3 Singular and Plural Words?
The Ranger
language that can double as singular and plural -- e.g.:
deer/deer, fish/fish, moose/moose.
Thanks, as always, and I'm looking forward to expanding my limited
understanding.
The Ranger
mm
<cuhula...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am wondering if there are any other words in the English
>language that can double as singular and plural -- e.g.:
>deer/deer, fish/fish, moose/moose.
cannon.
>
>Thanks, as always, and I'm looking forward to expanding my limited
>understanding.
>
>The Ranger
>
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Purl Gurl
> I am wondering if there are any other words in the English
> language that can double as singular and plural -- e.g.:
> deer/deer, fish/fish, moose/moose.
criteria, data, agenda, media, phenomena, other similar words.
Litotes is and are my favorite.
* demure smile *
Purl Gurl
Mad Snail
"The Ranger" wrote
>I am wondering if there are any other words in the English language that
>can double as singular and plural -- e.g.: deer/deer, fish/fish,
>moose/moose.
>
aircraft; cod; forceps; grouse (bird); salmon; sheep; swine
Mad Snail
wrote:
>
> criteria, data, agenda, media, phenomena, other similar words.
>
(criterion, datum, etc.)
Plural of "agenda" is usually "agendas".
contrex
> criteria, data, agenda, media, phenomena, other similar words.
Either you are trolling or you really *are* ignorant. Not that one
possibilty necessarily excludes the other.
contrex
Even when a normal plural is available, a lot of game creatures (maybe
all?) are spoken of thus by their hunters, at least in posh Brit usage
- thus they talk of a brace of pheasant or rabbit or hare, a herd of
buffalo, also pigeon antelope pike trout. I'm not sure about elephants
or tigers or lobsters or lions. One goes loaded for bear, I think? I
think a fisherman or restaurant owner might talk about "a dozen
lobster", while one may still talk about lobsters in tanks. One tuna,
ten tuna.
Mad Snail
"contrex" wrote
> Even when a normal plural is available, a lot of game creatures (maybe
> all?) are spoken of thus by their hunters, at least in posh Brit usage
> - thus they talk of a brace of pheasant or rabbit or hare, a herd of
> buffalo, also pigeon antelope pike trout. I'm not sure about elephants
> or tigers or lobsters or lions. One goes loaded for bear, I think? I
> think a fisherman or restaurant owner might talk about "a dozen
> lobster", while one may still talk about lobsters in tanks. One tuna,
> ten tuna.
>
fact I can't imagine saying "two pikes" unless I was referring to weapons.
I notice that naturalists and biologists seem to favour the plural "fishes".
In the end I guess you just accept the jargon or "language register" of the
group you're in.
John Dean
Have certainly come across "a herd of elephant / antelope" though it seems
always to be "a pride of lions" (Though you can be "hunting for lion".) I
have an instinct that "pigeons", not "pigeon" is used whereas there can be a
brace of wood-pigeon. The usage I see for sea creatures is typically "school
of barracuda", "breeding grounds for marlin" and stuff but always "a pod of
whales / dolphins".
--
John Dean
Oxford
contrex
> I have an instinct that "pigeons", not "pigeon" is used whereas there can be a
> brace of wood-pigeon.
>From online art catalogue
Painting by Annie Beaumont: A STILL LIFE OF A BRACE OF PIGEON AND
OTHER OBJECTS, 1892
>From UK online game supplier (1)
A brace of pigeon. Try roasting on a bed of root vegetables and white
wine. N.B. May contain shot. Not suitable for home freezing. 2 birds
>From UK online game supplier (2)
Locally shot brace of pigeon. £3.50.
NZ nature web site
It was then possible for Maoris to shoot on Tutira half a hundred
brace of pigeon in a few hours.
Cornish culinary website
>From an early age, I can remember going to my Grandmothers to stay for
the night and being greeted with a brace of pigeon, shot that day by
her next door neighbour.
Extract from
David Ditchburn. Scotland and Europe: The Medieval Kingdom and
its Contacts with Christendom, 1214-1560. (East Linton: Tuckwell
Press, 2000).
(p. 138)(Description of a meal eaten in 1450 by William, earl of
Douglas,
while visiting the duke of Burgundy)
The menu included beef, veal, mutton, pork, two
hares, ten pheasant, one heron, four bittern, 156
rabbits, seventy-two partridge, ten geese, twelve
water birds, thirty-four dozen lark, twenty-two
capons, 231 chickens and fifty-six brace of pigeon.
The selection of vegetables was more limited:
cabbage, though cheese and patisserie were also
served. There were a further loaves and 120 rolls
(both brown and white) to accompany the meal,
which was garnished with mustard, onion, parsley,
milk, cream, butter, salt, pepper, verjuice, vinegar
and aspic jelly. Presumably too there was much
drink: the ingredients of the aspic jelly alone
included a liberal dose of white wine.
Barbara Bailey
wrote:
Almost any fish name meets the criteria.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
blm...@myrealbox.com
biceps (and other -ceps muscles, presumably).
Though it appears that English is in the process of inventing
a singular form -- "bicep". (*I* don't like it, but I'm
resistant to linguistic change, and at least this one seems
like it has some merit in allowing a singular/plural distinction
to be made.)
--
Decline To State
(But the e-mail address in the header is real.)
joetaxpayer
Does 'brains' count?
blm...@myrealbox.com
Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
meaning better.
You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
on the English language, which is very true.
But the online Merriam-Webster says, in its usage note on "data",
that both uses -- singular and plural -- are now considered
standard. (They do say that several publishers' house styles
mandate the plural use.)
They also cite singular usage of "criteria" in a way that -- well,
I was going to write "might make a pedant question their judgment",
but on re-reading the entry, they're simply reporting that is *has*
been so used for over 50 years, and perhaps eventually this usage
will be considered completely acceptable.
In contrast, the online Oxford English Dictionary mentions only
the plural usage for both words.
Way more than anyone wanted to hear, maybe, but it's fresh in my
mind from a couple of recent discussions in alt.usage.english.
mm
What about triceratops, spelled correctly.
Is the plural triceratopses?
Peter Duncanson
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
>also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
>verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
>if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
>meaning better.
>
>You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
>on the English language, which is very true.
You are too modest.
Who would we look to as an authority on the English language as used
in the specialist field(s) of computer science? A computer scientist
of course, with the caveat that some computer scientists are more
authoritative than others.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
John A. Green
<cuhula...@yahoo.com> wrote:
'An alms' (see AV Acts 3:3) - though more often thought of as plural.
Possibly also 'an innings' - I understand Amerikaans has 'an inning'.
John
**Replies to <u04...@lineone.net> have a 1Kb maximum filter.
Please ask for alternate address if you wish directly to reply,
include a + in the subject line.**
--
John A Green
Leigh (Lancashire) or Aberdeen
blm...@myrealbox.com
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2007 01:45:40 GMT, blm...@myrealbox.com
> <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
> >also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
> >verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
> >if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
> >meaning better.
> >
> >You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
> >on the English language, which is very true.
>
> You are too modest.
Maybe, or maybe I've read more prose produced by computer scientists
than you have, and know how badly written it can be.
> Who would we look to as an authority on the English language as used
> in the specialist field(s) of computer science? A computer scientist
> of course, with the caveat that some computer scientists are more
> authoritative than others.
Sure. But all that badly-written prose suggests that even computer
scientists fairly knowledgeable about their field may not be
authorities on language usage in general. So relying on them
to not only come up with the meaning but also figure out how to
express it -- that could make a mess. If one could trace back
the use of "data is" in computer science to a few originators,
I wonder whether one would find that they weren't aware that the
word was originally plural.
I'm trying to think now whether there are examples of mass nouns
that take plural verbs -- could "data are" work even if "data"
is a mass rather than a count noun?
Peter Duncanson
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In article <c8up03hs1tbva2qnf...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2007 01:45:40 GMT, blm...@myrealbox.com
>> <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
>> >also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
>> >verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
>> >if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
>> >meaning better.
>> >
>> >You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
>> >on the English language, which is very true.
>>
>> You are too modest.
>
>Maybe, or maybe I've read more prose produced by computer scientists
>than you have, and know how badly written it can be.
Very probably. In the UK "computer science" is an academic
discipline, and "computer scientist" generally refers to a person in
a university computer science department. Occasionally one might
escape from academia and retain the label "computer scientist" but
this is, in my experience, infrequent. "Computer Scientist" would be
rare label for someone involved in the creation of a saleable
hardware or software product.
I became involved with computers, working on hardware and software,
in 1959. I have worked close to, or with, computer scientists during
almost all my career. Most of the CS prose that I have read and
continue to read was written by people who had a decent grasp of
English or whose outpourings had been edited for publication.
Having spent nearly 32 years in a university (in a professional
rather than an academic post) I have seen well-written and
badly-written prose from every department of the university. The
English department was not exempt from the production of the
badly-written English.
>> Who would we look to as an authority on the English language as used
>> in the specialist field(s) of computer science? A computer scientist
>> of course, with the caveat that some computer scientists are more
>> authoritative than others.
>
>Sure. But all that badly-written prose suggests that even computer
>scientists fairly knowledgeable about their field may not be
>authorities on language usage in general. So relying on them
>to not only come up with the meaning but also figure out how to
>express it -- that could make a mess. If one could trace back
>the use of "data is" in computer science to a few originators,
>I wonder whether one would find that they weren't aware that the
>word was originally plural.
>
>I'm trying to think now whether there are examples of mass nouns
>that take plural verbs -- could "data are" work even if "data"
>is a mass rather than a count noun?
--
mm
wrote:
>Possibly also 'an innings'
Nope. A 9-inning game but the game lasted 9 innings.
> - I understand Amerikaans has 'an inning'.
!! So is "an innings" thought by you to exist in the US or the UK?
geo...@ankerstein.org
> 'An alms' (see AV Acts 3:3) - though more often thought of as plural.
> Possibly also 'an innings' - I understand Amerikaans has 'an inning'.
This is an entirely different grammatical issue. The singluar is
standard in the case of a fixed measure. A two acre field; a seven
foot beam; a five mile track. So a nine inning games has
nothing to do with the fact that he played three innings.
GFH
blm...@myrealbox.com
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2007 13:59:30 GMT, blm...@myrealbox.com
> <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <c8up03hs1tbva2qnf...@4ax.com>,
> >Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >> On 30 Mar 2007 01:45:40 GMT, blm...@myrealbox.com
> >> <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
> >> >You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
> >> >on the English language, which is very true.
> >>
> >> You are too modest.
> >
> >Maybe, or maybe I've read more prose produced by computer scientists
> >than you have, and know how badly written it can be.
Be advised that I considered adding a ":-)" to that sentence, and
then hoped perhaps the not-entirely-serious tone would come across
without it.
> Very probably. In the UK "computer science" is an academic
> discipline, and "computer scientist" generally refers to a person in
> a university computer science department. Occasionally one might
> escape from academia and retain the label "computer scientist" but
> this is, in my experience, infrequent. "Computer Scientist" would be
> rare label for someone involved in the creation of a saleable
> hardware or software product.
Fair enough. I was using the term much more broadly, but I like
your usage better, and in truth I'm not sure people in the IT
industry here in the US call themselves computer scientists unless
they're researchers with (probably) an academic background.
> I became involved with computers, working on hardware and software,
> in 1959. I have worked close to, or with, computer scientists during
> almost all my career. Most of the CS prose that I have read and
> continue to read was written by people who had a decent grasp of
> English or whose outpourings had been edited for publication.
Are you thinking here mostly of published work, or work that hasn't
been through some sort of review process? I also find most published
work in the field pretty readable, but work that hasn't been through
some process where a copyeditor might be involved can be a different
story. (I'm thinking papers submitted to conferences, material on
individuals' Web sites, internal memos, etc.)
(1959! Wow. You have at least 15 years on me, more if I can't
count the first CS course I took as my start date.)
> Having spent nearly 32 years in a university (in a professional
> rather than an academic post) I have seen well-written and
> badly-written prose from every department of the university. The
> English department was not exempt from the production of the
> badly-written English.
Your experience matches mine here, alas, though I think I notice
more when it's one of my colleagues.
[ snip ]
John A. Green
wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:59:39 GMT, u04...@lineone.net (John A. Green)
>wrote:
>
>>Possibly also 'an innings'
>
>Nope. A 9-inning game but the game lasted 9 innings.
>
>> - I understand Amerikaans has 'an inning'.
>
>!! So is "an innings" thought by you to exist in the US or the UK?
"An innings" is standard UK English,
eg "England lost by an innings and 300 runs."
"An inning" is unknown in British usage.
Karl Reinhardt
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5738e3F...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <460b5f92$1...@news.eftel.com.au>,
> Mad Snail <pp...@space.net.au> wrote:
>> "Purl Gurl"
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > criteria, data, agenda, media, phenomena, other similar words.
>> >
>> Apart from "agenda", these are all plurals of words ending -on or -um
>> (criterion, datum, etc.)
>> Plural of "agenda" is usually "agendas".
>>
>>
>
> Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
> also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
> verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
> if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
> meaning better.
>
> You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
> on the English language, which is very true.
>
But nobody seems to notice that we have "data banks" and "media centers"
(formerly generally called libraries!), and I doubt anyone would insist on
"datum banks" and "medium centers". Yet singulars are called for (child
care, not children care, book depository, not books depository, etc.). Come
to think of it, though a gathering place for tarot cards readers would,
indeed, be a "medium center", wouldn't it.
The late Sara Gudschinsky (sp?) once told of someone saying, on purpose,
"His data are more elegant than mine is."
Karl Reinhardt
mm
<KarlR...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
><blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:5738e3F...@mid.individual.net...
>> In article <460b5f92$1...@news.eftel.com.au>,
>> Mad Snail <pp...@space.net.au> wrote:
>>> "Purl Gurl"
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > criteria, data, agenda, media, phenomena, other similar words.
>>> >
>>> Apart from "agenda", these are all plurals of words ending -on or -um
>>> (criterion, datum, etc.)
>>> Plural of "agenda" is usually "agendas".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well -- in my field (computer science) it's not unusual, though
>> also not universal, to use "data" as a mass noun taking a singular
>> verb. I accept this bit of linguistic evolution ("corruption"
>> if you prefer :-) ) because it seems to capture the intended
>> meaning better.
>>
>> You may well say that computer scientists are hardly authorities
>> on the English language, which is very true.
>>
>[snip]
>
>But nobody seems to notice that we have "data banks" and "media centers"
>(formerly generally called libraries!), and I doubt anyone would insist on
>"datum banks" and "medium centers". Yet singulars are called for (child
What about cattle ranches.
>care, not children care, book depository, not books depository, etc.). Come
>to think of it, though a gathering place for tarot cards readers would,
>indeed, be a "medium center", wouldn't it.
>
>The late Sara Gudschinsky (sp?) once told of someone saying, on purpose,
>"His data are more elegant than mine is."
>
>Karl Reinhardt
>
Odysseus
"The Ranger" <cuhula...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if there are any other words in the English
> language that can double as singular and plural -- e.g.:
> deer/deer, fish/fish, moose/moose.
Many of the terms referring to specific 'game' animals -- mammals, fish,
and birds alike -- exhibit this feature. Note that "fishes" exists as a
plural, beside "fish", but that "moose" and "deer" have no other plural.
These latter are rather unusual; most words that can double as plurals
also have an explicitly plural form. "The gamekeeper bagged five
rabbit," but "The pet store had five rabbits for sale."
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>>"The Ranger" wrote
> >>>
> >>>>I am wondering if there are any other words in the English language that
> >>>>can double as singular and plural -- e.g.: deer/deer, fish/fish,
> >>>>moose/moose.
<snip>
> What about triceratops, spelled correctly.
>
> Is the plural triceratopses?
There's nothing wrong with that, but I suspect it's used much less often
the singular.
Googling:
"triceratops was" 10500
"triceratops were" 1150
"triceratopses were" 9
Strangely, the last search showed three pages of results, the last one
headed "Results 21-24 of about 9 ...", so there's another grain of salt
to take with such figures. I got a few hits for "triceratopses was", but
they were all red herrings, occurring in expressions like "the word
triceratopses was ..." and "the King of the Triceratopses was ...", or
in the babble of spam-bots.
--
Odysseus