"blues" as in music -- singular or plural?
Wm ...
"Couldn't he hear the tuneless blues that was
always playing in his father's head?"
When I read this I felt that "was" ought to be "were".
The SOED (1993) didn't help as it says that blues can be "pl. &
(sometimes) sing." and provides no relevant example.
I then tried substituting other music related words for "blues" in an
attempt to clarify this. A few examples below:
"song" : "was"
"music" : "was"
"songs" : "were"
"operas": "were"
etc.
So the question is:
Are "blues" singular or plural? Or should that be: Is "blues" singular
or plural?
To save people looking things up the SOED says of "blues" in a musical
sense:
"A (type of) haunting melody or melancholy song, freq. in a twelve-bar
sequence using blue notes, originating among southern American
Blacks. E20"
P.S.: I checked on deja before posting and this doesn't seem to have
come up before in a.e.u -- if I have missed a previous discussion on
this feel free to point me to it.
--
Wm...
Robert Lieblich
"snip>
> Are "blues" singular or plural? Or should that be: Is "blues" singular
> or plural?
As used in your sentence, it's singular, because you are discussing the
word itself, not what it connotes.
> To save people looking things up the SOED says of "blues" in a musical
> sense:
>
> "A (type of) haunting melody or melancholy song, freq. in a twelve-bar
> sequence using blue notes, originating among southern American
> Blacks. E20"
Oxford knows whereof it speaks. It is common to use the word "blues" to
refer to a single song in the style known as "the blues." You can hear
blues singers on record occasionally introducing a song with something
like: "This is an old blues my mother taught me . . . ."
> P.S.: I checked on deja before posting and this doesn't seem to have
> come up before in a.e.u -- if I have missed a previous discussion on
> this feel free to point me to it.
Well done. I've been in and out of this group for three years and don't
recall seeing the question either here or on that other usage group with
which it is sometimes crossposted.
Anyway, "blues" can be used as a singular word to mean a single instance
of a song of a certain type. Your analysis was spot on.
Bob Lieblich
Jim Moser
I can add only a bit here. Songs of this genre frequently refer to "the
blues." I don't recall any instance where the usage took a plural
form. Perhaps an acquaintance of Eric Clapton might inquire on this and get
back to us.
"Wm ..." wrote:
> The following appears in "The Information" by Martin Amis:
>
> "Couldn't he hear the tuneless blues that was
> always playing in his father's head?"
>
> When I read this I felt that "was" ought to be "were".
>
> The SOED (1993) didn't help as it says that blues can be "pl. &
> (sometimes) sing." and provides no relevant example.
>
> I then tried substituting other music related words for "blues" in an
> attempt to clarify this. A few examples below:
>
> "song" : "was"
> "music" : "was"
> "songs" : "were"
> "operas": "were"
> etc.
>
> So the question is:
>
> Are "blues" singular or plural? Or should that be: Is "blues" singular
> or plural?
>
> To save people looking things up the SOED says of "blues" in a musical
> sense:
>
> "A (type of) haunting melody or melancholy song, freq. in a twelve-bar
> sequence using blue notes, originating among southern American
> Blacks. E20"
>
> P.S.: I checked on deja before posting and this doesn't seem to have
> come up before in a.e.u -- if I have missed a previous discussion on
> this feel free to point me to it.
> --
> Wm...
--
------------------------------------------
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and
that one word is 'to be prepared.'"
-Vice President Al Gore, 12/6/93
Jim Moser
http://www.wwa.com/~mosers/
Wm ...
Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
[snips below]
>Wm ... wrote:
>> Are "blues" singular or plural? Or should that be: Is "blues" singular
>> or plural?
>
>As used in your sentence, it's singular, because you are discussing the
>word itself, not what it connotes.
[of the definition in the SOED]
>Oxford knows whereof it speaks. It is common to use the word "blues" to
>refer to a single song in the style known as "the blues." You can hear
>blues singers on record occasionally introducing a song with something
>like: "This is an old blues my mother taught me . . . ."
So (to keep the musical theme going) we could have:
"I guess that's why they call it the blues" (the style)
as well as
"I guess that's why they call it a blues" (referring to a single
piece of music)
That settles my mind on that (thanks for your responses Robert and Jim).
Now I'm wondering about other instances of the same word being both
singular and plural. Sheep and fish are obvious ones but are there any
other words ending with the letter "s" (which is what, in retrospect,
prompted me to ask the original question) that can be either singular or
plural?
I can't think of any offhand; perhaps I'll be embarrassed by a barrage
of examples; I can't think of any right now.
Somehow the examples have easily slipped into animals so my obvious
examples are:
"The sheep stood still" (could be more than one sheep or one) so we have
one sheep == multiple sheep.
"The fish swam about" (could be more than one fish or one) so we have
one fish == multiple fish.
For clarity:
"The dog barked" (one dog)
"The dogs barked" (more than one dog)
etc.
But consider:
"He played the blues all night" (many pieces of music).
"He played that blues all night" (a single piece of music)
"He played a blues all night" (a single piece of music)
Then:
"He played blues all night" whilst this may initially appear to be
uncertain I'd say it was plural -- i.e. more than one piece of music --
because without the distinguishing word before blues it is uncertain.
I'm warming to my argument:
Surely "He played the blues" is not interchangeable with "He played that
blues" or "He played a blues"?
"He played the blues" (without the "all night") could mean either that
he used to play the blues at some earlier point in time or that he
played a number of blues style songs at the relevant time of writing
(yes, these might have been the same time).
It seems to me that the word "blues" is defined by context to mean
*either* a "single piece of music" or "the genre" of blues music. You
can't tell from the examples above if more than one fish or sheep is
involved in an isolated statement but you *can* in most examples tell if
"blues" is singular or plural by the words surrounding it.
It seems to me that "blues" is almost a non-word when taken out of
context -- only *within* context can it have meaning.
So here is my (feint-hearted but inquisitive) challenge:
can anyone think of a word other than "blues" that ends in "s"
and can be used in either the plural or singular?
P.S. I'm starting to think there is a reason behind "blues" but I'll
hang on to that for the moment.
--
Wm...
SLHinton17
>Now I'm wondering about other instances of the same word being both
>singular and plural. Sheep and fish are obvious ones but are there any
>other words ending with the letter "s" (which is what, in retrospect,
>prompted me to ask the original question) that can be either singular or
>plural?
*********************
One that is often misused is "species," referring to a particular kind of
plant or animal. The same word, ending with an "s" is used for both singular
and plural. (There is another word, "specie," but that means "coined money.")
Another word, even more often misused, is the large upper-arm muscle, the
"biceps." No change in moving from singular to plural! The word comes from
Latin, and refers to the two "heads" of the muscle.
In other words, the "s" ending does not always indicate a plural.
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
R. A. Heindl
[snip]
> Now I'm wondering about other instances of the same word being both
> singular and plural. Sheep and fish are obvious ones but are there any
> other words ending with the letter "s" (which is what, in retrospect,
> prompted me to ask the original question) that can be either singular or
> plural?
>
One word which keeps obtruding itself on my attention is "savings". I
often see constructs like "A 50% savings off the newsstand price",
implying that savings is singular. But I've also seen "The savings are
substantial", implying that it's plural. I've never been comfortable
with the common singular (is that an oxymoron?) usage, preferring
"saving", but I suspect it's here to stay.
--Ray Heindl
Wm ...
R. A. Heindl <rhe...@stratos.net>
>One word which keeps obtruding itself on my attention is "savings". I
>often see constructs like "A 50% savings off the newsstand price",
>implying that savings is singular.
"saving: ... The action of SAVE v.; an *instance* of this" (SOED; the
emphasis (*) is mine). "savings" is plural.
If your example is real (or realistic) whoever wrote it may have mangled
"of" and "off" and the genitive too. "A saving of 50% compared to the
newsstand price" would seem a better choice.
>But I've also seen "The savings are
>substantial", implying that it's plural.
"The saving is substantial" (single transaction).
"The savings are substantial" (many transactions).
No problem there as the reference is (or ought to be) to "money saved".
>I've never been comfortable
>with the common singular (is that an oxymoron?) usage, preferring
>"saving", but I suspect it's here to stay.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<Sigh>
--
Wm...
Wm ...
alt.english.usage SLHinton17 <slhin...@aol.com>
>One that is often misused is "species," referring to a particular kind of
>plant or animal. The same word, ending with an "s" is used for both singular
>and plural.
Good example; thanks.
> (There is another word, "specie," but that means "coined money.")
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Depends on the century. The words are closely related but I'm happy to
agree they have different meanings in current usage.
Has anyone alive heard of "specie" being used correctly outside of a
legal setting?
>Another word, even more often misused, is the large upper-arm muscle, the
>"biceps." No change in moving from singular to plural! The word comes from
>Latin, and refers to the two "heads" of the muscle.
Thanks again, another good example.
I can't help wondering if readers of Dr Doolitle (sp?) realise that the
push-me-pull-you (sp?) is biceps; as are some mountains.
"Bicep" seems to be increasingly accepted as a synonym for "biceps" wrt
muscles but the muscle at the front of the thigh (which is also biceps)
appears to be losing out to the upper arm. Perhaps "thicep" will be
coined (I can hear you groaning at the reference to "specie") to fill
the gap?
>In other words, the "s" ending does not always indicate a plural.
I knew that and you've illustrated it well, I just couldn't think of
examples at the time of writing.
It occurs to me that since both of the words in your examples were Latin
in origin that there will be others too. Latin is perverse and generous
in its exceptions so I'll modify my curiosity to:
are there any words not of Latin origin that end in "s" and
can be used in either the plural or the singular excluding "blues"?
--
Wm...
R. A. Heindl
>
> Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:49:51 <3811CB...@stratos.net> alt.english.usage
> R. A. Heindl <rhe...@stratos.net>
>
> >One word which keeps obtruding itself on my attention is "savings". I
> >often see constructs like "A 50% savings off the newsstand price",
> >implying that savings is singular.
>
> "saving: ... The action of SAVE v.; an *instance* of this" (SOED; the
> emphasis (*) is mine). "savings" is plural.
>
> If your example is real (or realistic) whoever wrote it may have mangled
> "of" and "off" and the genitive too. "A saving of 50% compared to the
> newsstand price" would seem a better choice.
That sounds much better, but it might be too verbose for advertising
headlines. I suppose the advertisers like the juxtaposition of "50%"
and "off".
I'm sure I've seen "a savings" many times on magazine subscription
offers and the like, although I don't have one at hand to cite. These
aren't items I tend to save for posterity. I remember it because it
makes me cringe every time I see it. Maybe that's a new style for
effective advertisement -- the cringe factor.
>
> >But I've also seen "The savings are
> >substantial", implying that it's plural.
>
> "The saving is substantial" (single transaction).
>
> "The savings are substantial" (many transactions).
>
> No problem there as the reference is (or ought to be) to "money saved".
I've also heard "savings are" used when the money will be saved over a
period of time as a result of a single transaction, e.g., improving a
machine to reduce scrap. Where I used to work, "cost savings" was a hot
topic, with the implication of a stream of savings over time, so I think
the plural is correct there.
You asked for usage examples, not necessarily _correct_ ones. :) Of
course, looking for incorrect usage in advertising is like shooting fish
in a barrel.
--Ray Heindl
arjay
news:38131B...@stratos.net...
"Savings" as in "a savings of 50% over the regular price" is endemic in
electronic media advertising.
When I used to write copy (for a small company) the clients insisted on
such atrocities.
They seemed to believe that pluralizing the saving would suggest to the
potential customer that the advertiser's store/product/service provided
more than any competitor which offered no more than "a saving."
Similar thinking lay behind the substitute of "plus" for "and" in
messages such as:
"Buy Schmerz's doo-doo
There's more in every package
Plus it's a lovely shade of brown."
"Plus" implies a bonus to non-thinking bargain hunters.
arjay
R. A. Heindl
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>So here is my (feint-hearted but inquisitive) challenge:
>
> can anyone think of a word other than "blues" that ends in "s"
> and can be used in either the plural or singular?
>
I ran across another example in a magazine the other day: mechanics,
as in:
"Mechanics should know how to fix cars."
"Mechanics is frequently studied by engineering students."
Similarly, statistics, as in:
"Common statistics include mean and standard deviation."
"Statistics is a good way to lie with figures."
(Or, as my father used to say, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure.")
--Ray Heindl