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) writes:
> Although I've liked and used VAXen ever since I first heard the term. My dad
> used to quote the old cartoon strip line "Ox Oxen Box Boxen".
I think it's pretty obvious that it is modelled after Germanic plurals.
The "en" suffix occurs a lot in German, in many different contexts. At
an airport on Tenerife, I recall an Englishman being amused by an
advertisement (in German) which said "Wir wünschen Ihnen einen schönen
Urlaub".
Bill Gunshannon
koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-ON852570...@metso.com>, norm.r...@metso.com writes:
>
>> VAXen, to the point, is probably a corruption suggested by Oxen, and
>> has made a place in our argot because it appeals to the desire to
>> be slightly obscure and too strange by half. I would not use it in
>> the non-VAX world.
>
> I was always under the impression that VAXen was a half-joking slang.
> At best jargon peculiar to the VMS community (I've never had an
> ULTRIX lover say "VAXen").
You certainly have. I always refer to the plural of VAX as VAXen.
And I have been an ULTRIX lover since ULTRIX-11, which I still run!!
>
> I would not use it in formal writing. But I use it on c.o.v. a lot.
I agree. Being more verbose in formal writting is always acceptable.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
AEF
Bob Kaplow wrote:
> In article <1125527346....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I don't see why people tend to like the term "VAXen". It reminds me of
> > fauna, centaurs, oxen, and fairy-tale space -- not exactly what I like
> > to think of when I think of VAX.
> >
> > (What a cool name: VAX. Then there's the ever popular VAX/VMS. And the
> > older VAX-11. Hard to beat! How can you beat -- VAX -- or -- VAX/VMS?)
> >
> > Do you pay taxen and send faxen to order VAXen which come in boxen
> > dragged by oxen? Do you cut open the boxen with axen?
> >
> > I prefer VAXes or VAX systems.
>
> I thought the plural of VAX was VAXcluster.
>
> Although I've liked and used VAXen ever since I first heard the term. My dad
It doesn't make you think of dainty fauna prancing through an
"enchanted forest"?
Yeah, what a great image for VAX systems.
Looks like I'm outvoted, though. Dainty fauna it is.
[...]
Dave Froble
> I recently asked my wife the corresponding question about Alpha. Her
> response was that Alpha IS the plural form.
Ok, ask her the plural of itanic.
Fleet?
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
JF Mezei
> Ok, ask her the plural of itanic.
>
> Fleet?
Itanium -> Itania
Itanic -> Itanics
Sinking -> Sinking
Andreas Davour
> In article <gjkSXf...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> > In article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-ON852570...@metso.com>, norm.r...@metso.com writes:
> >
> >> VAXen, to the point, is probably a corruption suggested by Oxen, and
> >> has made a place in our argot because it appeals to the desire to
> >> be slightly obscure and too strange by half. I would not use it in
> >> the non-VAX world.
> >
> > I was always under the impression that VAXen was a half-joking slang.
> > At best jargon peculiar to the VMS community (I've never had an
> > ULTRIX lover say "VAXen").
>
> You certainly have. I always refer to the plural of VAX as VAXen.
> And I have been an ULTRIX lover since ULTRIX-11, which I still run!!
...and I was going to ask if there were such a thing as an ULTRIX lover!
/andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Bob Koehler
>
> You certainly have. I always refer to the plural of VAX as VAXen.
> And I have been an ULTRIX lover since ULTRIX-11, which I still run!!
I can recall no previuous data point, but I have one now.
norm.r...@metso.com
Kevin Andreoli <I.pos...@you.post.the.reply.invalid> wrote on 09/02/2005
08:15:30 AM:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 13:06:44 -0400, in article <OFA2C1908B.B2E2E5BF-
> ON8525706F.005D5075-
> 8525706F...@metso.com>, I saw that norm wrote...
>
>
> |Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."
> |The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes."
> |
> Not in my part of England!
>
> The documents which my colleagues and I write all contain appendices.
Well, well, well. I stand corrected. Apparently the Latin plural
forms, while not preferred, are still "acceptable" usage.
(Hippopotimi as well, ugly as that sounds.)
And not just in the UK either.
Sorry, Kev.
"Never mind."
Main Entry: ap·pen·dix
Pronunciation: &-'pen-diks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dix·es or ap·pen·di·ces /-d&-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin appendic-, appendix, from appendere
1 a : APPENDAGE b : supplementary material usually attached at the end of a
piece of writing
>
> --
> Kev
> NNNN
WhoDat?
VAX is a proper adjective, not a noun. A trademark (or tradestyle or
brand-name) describes a particular type of thing. There are a few
tradenames so familiar that they "act" as nouns (Kleenex, Xerox,...)
but it's still actually Kleenex tissues, Xerox copiers.
Place and type identifiers (Concord grapes, French wine) are also
proper adjectives. Once the topic of a conversation is established, the
noun may be assumed -- we don't need to keep repeating it.
So, VAX is a type of computer processor. If we've established that
we're talking about computers, just using VAX is acceptable unless we
need to distinguish between processor and system architecture.
It's one VAX, two VAX, three VAX or more. The implied noun and whether
it's singular or plural should be obvious in context, but if it isn't,
use it.
VAXen is vernacular slang.
norm.r...@metso.com
"WhoDat?" <wh...@whoever.com> wrote on 09/06/2005 12:55:37 PM:
> Tim ffrench-Lynch wrote:
> > Is VAXen a well enough established plural of VAX to use in a technical
> > document?
> >
> > Tim
>
> VAX is a proper adjective, not a noun. A trademark (or tradestyle or
> brand-name) describes a particular type of thing. There are a few
> tradenames so familiar that they "act" as nouns (Kleenex, Xerox,...)
> but it's still actually Kleenex tissues, Xerox copiers.
>
Well, now, where to begin. "Xerox" is misused as a verb, not a noun or
adjective.
> Place and type identifiers (Concord grapes, French wine) are also
> proper adjectives. Once the topic of a conversation is established, the
> noun may be assumed -- we don't need to keep repeating it.
>
> So, VAX is a type of computer processor. If we've established that
> we're talking about computers, just using VAX is acceptable unless we
> need to distinguish between processor and system architecture.
>
> It's one VAX, two VAX, three VAX or more. The implied noun and whether
> it's singular or plural should be obvious in context, but if it isn't,
> use it.
This is not common usage. "Fish" is the plural of "fish." One fish, two
fish, three fish. "VAX" is decidedly not the plural of "VAX." One VAX
two VAXes, three VAXes. More formally, it would be one VAX system, two
VAX systems, three VAX systems (and never three VAX system).
This has nothing to do with proper adjectives, and everything to do with
English usage - which follows no rule for long.
>
> VAXen is vernacular slang.
>
This is indeed so.
WhoDat?
> "WhoDat?" <wh...@whoever.com> wrote on 09/06/2005 12:55:37 PM:
>
> > Tim ffrench-Lynch wrote:
> > > Is VAXen a well enough established plural of VAX to use in a technical
> > > document?
> > >
> > > Tim
> >
> > VAX is a proper adjective, not a noun. A trademark (or tradestyle or
> > brand-name) describes a particular type of thing. There are a few
> > tradenames so familiar that they "act" as nouns (Kleenex, Xerox,...)
> > but it's still actually Kleenex tissues, Xerox copiers.
> >
>
> Well, now, where to begin. "Xerox" is misused as a verb, not a noun or
> adjective.
>
A verb implies action. Xerox is not a verb. It is sometimes used
vernacularly as a verb, as in: "Hey, Bubba! Xerox this NASCAR schedule
for me, will ya?" A "more proper" way to ask is: "Excuse me Bubba, will
you please make a copy of this NASCAR schedule for me? The Xerox
machine is in the next room." But I imagine Bubba would look at you
funny if you said that. Well, he'd probably say something like: "Make
the &#*&*& copy yerself, j%&$%ss. Toss me another Bud.";-)
An adjective describes a noun. "Xerox" is a word created and registered
by The Xerox Corporation. If we use it while discussing "corporations"
we can assume it's a noun. If, in that discussion, we describe a Xerox
product we need to supply the name of the product because we are then
using it as an adjective. If we have established our topic as
"copiers", then we can let the proper adjective imply the subject noun.
Brand names/trademarks and such words are proper adjectives --
according to both the strict and common rules of the English language.
American English has established variations from "real" English, but
the basic rules of grammar and sentence structure are mostly shared.
One difference between American and English can be illustrated using my
"proper-Bubba" example: In England, one might add the phrase "There's a
good chap!" after the request. Naturally, "old bean" would the
substituted for "Bubba" and the subject of the copy might be cricket or
football;-))
> > Place and type identifiers (Concord grapes, French wine) are also
> > proper adjectives. Once the topic of a conversation is established, the
> > noun may be assumed -- we don't need to keep repeating it.
> >
> > So, VAX is a type of computer processor. If we've established that
> > we're talking about computers, just using VAX is acceptable unless we
> > need to distinguish between processor and system architecture.
> >
> > It's one VAX, two VAX, three VAX or more. The implied noun and whether
> > it's singular or plural should be obvious in context, but if it isn't,
> > use it.
>
> This is not common usage. "Fish" is the plural of "fish." One fish, two
> fish, three fish. "VAX" is decidedly not the plural of "VAX." One VAX
> two VAXes, three VAXes. More formally, it would be one VAX system, two
> VAX systems, three VAX systems (and never three VAX system).
>
Fish is a noun. One can use it as a verb, too. Fish is not a trademark.
It is a "real" word. It is in common usage and can't be trademarked
except as part of a "made-up" phrase. Trademarks are made-up words or
acronyms and are proper adjectives used to describe a noun. VAX is a
word "made-up" by Digital Equipment Corporation to describe a specific
type of computer.
> This has nothing to do with proper adjectives, and everything to do with
> English usage - which follows no rule for long.
>
The English language follows definite rules. The vernacular use of
English might bend or break a rule, but a rule stands until sufficient
recognized authorities agree upon a change. Trademarks are proper
adjectives and follow the English language rules for adjectives.
norm.r...@metso.com
"If-and the thing is wildly possible-the charge of writing nonsense
were ever brought against the author of this...." -Lewis Carroll, "The
Hunting of the Snark" Preface.
I yield the argument, Sir, and run to clear my head.
Jim MacKenzie
"Bob Kaplow" <kapl...@encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message
news:rkbqH2...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> I thought the plural of VAX was VAXcluster.
That implies shared processing or storage. What if you have three
unnetworked VAX computers that don't even know the others exist?
Jim
Jim MacKenzie
From: <norm.r...@metso.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX
> Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."
> The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes."
>
> [Not all words migrate exactly from Latin to English. For example,
> "agenda" is a Latin plural form, but in English it means a list,
> and so can take an English plural of "agendas," which to a Roman
> would be like "listses," which is absurd.]
"Appendices" is far more common than "appendixes" in my corner of the world.
"Appendixes" implies the organ; "appendices" implies the adjunct chapter.
We use lots of plurals derived from Latin: data (for datum), formulae (for
formula; granted, "formulas" is more common), memoranda (for memorandum).
Some people do use more anglicized plurals (plurae? :) OK, kidding...) but
that doesn't make them correct. Sure, they may become accepted and be
correct, but they aren't necessarily now. (Kind of like "doughnut" and
"donut"; the latter is more commonly used in the US, but it really isn't
correct. It's used enough, however, that one day it probably will be
considered to be a correct spelling.)
There are more Latin-derived plurals but I can't think of any without doing
research on the subject.
Besides, "VAXen" isn't a Latin derivation, it's Saxon, like oxen and
children, and I haven't heard people talking about oxes and childs lately.
Is it an uncommon pluralization? Unquestionably. Is it incorrect? That is
highly debatable.
Jim
Jim MacKenzie
"WhoDat?" <wh...@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:1126038168.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The English language follows definite rules. The vernacular use of
> English might bend or break a rule, but a rule stands until sufficient
> recognized authorities agree upon a change. Trademarks are proper
> adjectives and follow the English language rules for adjectives.
This might be technically true, but I know of no one who says Kleenex facial
tissues, Xerox photocopying machines, or DeskJet inkjet printers. I like
Mazdas; I don't need to say "Mazda automobiles". We use trademarks in the
plural all the time in English. If it's not technically correct, it's
acquired de facto correctness.
Jim
Tom Linden
wrote:
> "Appendices" is far more common than "appendixes" in my corner of the
> world.
> "Appendixes" implies the organ; "appendices" implies the adjunct chapter.
Indexes and indices are both correct but have different meanings.
WhoDat?
I agree. However, the OP asked:
>>Is VAXen a well enough established plural of VAX to use in a technical
document?
It wouldn't be technically correct to do so. That doesn't mean he
can't, but he should at least be aware of what's proper.
It isn't my rule. RTF text book. I didn't find HP's legalese on line,
but a quick search found the SAP site which is fairly generic:
< http://www50.sap.com/company/legal/copyright/properuse.asp >
##
* A trademark is a proper adjective and must be set apart from the text
or graphics around it. For example, it is incorrect to say, "sap
software;" rather it should be referred to as an "SAP software." Proper
capitalization, whether initial caps or all caps, can be found in the
trademark list.
* A trademark must never be used as a verb. For example, it is
incorrect to say "SAPmailing your e-mail."
* A trademark is not a common noun and may never be used in the plural
form. An improper example is "SAP Business Workflows." A proper example
is "SAP Business Workflow processes."
* A trademark should never be used in a possessive form; for example,
"SAP's R/3 software" and "R/3's graphics" are incorrect. Proper
examples are "SAP R/3 software" and "the R/3 software graphics."
##
AEF
> norm.raph...@metso.com wrote:
> > "WhoDat?" <wh...@whoever.com> wrote on 09/06/2005 12:55:37 PM:
> >
> > > Tim ffrench-Lynch wrote:
> > > > Is VAXen a well enough established plural of VAX to use in a technical
> > > > document?
> > > >
> > > > Tim
> > >
>
> Fish is a noun. One can use it as a verb, too. Fish is not a trademark.
> It is a "real" word. It is in common usage and can't be trademarked
> except as part of a "made-up" phrase. Trademarks are made-up words or
> acronyms and are proper adjectives used to describe a noun. VAX is a
> word "made-up" by Digital Equipment Corporation to describe a specific
> type of computer.
>
> > This has nothing to do with proper adjectives, and everything to do with
> > English usage - which follows no rule for long.
> >
>
> The English language follows definite rules. The vernacular use of
> English might bend or break a rule, but a rule stands until sufficient
> recognized authorities agree upon a change. Trademarks are proper
> adjectives and follow the English language rules for adjectives.
Well, there is some disagreement about some of the rules. Ending a
sentence with a preposition is one of them. Splitting an infinitive is
another (To boldly go where no man has gone before, e.g.). Just who are
your "recognized authorities"?
Norm talked about usage. I hear all kinds of improper usage and that
usage does vary, albeit slowly. The "were" of the subjunctive is
rapidly morphing into "was". I even see "was" instead of "were" in
respected publications. Then there's the relatively new "have went"
instead of "have gone" and the like. It sounds really awful to me.
What's happening in our schools?! The old "proper" distinctions between
'will' and 'shall' have been eroding steadily for decades and are all
but gone for most Americans. Some people are now tending to spell
"lose" as "loose". Then there're other fun ones like "For you and I",
"Him and I went...".
And as far as rules go, forget spelling. The only fast and hard rule in
English spelling is: Spell it correctly. (Such use of the colon is
improper as I was taught, but I frequently see it in respected
publications!)
Well, a case could be made for "i before e except when it's e before i"
(!). You can't go wrong following that one (of course because it's just
a subset of "Spell it correctly").
> > > VAXen is vernacular slang.
> > >
> > This is indeed so.
The popularity of the term 'VAXen' totally eludes me. It even sounds
insulting to me. Are we not men? (with "apologies" to the band DEVO).
norm.r...@metso.com
"Jim MacKenzie" <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote on 09/07/2005 10:58:53 AM:
>
> "WhoDat?" <wh...@whoever.com> wrote in message
> news:1126038168.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The English language follows definite rules. The vernacular use of
> > English might bend or break a rule, but a rule stands until sufficient
> > recognized authorities agree upon a change. Trademarks are proper
> > adjectives and follow the English language rules for adjectives.
>
> This might be technically true, but I know of no one who says Kleenex
facial
> tissues, Xerox photocopying machines, or DeskJet inkjet printers. I like
> Mazdas; I don't need to say "Mazda automobiles". We use trademarks in
the
> plural all the time in English. If it's not technically correct, it's
> acquired de facto correctness.
>
> Jim
>
>
Absolutely!
By the way, I know of no one who says Kleenices instead of Kleenexes, or
Kleenexen, either. ;)
norm.r...@metso.com
"Jim MacKenzie" <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca> wrote on 09/07/2005 10:53:05 AM:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <norm.r...@metso.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: VAXen as a plural of VAX
>
>
> > Well, actually, the Latin plural of "appendix" is "appendices."
> > The English plural of "appendix" is "appendixes."
> >
> > [Not all words migrate exactly from Latin to English. For example,
> > "agenda" is a Latin plural form, but in English it means a list,
> > and so can take an English plural of "agendas," which to a Roman
> > would be like "listses," which is absurd.]
>
> "Appendices" is far more common than "appendixes" in my corner of the
world.
> "Appendixes" implies the organ; "appendices" implies the adjunct chapter.
I already appologized for that hasty generalization. Appendices and its
similar plurals are indeed accepted if not preferred usages.
>
> We use lots of plurals derived from Latin: data (for datum),
Not to belabor the point, datum is a single instance, data is both singular
and plural as I understand it, representing one collection of data or
serveral collections of data, collectively referred to as the data.
Whether one says the data is or the data are depends on if or not you use
data as a collective noun.
> formulae
(for
> formula; granted, "formulas" is more common), memoranda (for memorandum).
> Some people do use more anglicized plurals (plurae? :) OK, kidding...)
but
> that doesn't make them correct. Sure, they may become accepted and be
> correct, but they aren't necessarily now. (Kind of like "doughnut" and
> "donut"; the latter is more commonly used in the US, but it really isn't
> correct. It's used enough, however, that one day it probably will be
> considered to be a correct spelling.)
>
Donut is a corruption from advertising and commercial naming abominations.
It may migrate into common usage, but it will never be "correct" to most.
We now have the donut spare tyre (the one that is not full-size) as a
consequence. Rapper spelling (ebonics) is also not correct, but boyz
seems to be cropping up too often.
You're all too young to remember the "Ameche."
> There are more Latin-derived plurals but I can't think of any without
doing
> research on the subject.
>
> Besides, "VAXen" isn't a Latin derivation, it's Saxon, like oxen and
> children, and I haven't heard people talking about oxes and childs
lately.
>
> Is it an uncommon pluralization? Unquestionably. Is it incorrect? That
is
> highly debatable.
It is, but I know no authority citing it as correct. It is argot, so we
practitioners may use it at will and claim it as we like, eh!
>
> Jim
>
>
norm.r...@metso.com
"Tom Linden" <t...@kednos.com> wrote on 09/07/2005 11:38:33 AM:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:53:05 -0600, Jim MacKenzie <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > "Appendices" is far more common than "appendixes" in my corner of the
> > world.
> > "Appendixes" implies the organ; "appendices" implies the adjunct
chapter.
>
> Indexes and indices are both correct but have different meanings.
I grok that not.
My dictionary references both forms as plural of index, although at 4 it
expresses a preference for the latin for when used mathematically.
What are your different meanings?
Main Entry: 1in·dex (Embedded image moved to file: pic02154.gif)
Pronunciation: 'in-"deks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·dex·es or in·di·ces /-d&-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin indic-, index, from indicare to indicate
1 a : a device (as the pointer on a scale or the gnomon of a sundial) that
serves to indicate a value or quantity b : something (as a physical feature
or a mode of expression) that leads one to a particular fact or conclusion
: INDICATION
2 : a list (as of bibliographical information or citations to a body of
literature) arranged usually in alphabetical order of some specified datum
(as author, subject, or keyword): as a : a list of items (as topics or
names) treated in a printed work that gives for each item the page number
where it may be found b : THUMB INDEX c : a bibliographical analysis of
groups of publications that is usually published periodically
3 : a list of restricted or prohibited material; specifically capitalized :
a list of books the reading of which is prohibited or restricted for Roman
Catholics by the church authorities
4 plural usually indices : a number or symbol or expression (as an
exponent) associated with another to indicate a mathematical operation to
be performed or to indicate use or position in an arrangement
5 : a character <fist> used to direct attention to a note or paragraph --
called also fist
6 a : a number (as a ratio) derived from a series of observations and used
as an indicator or measure; specifically : INDEX NUMBER b : the ratio of
one dimension of a thing (as an anatomical structure) to another dimension
Tom Linden
> By the way, I know of no one who says Kleenices instead of Kleenexes, or
> Kleenexen, either.
Really?, Have you never heard anybody say, "Gibt mir bitte die
Kleenexen? :-)
Tom Linden
indices is used mathematically, indexes is used for plural of
such things as stock indexes. My dictionary says
"indices in the sense of mathematical or other abstract signs,
indexes in the sense of tables of contents.
But then my dicitonary has the 1930 census as the latest.
Bill Gunshannon
That would actually be "Geben Sie mir, bitte, die Papiertaschentuecher." :-)
norm.r...@metso.com
"Tom Linden" <t...@kednos.com> wrote on 09/07/2005 11:38:33 AM:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:53:05 -0600, Jim MacKenzie <j...@dusykbarlow.sk.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > "Appendices" is far more common than "appendixes" in my corner of the
> > world.
> > "Appendixes" implies the organ; "appendices" implies the adjunct
chapter.
>
> Indexes and indices are both correct but have different meanings.
I grok that not.
My dictionary references both forms as plural of index, although at 4 it
expresses a preference for the latin for when used mathematically.
What are your different meanings?
Main Entry: in·dex
Big John
plural of Xerox! I can handle that. I guess if I go into a butcher's
shop and keep taking several Xerox copies of each piece of meat on the
slab, I will eventually end of with 'Xeroces of the liver'.
Sorry, John
WhoDat?
Dionysius Thrax would be one, and he probably won't change any of his
rules;-)
I accept the authorities recognized by the Great and Powerful
Institutions of Higher Learning. Pick your favorite. If you're going to
school, it's your teacher/professor. If you're writing for a magazine
or newspaper, it's your editor. If you're just a techie, as I am, it
might be "The Anti-Pedantic's Guide to Technical Writing; The art of
explaining things to people who don't really care" (Johnson & Freidman,
Plasma Press,(c)2175).
==================================================================
"There is a fuzzy line between interesting and weird. In fact
there are fuzzy lines between many things and I find that
interesting to a point, but then it just gets weird."
(WhoHe)
AEF
Big John wrote:
> Well, now the discussion has evolved, we seem to be arguing about the
> plural of Xerox! I can handle that. I guess if I go into a butcher's
> shop and keep taking several Xerox copies of each piece of meat on the
> slab, I will eventually end of with 'Xeroces of the liver'.
>
> Sorry, John
Yikes! Consider Xeroxen as plural of Xerox. Sounds even worse than
Vaxen as a plural. And this one actually has a CLOSER tie to ox than
VAX does.
Ox, Xerox -- both contain OX.
VAX does not contain OX.
[...]
JF Mezei
> Yikes! Consider Xeroxen as plural of Xerox.
How about "Xerox machines" as plurial of "Xerox" ????
"We have many vaxes in this facility".
While I think that "Vaxen" is cute, I think that general usage in spoken
english is "vaxes"
In french, interestingly, one would *say* VAX even in plurial. There
doesn't seem to be some instinctive need to change it to make it
plurial. In writen French, it might not be so evident, but I think it
would remain "VAX" with the context of the sentence dictatibng if it was
singular or plurial.
Jim MacKenzie
"AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126204228.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ox, Xerox -- both contain OX.
>
> VAX does not contain OX.
Child -> children... ("child" formerly being "childre" in English...)
Next analogy please.
Jim
norm.r...@metso.com
Are you saying:
VAX -> VAXen... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXe" in English...)
or
VAX -> VAXren... ("VAX" formerly being "VAXre" in English...)
Neither holds up AFAICS.
>
> Jim
>
>
Dr. Dweeb
Clipped ...
I think you should all read Steven Pinkers "The Language Instinct" where
Vaxen is actually mentioned, as well as everything most people know, think
they know and were totally oblivious of with respect to the spoken word.
John Laird
Quite. And the plurals of fax, tax and wax are simply -es.
--
There's a dead bishop on the landing, dad!
Bob Koehler
>
> Yikes! Consider Xeroxen as plural of Xerox.
You can have lots of Xerox copiers, or Xerox printers, or you
can make lots of pages with either of them.
But there's only one Xerox. No need for a plural.
Using Xerox to mean photocopy is slang, and you can slang up anything
you want as a slang plural.
Jim MacKenzie
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:432093BC...@teksavvy.com...
> AEF wrote:
> In french, interestingly, one would *say* VAX even in plurial. There
> doesn't seem to be some instinctive need to change it to make it
> plurial. In writen French, it might not be so evident, but I think it
> would remain "VAX" with the context of the sentence dictatibng if it was
> singular or plurial.
They always use adjectives or articles to quantify in French, so des Vax for
plural, un Vax for singular.
It could be des Vaxs, but I am inclined to agree with you.
Jim
Jim MacKenzie
"John Laird" <nos...@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:fpu2i1dvt8ehsbc21...@4ax.com...
> Quite. And the plurals of fax, tax and wax are simply -es.
My point was that -en as a plural in English, though rare, does exist and
not just for words ending in x.
"Children" contains an R because "child" used to be "childre". It was
pluralized as "children" (-en added, duplicate e deleted as we do with -ed
verbs ending in e, e.g. abated). "Childre" became "child"; "children"
stayed the same.
Jim