Plural but singular in construction

[Guy Barry]

What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean? It's used
in some dictionaries, but I don't really understand it. Here's an example:
many names of academic disciplines ending in "-ics" can be construed as
either singular or plural depending on the meaning. E.g. "economics",
defined thus:

1. ( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production,
distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare
of humankind.
2. ( used with a plural verb ) financial considerations; economically
significant aspects: _What are the economics of such a project?_

( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics )

I would say that "economics" in sense 1 is a singular noun. It represents a
single concept, and always takes a singular verb. Saying "economics is a
difficult subject" is no different from saying "history is a difficult
subject", and the fact that "economics" happens to end in "-s" is
irrelevant. In sense 2, on the other hand, it's a plural noun (albeit one
with no singular).

In other words, if a noun takes a singular verb, it's grammatically
singular, and if it takes a plural verb, it's grammatically plural. To
refer to "economics" in sense 1 as "plural but singular in construction"
doesn't seem to mean anything, because there's nothing plural about it. Or
is there?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 15, 11:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?
>

It could be used to describe the staircases in Gaudi's cathedral in
Barcelona - the paired staircases are plural, but, since each they
mirror each other, rather than, as conventionally, both having spirals
in the same direction (usually to favour right-handed defenders),
they're singular in construction.

[Donna Richoux]

I'm trying to think of what other words change for plurals besides
verbs. This, that, these, those. "These economics" sounds a little
better than "this economics", although an example sentence does not
spring to mind.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[abc]

Hmmm, what about the final s then? If we can agree that the "s" is a
plural indicator in sense 2, does it suddenly stop being so when you use
the same word in sense 1?
abc

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I think the idea is that "economics" appears to be plural in form. It
looks like a singular noun with an "s" added.

The problem I originally had with the phrase "plural but singular in
construction" is that I interpreted "construction" to mean the
construction, the forming, of the word. In fact it refers to *the use*
of the word in constructing a phrase or sentence.

So "plural but singular in construction" means "plural in appearance but
singular in use" or informally "looks plural but is singular".

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[CDB]

On 15/09/2012 6:13 AM, Donna Richoux wrote:
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

["plural but singular in consruction": economics?]

> I'm trying to think of what other words change for plurals besides
> verbs. This, that, these, those. "These economics" sounds a little
> better than "this economics", although an example sentence does not
> spring to mind.

This Economics is the dullest subject I have ever studied. Is that not
whwere the plural usage comes from? Aristotle's books were given plural
titles in English, following his Greek example: "Metaphysics", was "Ta
meta ta phusika", and presumably his "Physics" was "Ta phusika"(haven't
checked). Those are clearly adjectives in Greek, with an unexpressed
noun, probably "things".

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:kvm8585nvdshnvbfd...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:03:27 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > In other words, if a noun takes a singular verb, it's grammatically
> > singular, and if it takes a plural verb, it's grammatically plural. To
> > refer to "economics" in sense 1 as "plural but singular in construction"
> > doesn't seem to mean anything, because there's nothing plural about it.
> > Or
> > is there?

> I think the idea is that "economics" appears to be plural in form. It
> looks like a singular noun with an "s" added.

Sure, but it isn't one. There's no noun "economic".

Various singular nouns look superficially like plurals (e.g. "innings",
"whereabouts"), but they're not plural in any sense that I understand.

> The problem I originally had with the phrase "plural but singular in
> construction" is that I interpreted "construction" to mean the
> construction, the forming, of the word. In fact it refers to *the use*
> of the word in constructing a phrase or sentence.

Yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear. It refers to grammatical
construction.

> So "plural but singular in construction" means "plural in appearance but
> singular in use" or informally "looks plural but is singular".

Which was my question. Apart from its appearance, in what way is
"economics" (the name of a subject) plural?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:02:01 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Difficult to say. It used to be used as a plural.

OED:

With sing. and pl. concord. (In most senses predominantly with
singular concord after the end of the 18th cent.)

Two examples:

1701 P. Warwick Disc. Govt. 104 A Princes Politicks will be as
improsperous as his Oeconomicks are, who loves to spend freely,
and yet never to look upon an account.
1770 J. Langhorne & W. Langhorne tr. Plutarch Lives (1879) II.
586/2 Economics, so far as they regard only inanimate things,
serve only the low purposes of gain; but where they regard human
beings they rise higher.

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?

Well, what it suggest to me is constructs like

Two dollars is not a lot of money.
--
Mark Brader I'm not pompous; I'm pedantic.
Toronto Let me explain it to you.
m...@vex.net --Mary Kay Kare

[Ian Noble]

Even more so, the open staircase at the centre of Chateau de Chambord
in the Loire valley; a sweeping, broad double helix.

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)

[John Varela]

Never been there, so must ask: Do you mean two helixes winding about
a common axis? That's what's usually meant by "double helix". The
photos of the staircase on the web suggest otherwise, so what do you
mean by "double"?

--
John Varela

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind. -- George Orwell

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 17, 11:25 pm, "John Varela" <newla...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:34:59 UTC, Ian Noble
>

> <ipno...@killspam.o2.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
> > <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Sep 15, 11:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?
>
> > >It could be used to describe the staircases in Gaudi's cathedral in
> > >Barcelona - the paired staircases are plural, but, since each they
> > >mirror each other, rather than, as conventionally, both having spirals
> > >in the same direction (usually to favour right-handed defenders),
> > >they're singular in construction.
>
> > Even more so, the open staircase at the centre of Chateau de Chambord
> > in the Loire valley; a sweeping, broad double helix.
>
> Never been there, so must ask: Do you mean two helixes winding about
> a common axis? That's what's usually meant by "double helix". The
> photos of the staircase on the web suggest otherwise, so what do you
> mean by "double"?
>

I haven't been there either, but that's a good question. I suppose we
need to know which stair is meant. The photo that I find is this one:

http://www.designerstaircases.com.au/images/inspiration-gallery/P9290993%20Chateau%20De%20Chambord,%20France.JPG

This shows a staircase with a single helix, in the conventional
orientation.

[Ian Noble]

On 17 Sep 2012 21:25:12 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:34:59 UTC, Ian Noble
><ipn...@killspam.o2.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 15, 11:03�am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?
>> >>
>> >It could be used to describe the staircases in Gaudi's cathedral in
>> >Barcelona - the paired staircases are plural, but, since each they
>> >mirror each other, rather than, as conventionally, both having spirals
>> >in the same direction (usually to favour right-handed defenders),
>> >they're singular in construction.
>>
>> Even more so, the open staircase at the centre of Chateau de Chambord
>> in the Loire valley; a sweeping, broad double helix.
>
>Never been there, so must ask: Do you mean two helixes winding about
>a common axis? That's what's usually meant by "double helix". The
>photos of the staircase on the web suggest otherwise, so what do you
>mean by "double"?

A double helix, not paired helices..

Yes, it's precisely that. There's a hollow central column, pierced in
multiple places up its height, around which both staircases wind, 180
degrees out of phase. People at similar heights on the opposite stairs
can see and talk to each other, but can only physically meet by
exiting at one of the floors.

Chambord also has multiple single spiral stairs of a somewhat
fantastic nature, so if you're not seeing something of that sort, it's
possible you're not looking at the right one. There's quite a decent
image here: http://www.virtourist.com/europe/chambord/03.htm
(the design is attributed there to Da Vinci - apparently it's not
clear whether that's actually the case or just colourful, wishful
thinking, though).

[Robin Bignall]

On 17 Sep 2012 21:25:12 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:34:59 UTC, Ian Noble
><ipn...@killspam.o2.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 15, 11:03 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?
>> >>
>> >It could be used to describe the staircases in Gaudi's cathedral in
>> >Barcelona - the paired staircases are plural, but, since each they
>> >mirror each other, rather than, as conventionally, both having spirals
>> >in the same direction (usually to favour right-handed defenders),
>> >they're singular in construction.
>>
>> Even more so, the open staircase at the centre of Chateau de Chambord
>> in the Loire valley; a sweeping, broad double helix.
>
>Never been there, so must ask: Do you mean two helixes winding about
>a common axis? That's what's usually meant by "double helix". The
>photos of the staircase on the web suggest otherwise, so what do you
>mean by "double"?

Third photo down is the staircase.
http://www.chambord.org/Chambord-en-idm-297-n-At_the_Chateau.html
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Ian Noble]

That is indeed the stair (seen from the middle floor of three), but if
it still looks a single spiral, you're not looking closely enough.
It's a true, honest-to-goodness, Watson-Crick double helix. There are
twin entrances to the staircase on each floor, 180 degrees apart, each
giving access to one of the two spirals. (My wife and I were there in
June last year; not only did we walk up opposite sides to prove it to
ourselves, but part way up she took a photo of me on the other side,
through the pierced central column. It's beautifully designed for
entirely chaste yet deliciously naughty flirtations.)

If you can't see it, try following the upper curve at the front down
to the right, and you'll see the underside of the treads at the right
of the picture. Continue as it turns round to the back, and you'll see
its balustrade as it nears the floor (silhouetted against a bright
light to the rear). Now compare the relative position of that rear
balustrade with the one at the front, near the right - you'll see
they're at near identical heights. Two spirals.

[mrucb...@att.net]

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:04:14 AM UTC-5, Mark Brader wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> > What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?
>
>
>
> Well, what it suggest to me is constructs like
>
>
>
> Two dollars is not a lot of money.

I think you are right. I would say the 'economics' example is the opposite of 'plural but singular in construction'. (Isn't it singular, but plural in construction?)

I had asked about collective nouns before but was chided about the point by one of the soi disant experts on here. 'Plural but singular in construction' is exemplified by such statements as you might see in a British report about collective groups (usually people or living things but not always) : Liverpool are visiting Manchester for a showdown this week. The team are working extra practice sessions. Parliament are meeting this week.

[Guy Barry]

wrote in message
news:f3224e4a-2046-4b2e...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:04:14 AM UTC-5, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Guy Barry:
>
> > > What does the phrase "plural but singular in construction" mean?

tr

> > Well, what it suggest to me is constructs like
>
> > Two dollars is not a lot of money.

I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good example.

> I think you are right. I would say the 'economics' example is the
> opposite of 'plural but singular in construction'. (Isn't it singular, but
> plural in construction?)

When referring to the name of a subject, I'd say it's singular in meaning
and singular in construction. It refers to a single concept and takes a
singular verb, e.g. "economics is taught at many universities".

When meaning "economic circumstances", I'd say it's plural in meaning and
plural in construction, e.g. "the economics of the situation are tricky". I
suppose you could argue that it's singular in meaning here, because there's
no such thing as "an economic", but I've never seen it described that way.
What about other nouns that only exist in the plural, e.g. "trousers"?
Should that be regarded as singular?

> I had asked about collective nouns before but was chided about the point
> by one of the soi disant experts on here.

I don't know of any "soi-disant experts" on here. Who has ever said "I'm an
expert"?

> 'Plural but singular in construction' is exemplified by such statements as
> you might see in a British report about collective groups (usually people
> or living things but not always) : Liverpool are visiting > > Manchester
> for a showdown this week. The team are working extra practice sessions.
> Parliament are meeting this week.

Surely those examples are "singular but plural in construction".
"Liverpool" is normally a singular noun, but takes a plural verb in your
example (and similarly for the others).

--
Guy Barry

[Mike L]

There are some doubles amoing the lovely ones here:
http://twistedsifter.com/2010/04/25-stunning-images-of-spiral-staircases/

--
Mike.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Looking through those images I had a shock. I saw myself in one of them.
I have never been near the place so it must be an impersonator.

The man at the bottom left, holding what looks like a cup:
http://twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/self-supporting-spiral-staircase.jpg

[mrucb...@att.net]

No, the verb tells you it is not a singular subject. It is used as a plural subject. That is why it is 'singular in construction' (most directly, that means "NO S ON THE END") and used as a plural.

"Statistics is a class in the maths department." See the 's'? This word is PLURAL IN CONSTRUCTION. See the verb 'is'? 'Statistics' is used as a singular subject. You have it backwards.

[Robin Bignall]

Do you walk in your sleep? I know Ireland to the Loire Valley does seem
a bit steep but you never know.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <33738bea-aef7-4315...@googlegroups.com>,

mrucb...@att.net wrote:

> On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:25:48 PM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > news:f3224e4a-2046-4b2e...@googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:04:14 AM UTC-5, Mark Brader wrote:
> >
> > > 'Plural but singular in construction' is exemplified by such statements
> > > as
> > > you might see in a British report about collective groups (usually people
> > > or living things but not always) : Liverpool are visiting > >
> > > Manchester
> >
> > > for a showdown this week. The team are working extra practice sessions.
> > > Parliament are meeting this week.
> >
> > Surely those examples are "singular but plural in construction".
> > "Liverpool" is normally a singular noun, but takes a plural verb in your
> > example (and similarly for the others).
>

> No,

Yes. Guy has it exactly right: "singular but plural in construction"
means "singular form but plural in usage".

"Construction" refers to the syntax, not the morphology.

> You have it backwards.

No, it is very clearly you who have it backwards. "X but Y in
construction" means "X in form, but used as if it were Y". See, for
example:

"noun plural but singular in construction"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics

You may like it to mean something else, or may have interpreted it out
of context as something else, but you have it backwards from what it
means in the context in which it was being discussed in this thread
(i.e., what it means when a dictionary uses it).

I know of no dictionaries that use this expression with the meaning
you claim it has. Can you point to one?

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Guy Barry]

mrucbeadco wrote in message
news:33738bea-aef7-4315...@googlegroups.com...

> No, the verb tells you it is not a singular subject. It is used as a
> plural subject. That is why it is 'singular in construction' (most
> directly, that means "NO S ON THE END") and used as a plural.

You misunderstand the meaning of "construction" here (see my earlier reply
to Peter Edwardson). "Construction" refers to grammatical construction.
See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :

"Nouns that are plural in form and that regularly occur in plural
construction are labeled _noun plural_:

_munch�ies_ noun, plural

Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as plurals
are appropriately labeled:

_ro�bot�ics_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction
_two bits_ noun plural but singular or plural in construction

A noun that is singular in construction takes a singular verb when it is
used as a subject; a noun that is plural in construction takes a plural verb
when it is used as a subject."

> "Statistics is a class in the maths department." See the 's'? This word
> is PLURAL IN CONSTRUCTION. See the verb 'is'? 'Statistics' is used as a
> singular subject. You have it backwards.

The way that "plural in construction" is used in some dictionaries is to
mean "takes a plural verb". In your above sentence "statistics" takes a
singular verb, so it would be referred to as "singular in construction".
Some people would say that it's also "plural in form" (because of the
final -s).

To be honest, most dictionaries seem to have abandoned the term now, which
is just as well as its main purpose seems to be to confuse people. "With
singular verb" or "with plural verb" makes the point a lot more clearly.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
news:sanders-7D7AFF...@free.teranews.com...

> No, it is very clearly you who have it backwards. "X but Y in
> construction" means "X in form, but used as if it were Y". See, for
> example:

> "noun plural but singular in construction"
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics

Just in case it's not clear, the phrase in question occurs in the heading.
(I read through the article first wondering where it was!)

This is a good example of why I was questioning the use of the phrase. As
far as I know, "linguistics" can only ever be used with a singular verb;
unlike "economics", there's no alternative use where it takes a plural verb.
"Linguistics" refers to the name of a subject and nothing else; one cannot
say "the linguistics of English are complicated" or anything like that. Nor
is there a noun "linguistic".

So, other than the fact that it ends in "-s", what is plural about the word
"linguistics"? Do we need dictionaries to tell us that something looks like
a plural but isn't?

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <pOb6s.317562$5A.1...@fx20.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> news:sanders-7D7AFF...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > No, it is very clearly you who have it backwards. "X but Y in
> > construction" means "X in form, but used as if it were Y". See, for
> > example:
>
> > "noun plural but singular in construction"
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics
>
> Just in case it's not clear, the phrase in question occurs in the heading.
> (I read through the article first wondering where it was!)
>
> This is a good example of why I was questioning the use of the phrase. As
> far as I know, "linguistics" can only ever be used with a singular verb;
> unlike "economics", there's no alternative use where it takes a plural verb.
> "Linguistics" refers to the name of a subject and nothing else; one cannot
> say "the linguistics of English are complicated" or anything like that.

Right, that's why it's "singular in construction".

> Nor is there a noun "linguistic".

Not all morphologically plural nouns have an existing singular form
(boonies, clothes, gallows, genitals, indoors, news, sunglasses,
tights, etc.), and some of these have even transitioned to being
syntactically singular despite their morphology.

> So, other than the fact that it ends in "-s", what is plural about the word
> "linguistics"?

What more do you need? :-)

"Plural" here, because of the "but singular in construction", refers
only to the morphology, not to the syntax.

Note also that the semantics need not match the morphology or syntax,
either: "brains/intelligence", "victuals/food", "odds/probability",
"guts/courage", "manners/behavior", "thanks/gratitude",
"riches/wealth", "naughts-and-crosses/tic-tac-toe", etc. all have both
members of each pair referring to the same singular/mass concept
(thus, having the same semantics), but they differ in their
morpho-syntactic plurality.

> Do we need dictionaries to tell us that something looks like
> a plural but isn't?

Sure, because not all nouns that end in -s (with appropriate voicing)
are derived from plural morphology (diabetes, lens, glans,
triceratops, jones 'habit', etc.). Part of a dictionary's job is to
give morphological and etymological information, too.

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:uCb6s.370048$pt3....@fx25.am4...

> You misunderstand the meaning of "construction" here (see my earlier reply
> to Peter Edwardson).

I meant Peter Duncanson, of course - apologies to him. (Peter Edwardson is
a poster on an entirely different forum.)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-8D499F...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <pOb6s.317562$5A.1...@fx20.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Nor is there a noun "linguistic".

> Not all morphologically plural nouns have an existing singular form
> (boonies, clothes, gallows, genitals, indoors, news, sunglasses,
> tights, etc.), and some of these have even transitioned to being
> syntactically singular despite their morphology.

From the above list, I only treat "gallows" and "news" as syntactically
singular. (I've never come across "boonies", and only use "indoors" as an
adverb.) My dictionary simply lists "gallows" as a noun without special
comment, but gives "news" as "plural but singular in construction". Until
this moment I had never thought of "news" as plural in any way whatsoever.

> > So, other than the fact that it ends in "-s", what is plural about the
> > word
> > "linguistics"?

> What more do you need? :-)

> "Plural" here, because of the "but singular in construction", refers
> only to the morphology, not to the syntax.

But is that the role of a dictionary definition? You might expect to find a
note about that in the etymology section, but when I'm looking up a word's
grammatical category, I want to know how it's currently used, not the
historic morphological processes that led to its current form. There are
nouns that started out as adjectives (e.g. "general") but I expect to see
them listed as nouns, not "adjective but noun in construction".

And, in any case, do we have any evidence that "linguistics" started out as
a plural? Wasn't it more likely to have been formed by analogy with other
subject names in "-ics"?

> > Note also that the semantics need not match the morphology or syntax,
> > either: "brains/intelligence", "victuals/food", "odds/probability",
> > "guts/courage", "manners/behavior", "thanks/gratitude",
> > "riches/wealth", "naughts-and-crosses/tic-tac-toe", etc. all have both
> > members of each pair referring to the same singular/mass concept
> > (thus, having the same semantics), but they differ in their
> > morpho-syntactic plurality.

True, but those nouns all take plural verbs apart from "noughts and crosses"
(as I spell it), so they're unequivocally plural in both form and
construction. (Incidentally "riches" is an interesting one, since I believe
it's etymologically from French "richesse", so originally a singular.
"Noughts and crosses" is listed in my dictionary as "plural but singular in
construction", but again I would say it functions as a singular.

> Sure, because not all nouns that end in -s (with appropriate voicing)
> are derived from plural morphology (diabetes, lens, glans,
> triceratops, jones 'habit', etc.). Part of a dictionary's job is to
> give morphological and etymological information, too.

Yes, but not in the definition bit. Normally the grammatical category given
is an indication of how the word is actually used. Saying "plural but
singular in construction" is confusing in my opinion because it might be
taken to imply that the word is somehow syntactically plural, which it
isn't. Why not just write "singular"?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I used to sleepwalk when I was a boy. Only once did I find myself
outside the house, and that wasn't very far outside. We were living in
Watford, Herts, at the time.

[the Omrud]

On 19/09/2012 10:53, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> I used to sleepwalk when I was a boy. Only once did I find myself
> outside the house, and that wasn't very far outside. We were living in
> Watford, Herts, at the time.

Double locking the doors would have stopped this.

--
David

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:
> See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
...

> Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as plurals
> are appropriately labeled:
>

> _ro搓ot搏cs_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?
--
Mark Brader | "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust,
Toronto | means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)."
m...@vex.net | -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h)

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <MMmdndfid4FaisfN...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Guy Barry:
> > See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
> ...
> > Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as plurals
> > are appropriately labeled:
> >

> > _ro·bot·ics_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

>
> That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
> as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?

Would it be convincing if "robotics" triggered plural agreement on a
verb?

"Our latest wellness checkup surveys how robotics are changing the
future of medicine"
<http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2032747_203
3111_2033133,00.html>

"PACK EXPO show highlighted how important robotics are to packaging"
<http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/pack-expo-show-highlight
ed-how-important-robotics-are-to-packaging-5i2hW5m0St>

"Robotics have been a staple of manufacturing for decades."
<http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-Feature
-Article/Palletizing-and-De-Palletizing-Applications/content_id/3411>

[mrucb...@att.net]

I was mistaken. I stand corrected. I daresay that is not an intuitive use of the words "x in construction' when refering to the word itself. I can see it means the construction of the usage in a sentence but that is at least a bit misleading, I think.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <16e47254-ba47-49e6...@googlegroups.com>,

mrucb...@att.net wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:30:42 PM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > "noun plural but singular in construction"
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics
> >
> > You may like it to mean something else, or may have interpreted it out
> > of context as something else, but you have it backwards from what it
> > means in the context in which it was being discussed in this thread
> > (i.e., what it means when a dictionary uses it).
> >
> > I know of no dictionaries that use this expression with the meaning
> > you claim it has. Can you point to one?
>

> I was mistaken. I stand corrected. I daresay that is not an intuitive use
> of the words "x in construction' when refering to the word itself. I can see
> it means the construction of the usage in a sentence but that is at least a
> bit misleading, I think.

I agree, and I support the clearer wording other dictionaries use ("X
with Y concord", "X with Y verb agreement").

[Mark Brader]

Nathan Sanders:

>>> "noun plural but singular in construction"
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linguistics

> ...I support the clearer wording other dictionaries use ("X

> with Y concord", "X with Y verb agreement").

Now that I think of it, the wording I'm used to in dictionaries is "construed as" singular
or plural. In my previous example "Two dollars is not a lot of money", "two dollars" as
being construed as singular.
--
Mark Brader "Poor spelling does not prove poor knowledge,
Toronto but is fatal to the argument by intimidation."
m...@vex.net -- Gene Ward Smith

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:MMmdndfid4FaisfN...@vex.net...

> Guy Barry:
> > See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
...
> > Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as
> > plurals
> > are appropriately labeled:
>
> > _ro搓ot搏cs_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

> That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
> as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?

This has been my point. I maintain that "robotics" is a straightforward
singular noun and should be listed as such in dictionaries. Calling it
"plural but singular in construction" (or some similar phrase) doesn't tell
you how to use it, and may well confuse people into thinking that it's
grammatically plural in some way.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message

news:-7ydnVFQ_sVo9cfN...@vex.net...

> Now that I think of it, the wording I'm used to in dictionaries is
> "construed as" singular
> or plural. In my previous example "Two dollars is not a lot of money",
> "two dollars" as
> being construed as singular.

Yes, I think that's not only a better way of describing it but also a much
better example. "Two dollars" is a plural noun phrase, consisting of the
quantifier "two" (which takes a plural noun) and the plural of the noun
"dollar", but in your example it takes a singular verb. I don't think
that's what's happening with words like "robotics". "Two robotics" is
nonsense.

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

Sure it is...but what's the plural of universe?...and can you give two
examples?...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It has become customary to attach an "s" to a word (noun or adjective)
to create a name for a field of study or activity, presumably, by
analogy with physics, mathematics, and similar. This can look illogical
when the word is a noun because the "s" appears to pluralise the noun
but the result is still singular.

Oddly, this is less of a problem where an adjective is "s"ed because the
we don't pluralise adjectives, even though the result is even more
illogical.

linguistics
athletics
hydroponics
....

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:h7ul5812sl6asbbav...@4ax.com...

> It has become customary to attach an "s" to a word (noun or adjective)
> to create a name for a field of study or activity, presumably, by
> analogy with physics, mathematics, and similar.

"s" is not being attached to a word in those examples. There is no word
"mathematic" that I'm aware of, and the only word "physic" that I know of is
an obsolete term for medicine (which isn't relevant here). The suffix
that's being attached is "-ics", which is singular as far as I'm concerned.

The only nouns in "-ics" where I'm aware of a corresponding noun in "-ic"
are "statistics" and "ethics". The existence of adjectives in "-ic" is
irrelevant, because adjectives can't be pluralized.

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <jiz6s.248253$of1.2...@fx07.am4>,
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Two robotics" is nonsense.

As is "two clothes":

#I bought two clothes yesterday.

Yet "clothes" is still plural:

My clothes are/*is tattered.

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <jiz6s.248253$of1.2...@fx07.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > "Two robotics" is nonsense.

> As is "two clothes":

> #I bought two clothes yesterday.

> Yet "clothes" is still plural:

> My clothes are/*is tattered.

Sure. "Clothes" is syntactically plural - it takes a plural verb.
"Robotics" is syntactically singular - it takes a singular verb.

What is the difficulty with describing "robotics" as a singular noun?

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <tiI6s.541054$k95.3...@fx22.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> news:sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > In article <jiz6s.248253$of1.2...@fx07.am4>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Two robotics" is nonsense.
>
> > As is "two clothes":
>
> > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>
> > Yet "clothes" is still plural:
>
> > My clothes are/*is tattered.
>
> Sure. "Clothes" is syntactically plural - it takes a plural verb.
> "Robotics" is syntactically singular - it takes a singular verb.
>
> What is the difficulty with describing "robotics" as a singular noun?

It's not a difficulty, per se. It's just that "robotics" is
morphologically/etymologically plural, in a way that, for example,
"lens" and "triceratops" are not.

Morphology/etymology does not have to match syntax (although, as I
pointed out with a few quotes in a different post, "robotics" *can*
have plural syntax).

Whether it's *worthwhile* to put morphological/etymological
information in a dictionary (or so prominently in the dictionary) is a
reasonable debate. But regardless of its worthwhileness, it is a
correct description of the facts that nouns formed by adding "-ics"
are morphologically/etymologically plural, because "-ics" itself is
morphologically/etymologically plural, and this plurality may or may
not show up in the syntax (or even the semantics).

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <slrnk5mpdb....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com>

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>

> No, that's wrong.

Correct, that sentence is a bad sentence.

Or do you mean it's wrong that I think it's a bad sentence?

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-1D5DB2...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <tiI6s.541054$k95.3...@fx22.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > What is the difficulty with describing "robotics" as a singular noun?

> It's not a difficulty, per se. It's just that "robotics" is
> morphologically/etymologically plural, in a way that, for example,
> "lens" and "triceratops" are not.

In what way is "robotics" morphologically plural? As far as I can see it
consists of a stem, "robot", plus a suffix "-ics" which is used to create
the names of various academic disciplines. And it could only be
etymologically plural if there were an older noun "robotic" from which it
was derived (which, as far as I know, there isn't). There is no general
rule in English for the addition of "-s" to adjectives to form nouns that
I'm aware of.

> Morphology/etymology does not have to match syntax (although, as I
> pointed out with a few quotes in a different post, "robotics" *can*
> have plural syntax).

You did point out a few instances where it's construed as plural (as with
"economics", the word with which I started the thread). I would say that it
functions as a plural noun in those circumstances. Maybe lexicographers
have difficulty with the idea of a noun that's sometimes singular and
sometimes plural, but I personally don't.

> Whether it's *worthwhile* to put morphological/etymological
> information in a dictionary (or so prominently in the dictionary) is a
> reasonable debate. But regardless of its worthwhileness, it is a
> correct description of the facts that nouns formed by adding "-ics"
> are morphologically/etymologically plural, because "-ics" itself is
> morphologically/etymologically plural, and this plurality may or may
> not show up in the syntax (or even the semantics).

What does the statement " '-ics' itself is morphologically/etymologically
plural " really mean? "-ics" is a single morpheme, used to create words
that are singular both in meaning and in grammatical construction (in the
sense of an academic discipline anyway). What you seem to be saying is that
it's possible for a word to be singular both in meaning and in function, and
yet to be regarded as a plural, despite not being the plural of any other
noun. I'm afraid I simply don't understand the point of such a
categorization. What useful information is conveyed by describing such
words as plural when they're to all intents and purposes singular?

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <5cK6s.248290$of1.1...@fx07.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> news:sanders-1D5DB2...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > In article <tiI6s.541054$k95.3...@fx22.am4>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > What is the difficulty with describing "robotics" as a singular noun?
>
> > It's not a difficulty, per se. It's just that "robotics" is
> > morphologically/etymologically plural, in a way that, for example,
> > "lens" and "triceratops" are not.
>
> In what way is "robotics" morphologically plural? As far as I can see it
> consists of a stem, "robot", plus a suffix "-ics" which is used to create
> the names of various academic disciplines.

Right: "-ics" is morphologically/etymologically "-ic" plus "-s".

> And it could only be
> etymologically plural if there were an older noun "robotic" from which it
> was derived (which, as far as I know, there isn't). There is no general
> rule in English for the addition of "-s" to adjectives to form nouns that
> I'm aware of.

I'm not talking about synchronically productive morphology. That's
why I added "etymologically".

> > Whether it's *worthwhile* to put morphological/etymological
> > information in a dictionary (or so prominently in the dictionary) is a
> > reasonable debate. But regardless of its worthwhileness, it is a
> > correct description of the facts that nouns formed by adding "-ics"
> > are morphologically/etymologically plural, because "-ics" itself is
> > morphologically/etymologically plural, and this plurality may or may
> > not show up in the syntax (or even the semantics).
>
> What does the statement " '-ics' itself is morphologically/etymologically
> plural " really mean? "-ics" is a single morpheme,

It is etymologically composed of two morphemes, one of which is the
plural -s:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ics

> What you seem to be saying is that
> it's possible for a word to be singular both in meaning and in function,

I'd say "singular both in semantics and in syntax", but yes.

> and yet to be regarded as a plural,

I'd say "and yet is morphologically/etymologically plural", but yes.

> despite not being the plural of any other noun.

Of course. There are plenty of plurals that are not the plural of a
any other noun. What noun is "clothes" the plural of? "Tights"?
"Boonies"? "Thanks"? Why must a plural necessarily be derived
directly from a singular noun?

> I'm afraid I simply don't understand the point of such a
> categorization. What useful information is conveyed by describing such
> words as plural when they're to all intents and purposes singular?

But they are not singular for *all* intents and purposes; they are
plural as far as morphology/etymology is concerned.

You don't see a point in stating that fact (so prominently) in a
dictionary entry (and as I said, that's a perfectly reasonable debate
to have), but that doesn't change that it is indeed a fact.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <slrnk5mt7n....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <sanders-02966E...@free.teranews.com>

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <slrnk5mpdb....@mbp55.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com>
> >> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
> >>
> >> No, that's wrong.
>
> > Correct, that sentence is a bad sentence.
>

> Right.

>
> > Or do you mean it's wrong that I think it's a bad sentence?
>

> I didn't understand that was what you were saying. Sorry.

No worries, it happens!

[James Hogg]

Nathan has cited the morphological and etymological fact that the ending
consists of two morphemes from very different sources: "ic" + "s".
Another historical reason for calling it a plural form is that words of
this kind, taking "physics" as an example, are translations of a Greek
plural, and could be (but weren't always) treated as a plural in the past:

1756 J. Warton Ess. on Pope I. iii. 169 [Aristotle's] Physics
contain many useful observations

The OED has old examples of "metaphysics" and "mathematics" with a
plural verb.

And of course, all these words have been used in the past without the
plural ending: a Doctor of Physic.

--
James

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-02966E...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <slrnk5mpdb....@mbp55.local>,
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > In message <sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com>
> > Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>
> > No, that's wrong.

> Correct, that sentence is a bad sentence.

What does the hash mark (#) mean? I'm familiar with linguists' use of the
asterisk (*) to indicate an unacceptable sentence (though I warn you that
many people here may not be), but I've never seen that one.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-5DFC94...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <5cK6s.248290$of1.1...@fx07.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > What does the statement " '-ics' itself is
> > morphologically/etymologically
> > plural " really mean? "-ics" is a single morpheme,

> It is etymologically composed of two morphemes, one of which is the
> plural -s:

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ics

OK, so that entry says that "-ics" was originally a translation of the Greek
neuter plural suffix "-ika", formed from "-ic" and "-s". So etymologically
it can be regarded as plural, I suppose. But it functions now as a single
morpheme, creating words that are usually syntactically and semantically
singular (in the sense of academic disciplines, anyway). So I would say
that it's morphologically singular, not plural.

> > What you seem to be saying is that
> > it's possible for a word to be singular both in meaning and in function,

> I'd say "singular both in semantics and in syntax", but yes.

> > and yet to be regarded as a plural,

> I'd say "and yet is morphologically/etymologically plural", but yes.

The entry in my dictionary for "robotics" does not say
"morphologically/etymologically plural". It says "plural but singular in
construction". The only plural thing about it, it seems, is that it
contains a suffix that was originally derived from a Greek plural suffix.
Well so what? "Agenda" was originally a Latin plural, but is now generally
regarded as a singular (and is so listed in the dictionary). As I said
before, there are plenty of nouns that started off as adjectives (like
"general"), but we call them nouns, not adjectives. I don't expect to see
etymological information in the definition bit. I expect to see an

indication of how the word is actually used.

> You don't see a point in stating that fact (so prominently) in a
> dictionary entry (and as I said, that's a perfectly reasonable debate
> to have), but that doesn't change that it is indeed a fact.

Can you give me any other type of word where the etymology affects the
grammatical categorization?

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <6NR6s.628579$2O5.2...@fx19.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> news:sanders-5DFC94...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > In article <5cK6s.248290$of1.1...@fx07.am4>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > What does the statement " '-ics' itself is
> > > morphologically/etymologically
> > > plural " really mean? "-ics" is a single morpheme,
>
> > It is etymologically composed of two morphemes, one of which is the
> > plural -s:
>
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-ics
>
> OK, so that entry says that "-ics" was originally a translation of the Greek
> neuter plural suffix "-ika", formed from "-ic" and "-s". So etymologically
> it can be regarded as plural, I suppose.

Which is what I have been saying.

> But it functions now as a single morpheme,

How it "functions" doesn't change its etymology.

> > > What you seem to be saying is that
> > > it's possible for a word to be singular both in meaning and in function,
>
> > I'd say "singular both in semantics and in syntax", but yes.
>
> > > and yet to be regarded as a plural,
>
> > I'd say "and yet is morphologically/etymologically plural", but yes.
>
> The entry in my dictionary for "robotics" does not say
> "morphologically/etymologically plural". It says "plural but singular in
> construction".

That's their shorthand. That's what it means.

> The only plural thing about it, it seems, is that it
> contains a suffix that was originally derived from a Greek plural suffix.

Yes.

> Well so what? "Agenda" was originally a Latin plural, but is now generally
> regarded as a singular (and is so listed in the dictionary).

But "agenda" isn't derived directly from any active plural suffix in
*English*; "-ics" is, and thus, anything derived from "-ics" is
necessarily also derived from that same active English plural suffix
(see also "news", which has the plural suffix without the "-ic").

If "-s" was no longer used for plurals in English, the labeling of
syntactically singular nouns ending in "-s" would likely be very
different!

> As I said
> before, there are plenty of nouns that started off as adjectives (like
> "general"), but we call them nouns, not adjectives. I don't expect to see
> etymological information in the definition bit. I expect to see an
> indication of how the word is actually used.

That's what the "... but singular in construction" bit is for.

> > You don't see a point in stating that fact (so prominently) in a
> > dictionary entry (and as I said, that's a perfectly reasonable debate
> > to have), but that doesn't change that it is indeed a fact.
>
> Can you give me any other type of word where the etymology affects the
> grammatical categorization?

You should ask them. I'm not trying to justify *why* they have chosen
to do this; I'm merely explaining the mechanics of what they have
actually done.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <pjR6s.595769$5o4.5...@fx23.am4>,

# indicates that the sentence is syntactically fine (the words are all
of the right basic grammatical category and occur in the right order),
but the semantics are wonky. The most classic example is due to
Chomsky:

#Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
basic syntactic structure is fine.

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-C92A35...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <6NR6s.628579$2O5.2...@fx19.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Well so what? "Agenda" was originally a Latin plural, but is now
> > generally
> > regarded as a singular (and is so listed in the dictionary).

> But "agenda" isn't derived directly from any active plural suffix in
> *English*

I would argue that "robotics" isn't, either; it comes from "robot" plus
"-ics", and "-ics" isn't an active plural suffix. The fact that it's
historically "-ic" plus "-s" may be of interest etymologically, but is of no
practical significance.

> (see also "news", which has the plural suffix without the "-ic").

I don't regard "news" as plural either, though the dictionary gives it the
same PBSIC label.

> If "-s" was no longer used for plurals in English, the labeling of
> syntactically singular nouns ending in "-s" would likely be very
> different!

Why?

> > Can you give me any other type of word where the etymology affects the
> > grammatical categorization?

> You should ask them. I'm not trying to justify *why* they have chosen
> to do this; I'm merely explaining the mechanics of what they have
> actually done.

Well, fair enough. If I were compiling a dictionary I'd want to keep the
definition in the definition bit and the etymology in the etymology bit.
The majority of people use a dictionary to find out how a word is used and
defined; that's why the etymology is separate. "Robotics" in its main sense
is used as a singular, so that's what the dictionary should say in my
opinion. I don't need the dictionary definition to tell me that it
historically contains the plural morpheme "-s"; that's of no help in telling
me how to use the word. All it seems to do is confuse the issue.

"Singular but plural in formation" might be more helpful.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-F43B81...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <pjR6s.595769$5o4.5...@fx23.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> > news:sanders-02966E...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > > In article <slrnk5mpdb....@mbp55.local>,
> > > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> > > > In message <sanders-3F6144...@free.teranews.com>
> > > > Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
> >
> > > > No, that's wrong.
>
> > > Correct, that sentence is a bad sentence.
>
> > What does the hash mark (#) mean? I'm familiar with linguists' use of
> > the
> > asterisk (*) to indicate an unacceptable sentence (though I warn you
> > that
> > many people here may not be), but I've never seen that one.

> # indicates that the sentence is syntactically fine (the words are all
> of the right basic grammatical category and occur in the right order),
> but the semantics are wonky. The most classic example is due to
> Chomsky:

> #Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Thanks. I'll again warn you that most people here are not professional
linguists, so you may need to be careful in adopting conventions that aren't
generally understood outside that community. I got into trouble once for
labelling two different speakers as "A" and "B" (the person reading thought
they were two separate example sentences, and completely misconstrued the
example).

> In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
> general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
> basic syntactic structure is fine.

My instinct would be to mark it as syntactically ill-formed, but I'll get
back to you on that.

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <jLT6s.417273$zn3.3...@fx21.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Nathan Sanders" wrote in message
> news:sanders-C92A35...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > In article <6NR6s.628579$2O5.2...@fx19.am4>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Well so what? "Agenda" was originally a Latin plural, but is now
> > > generally
> > > regarded as a singular (and is so listed in the dictionary).
>
> > But "agenda" isn't derived directly from any active plural suffix in
> > *English*
>
> I would argue that "robotics" isn't, either; it comes from "robot" plus
> "-ics", and "-ics" isn't an active plural suffix. The fact that it's
> historically "-ic" plus "-s" may be of interest etymologically, but is of no
> practical significance.

As I said, I'm not arguing in favor (or against) the practicality,
merely the meaning of the label "plural but singular in construction".

> > (see also "news", which has the plural suffix without the "-ic").
>
> I don't regard "news" as plural either, though the dictionary gives it the
> same PBSIC label.

Right.

> > If "-s" was no longer used for plurals in English, the labeling of
> > syntactically singular nouns ending in "-s" would likely be very
> > different!
>
> Why?

For the same reason that "agenda" isn't listed as a plural: the part
of its history that once was plural is not floating around in the
active morphology of English. There's no danger of someone looking at
"agenda" and thinking it is a productively formed English plural.

If "-s" were no longer a productive plural morpheme, then singular
words that were originally formed by adding this long-long plural "-s"
wouldn't be any different than "agenda", and wouldn't need to be
notated as plural.

> > > Can you give me any other type of word where the etymology affects the
> > > grammatical categorization?
>
> > You should ask them. I'm not trying to justify *why* they have chosen
> > to do this; I'm merely explaining the mechanics of what they have
> > actually done.
>
> Well, fair enough. If I were compiling a dictionary I'd want to keep the
> definition in the definition bit and the etymology in the etymology bit.

But in this case, the etymology includes a currently active,
productive morpheme, which complicates the issue. It's not some
ancient, forgotten morpheme that no one would recognize; it's one that
they use every day in nearly every conversation.

> All it seems to do is confuse the issue.

I agree it's confusing.

> "Singular but plural in formation" might be more helpful.

I don't find that any clearer than the other, since "formation"
doesn't definitively indicate (to me) "morphology" any more than
"construction" definitively indicates "syntax", since both could refer
to either word formation/construction or phrase formation/construction.

I prefer something more explicit, like "illusory plural with singular
agreement". :-)

[Mike L]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:26:51 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:18:22 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>There are some doubles amoing the lovely ones here:
>>http://twistedsifter.com/2010/04/25-stunning-images-of-spiral-staircases/
>
>Looking through those images I had a shock. I saw myself in one of them.
>I have never been near the place so it must be an impersonator.
>
>The man at the bottom left, holding what looks like a cup:
>http://twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/self-supporting-spiral-staircase.jpg

You can't fool me. You're just trying to cover up after the accidental
release of a photo of a tea-break during a meeting of The Committee.

--
Mike.

[Guy Barry]

On Sep 21, 7:57 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jLT6s.417273$zn3.337...@fx21.am4>,

>  "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Why?
>
> For the same reason that "agenda" isn't listed as a plural: the part
> of its history that once was plural is not floating around in the
> active morphology of English.  There's no danger of someone looking at
> "agenda" and thinking it is a productively formed English plural.

Indeed, whereas there's a danger of doing so with "robotics" - which
is precisely why the dictionary ought to be making it clear that it's
singular and not in any way grammatically plural!

> But in this case, the etymology includes a currently active,
> productive morpheme, which complicates the issue.  It's not some
> ancient, forgotten morpheme that no one would recognize; it's one that
> they use every day in nearly every conversation.

So if people recognize it, why do they need to be told about it in a
dictionary? Do people really need a dictionary to find out that
"robotics" ends in "-s"?

> I agree it's confusing.

It's certainly confused at least two people on this thread.

> > "Singular but plural in formation" might be more helpful.
>
> I don't find that any clearer than the other, since "formation"
> doesn't definitively indicate (to me) "morphology" any more than
> "construction" definitively indicates "syntax", since both could refer
> to either word formation/construction or phrase formation/construction.

Yes, I agree. I withdraw the suggestion.

> I prefer something more explicit, like "illusory plural with singular
> agreement".  :-)

Or just "singular". Or, if you need to be explicit about it,
"singular despite plural suffix" - although dictionaries don't
generally warn us when nouns have other suffixes that might cause
confusion. For instance, the noun "orderly" contains a suffix that
might be taken as forming an adjective or even an adverb. Should the
dictionary tell us about that as well?

--
Guy Barry

[mrucb...@att.net]

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:00:52 AM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
>
> news:MMmdndfid4FaisfN...@vex.net...
>
>
>
> > Guy Barry:
>
> > > See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
>
> ...
>
> > > Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as
>
> > > plurals
>
> > > are appropriately labeled:
>
> >
>

> > > _ro·bot·ics_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

>
>
>
> > That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
>
> > as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?
>
>
>
> This has been my point. I maintain that "robotics" is a straightforward
>
> singular noun and should be listed as such in dictionaries. Calling it
>
> "plural but singular in construction" (or some similar phrase) doesn't tell
>
> you how to use it, and may well confuse people into thinking that it's
>
> grammatically plural in some way.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Guy Barry

Throughout the south, today, robotics are seen in many more manufacturing plants than you would have seen just 10 years ago.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sep 20, 9:39 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Nathan Sanders"  wrote in message
> news:sanders-02966E...@free.teranews.com...

> > In article <slrnk5mpdb.htg.g.kr...@mbp55.local>,
> >  Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > > In message <sanders-3F6144.13150820092...@free.teranews.com>

> > >   Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > >      #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>
> > > No, that's wrong.
>
> > Correct, that sentence is a bad sentence.
>
> What does the hash mark (#) mean?  I'm familiar with linguists' use of the
> asterisk (*) to indicate an unacceptable sentence (though I warn you that
> many people here may not be), but I've never seen that one.

I think the asterisk is pretty well known here. I wouldn't have
recognized the # either.

--
Jerry Friedman

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:30:24 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Or even amateur linguists. Or, for that matter, even understand what
a linguist is. Wiki tells me that linguistics is the scientific study
of human language, but observation of linguists in action - as
represented in cross-posts here - belie any scientific approach to
language. As far as I can tell, linguistics is the study of the
application of logical fallacies in argument.

> so you may need to be careful in adopting conventions that aren't
>generally understood outside that community. I got into trouble

I didn't say you were in trouble.

>once for
>labelling two different speakers as "A" and "B" (the person reading thought
>they were two separate example sentences, and completely misconstrued the
>example).
>

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

There...is...no...Committee.

The photo was taken during a tea-break during a meeting of The
Commissariat. The tea was provided by the commissariat.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:35:16 -0700 (PDT), mrucb...@att.net wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:00:52 AM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
>>
>> news:MMmdndfid4FaisfN...@vex.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Guy Barry:
>>
>> > > See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as
>>
>> > > plurals
>>
>> > > are appropriately labeled:
>>
>> >
>>

>> > > _ro搓ot搏cs_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

>>
>>
>>
>> > That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
>>
>> > as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?
>>
>>
>>
>> This has been my point. I maintain that "robotics" is a straightforward
>>
>> singular noun and should be listed as such in dictionaries. Calling it
>>
>> "plural but singular in construction" (or some similar phrase) doesn't tell
>>
>> you how to use it, and may well confuse people into thinking that it's
>>
>> grammatically plural in some way.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Guy Barry
>
>Throughout the south, today, robotics are seen in many more manufacturing plants than you would have seen just 10 years ago.

In that example "robotics" seems to be used as an abbreviation of
"robotic devices/machines" rather than meaning "the branch of technology
that deals with the design, construction, operation, and application of
robots".

[mrucb...@att.net]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:11:34 AM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:35:16 -0700 (PDT), mrucb...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:00:52 AM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> >> "Mark Brader" wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:MMmdndfid4FaisfN...@vex.net...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > Guy Barry:
>
> >>
>
> >> > > See http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/inflec.htm :
>
> >>
>
> >> ...
>
> >>
>
> >> > > Nouns that are plural in form but that are not always construed as
>
> >>
>
> >> > > plurals
>
> >>
>
> >> > > are appropriately labeled:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>

> >> > > _ro·bot·ics_ . . . noun plural but singular in construction

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > That example would be more convincing if "robotic" had *ever* existed
>
> >>
>
> >> > as a noun. Are they under the illusion that only plurals can end in S?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> This has been my point. I maintain that "robotics" is a straightforward
>
> >>
>
> >> singular noun and should be listed as such in dictionaries. Calling it
>
> >>
>
> >> "plural but singular in construction" (or some similar phrase) doesn't tell
>
> >>
>
> >> you how to use it, and may well confuse people into thinking that it's
>
> >>
>
> >> grammatically plural in some way.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >>
>
> >> Guy Barry
>
> >
>
> >Throughout the south, today, robotics are seen in many more manufacturing plants than you would have seen just 10 years ago.
>
>
>
> In that example "robotics" seems to be used as an abbreviation of
>
> "robotic devices/machines" rather than meaning "the branch of technology
>
> that deals with the design, construction, operation, and application of
>
> robots".
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Duncanson, UK
>
> (in alt.usage.english)

Agreed, but then, that could be a definition of the word, perhaps.

[Robin Bignall]

I think the exception to that rule is Prof John Lawler, whose
explanations of all sorts of constructions are clear and show a formal
discipline underlying them.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<639f985c-26b5-4b24...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Sorry about the confusion! I thought the notation was more widely
known by language enthusiasts.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:

> Sure it is...but what's the plural of universe?...and can you give two
> examples?...r

You wouldn't pass a model theory course without being able to.

Formally, a structure U for our given first-order language is a
function whose domain is the set of parameters and such that

1. U assigns to the quantifier symbol [for-all] a nonempty set
|U|, called the _universe_ of U.
...

Herbert Enderton, _A Mathematical
Introduction to Logic_, 1972

(And that's pulling a book off the shelf next to my desk, not doing a
Google search.) Different models will often have different universes.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I like giving talks to industry,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |because one of the things that I've
Chicago (1964-1982) |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
evan.kir...@gmail.com |Business School.
| Clayton Christensen
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Harvard Business School

[Christian Weisgerber]

Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>

> In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
> general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
> basic syntactic structure is fine.

"Clothes" is a plural mass noun.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> news:h7ul5812sl6asbbav...@4ax.com...
>
>> It has become customary to attach an "s" to a word (noun or adjective)
>> to create a name for a field of study or activity, presumably, by
>> analogy with physics, mathematics, and similar.
>
> "s" is not being attached to a word in those examples. There is no
> word "mathematic" that I'm aware of,

There used to be. I see it back to

This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject al the
Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and
Plato had gathered up, touching on the origine of things and
Divine maters; and rather to believe an Eternitie of mater,
because those Jewish Traditions were not backed with Demonstrative
Arguments.

Theophilus Gale, _The Court of the
Gentiles_, 1677

> and the only word "physic" that I know of is an obsolete term for
> medicine (which isn't relevant here). The suffix that's being
> attached is "-ics", which is singular as far as I'm concerned.
>
> The only nouns in "-ics" where I'm aware of a corresponding noun in
> "-ic" are "statistics" and "ethics".

If you treat it as adding "-ics" to nouns, how do you account for
things like "mathematics", "statistics", "physics", and "ethics"? Do
they come from "mathemat", "statist", "phys", and "eth"?

> The existence of adjectives in "-ic" is irrelevant, because
> adjectives can't be pluralized.

But they can have "-s" added to form a nouns. It's pretty productive.
If I tell you that certain things are flobulatic (or flobulatical),
you probably won't be surprised to hear the study of those things
described as "flobulatics", even if you have no idea what the word
means.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |It can't affect you unless you
Chicago (1964-1982) |install Windows, and who would be
|foolish enough to do that?
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Peter Moylan

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

I'm not sure whether or not I should be offended. Or has it been long
enough since I worked in the field professionally that I no longer
count?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If only some crazy scientist
SF Bay Area (1982-) |somewhere would develop a device
Chicago (1964-1982) |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
evan.kir...@gmail.com | --"lazarus"

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Guy Barry]

mrucbeadco wrote in message
news:62dd40ac-f136-4ee2...@googlegroups.com...

> Throughout the south, today, robotics are seen in many more manufacturing
> plants than you would have seen just 10 years ago.

I think we're in danger of going round the same points again and again.
"Robotics" has a use as a plural noun as you've just demonstrated there, and
I have no issue with describing that as "plural". What I'm taking issue
with is what it's used as the name of a subject of study, as in "robotics is
the branch of technology that deals with robots". This is where some
dictionaries would call it "plural but singular in construction" (or "plural
construed with singular verb" or some similar phrase). I would just call it
"singular".

If you prefer, consider "linguistics" (which can't be construed as a plural
as far as I know), or, even better, "news" (which I didn't even consider
might be plural until embarking on this thread).

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <k3i292$1on1$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,

na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
> >
> > In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
> > general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
> > basic syntactic structure is fine.
>
> "Clothes" is a plural mass noun.

Right, but is that a syntactic property or a semantic property?

It's not clear to me that either answer is necessarily better than the
other, but my gut instinct was to go with semantic, which is why I
marked it with # instead of *.

[Joachim Pense]

Am 21.09.2012 07:09, schrieb Nathan Sanders:
> In article <pjR6s.595769$5o4.5...@fx23.am4>,

>>>> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>> #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>>>

>

> In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
> general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
> basic syntactic structure is fine.
>

I vaguely recall the news talking about "5 police" or "100 troups" (in
England). Is my memory blurred here?

Joachim

[Guy Barry]

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:ecvo58h54drp3hr4q...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:30:24 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > Thanks. I'll again warn you that most people here are not professional
> > linguists,

> Or even amateur linguists.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'd call myself an amateur linguist.
My postgraduate study was mostly in computational and theoretical
linguistics (under the guise of Computer Science and Cognitive Science, but
most of what I studied was actually linguistics). Though I'm no longer
active in the field, I've maintained an interest in the subject since then,
and can still just about keep up with discussions using linguistic
terminology, though I prefer to use more everyday language whenever
possible.

> Or, for that matter, even understand what
> a linguist is. Wiki tells me that linguistics is the scientific study
> of human language, but observation of linguists in action - as
> represented in cross-posts here - belie any scientific approach to
> language. As far as I can tell, linguistics is the study of the
> application of logical fallacies in argument.

Don't let sci.lang be your guide to the linguistic community! Serious
academic discussion in the field takes place a long way away from Usenet
these days. I can say that all the academic linguists I've worked with have
been thoroughly decent people who wouldn't waste their time picking other
people's arguments to bits. If I can name-drop for a moment, I studied
alongside David Beaver, who's now at the University of Texas at Austin and a
prominent contributor to Language Log. His contributions are definitely
worth reading.

> > so you may need to be careful in adopting conventions that aren't
> > generally understood outside that community. I got into trouble

> I didn't say you were in trouble.

OK, it was a "healthy disagreement" then :-)

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Christian Weisgerber" wrote in message
news:k3i292$1on1$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de...

> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>
> > In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural nouns in
> > general can be syntactically combined with a preceding number, so the
> > basic syntactic structure is fine.

> "Clothes" is a plural mass noun.

That was the point I wanted to make earlier, but couldn't quite express
properly. "I bought two clothes yesterday" is no more well-formed than "I
bought two water yesterday" in my opinion. I think the sentence should be
marked (*), not (#).

--
Guy Barry

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:48:39 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:52:22 -0400, tony cooper
>> <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:30:24 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Thanks. I'll again warn you that most people here are not
>>>>professional linguists,
>>>
>>>Or even amateur linguists. Or, for that matter, even understand
>>>what a linguist is. Wiki tells me that linguistics is the
>>>scientific study of human language, but observation of linguists in
>>>action - as represented in cross-posts here - belie any scientific
>>>approach to language. As far as I can tell, linguistics is the
>>>study of the application of logical fallacies in argument.
>>>
>> I think the exception to that rule is Prof John Lawler, whose
>> explanations of all sorts of constructions are clear and show a
>> formal discipline underlying them.
>
>I'm not sure whether or not I should be offended. Or has it been long
>enough since I worked in the field professionally that I no longer
>count?

You have an out: "as represented in cross-posts here". You ain't in
that group.

[mrucb...@att.net]

I would not disagree with your point but just as in the odd, extended use of plural 'robotics', one might come up with examples where news is used to refer to discrete stories coming in over the wire, or linguistics of different species are compared... (it could happen :) )... With English there are damn few 'absolutes'.

[Guy Barry]

"Evan Kirshenbaum" wrote in message news:txurcm...@gmail.com...

> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> > The suffix that's being
> > attached is "-ics", which is singular as far as I'm concerned.
>
> > The only nouns in "-ics" where I'm aware of a corresponding noun in
> > "-ic" are "statistics" and "ethics".

> If you treat it as adding "-ics" to nouns, how do you account for
> things like "mathematics", "statistics", "physics", and "ethics"? Do
> they come from "mathemat", "statist", "phys", and "eth"?

In all those examples the corresponding adjective is in "-ical", not "-ic",
so I don't see how you can claim that the noun is formed by adding "-s" to
the adjective. I would say that there's a productive(-ish) rule in English
that allows the formation of nouns in "-ics" from corresponding adjectives
in "-ical" or "-ic". I regard "-ics" as a suffix in its own right.

> > The existence of adjectives in "-ic" is irrelevant, because
> > adjectives can't be pluralized.

> But they can have "-s" added to form a nouns. It's pretty productive.
> If I tell you that certain things are flobulatic (or flobulatical),
> you probably won't be surprised to hear the study of those things
> described as "flobulatics", even if you have no idea what the word
> means.

This all seems to hinge on whether you regard the "-s" as a separate
morpheme or not. I don't, but even if you do, what it appears to do is to
transform an adjective into a grammatically singular noun. That's surely
different from the plural morpheme "-s".

--
Guy Barry

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> "Evan Kirshenbaum" wrote in message news:txurcm...@gmail.com...
>
>> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> > The suffix that's being
>> > attached is "-ics", which is singular as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> > The only nouns in "-ics" where I'm aware of a corresponding noun in
>> > "-ic" are "statistics" and "ethics".
>
>> If you treat it as adding "-ics" to nouns, how do you account for
>> things like "mathematics", "statistics", "physics", and "ethics"? Do
>> they come from "mathemat", "statist", "phys", and "eth"?
>
> In all those examples the corresponding adjective is in "-ical", not
> "-ic", so I don't see how you can claim that the noun is formed by
> adding "-s" to the adjective. I would say that there's a
> productive(-ish) rule in English that allows the formation of nouns in
> "-ics" from corresponding adjectives in "-ical" or "-ic". I regard
> "-ics" as a suffix in its own right.

That's a reasonable position.

>> > The existence of adjectives in "-ic" is irrelevant, because
>> > adjectives can't be pluralized.
>
>> But they can have "-s" added to form a nouns. It's pretty productive.
>> If I tell you that certain things are flobulatic (or flobulatical),
>> you probably won't be surprised to hear the study of those things
>> described as "flobulatics", even if you have no idea what the word
>> means.
>
> This all seems to hinge on whether you regard the "-s" as a separate
> morpheme or not. I don't, but even if you do, what it appears to do
> is to transform an adjective into a grammatically singular noun.
> That's surely different from the plural morpheme "-s".

I'd agree with that.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The law of supply and demand tells us
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that when the price of something is
Chicago (1964-1982) |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
evan.kir...@gmail.com |left--as you may have noticed the
|last time you tried to buy something
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |for nothing.
| P.J. O'Rourke

[Guy Barry]

"Joachim Pense" wrote in message news:ac3qvn...@mid.individual.net...

> I vaguely recall the news talking about "5 police" or "100 troups" (in
> England). Is my memory blurred here?

You mean "troops" there rather than "troups", but your recollection is
correct. Even though "troop" originally meant "an armoured unit of
soldiers", "100 troops" does seem to be used in news reports sometimes to
mean "100 soldiers" (rather than "100 units of soldiers"). I'm not so sure
about "five police", but I wouldn't be surprised if I heard it.

Of course "100 people" is now standard.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"tony cooper" wrote in message

news:s5ep585rsu3012uvf...@4ax.com...

And I hope everyone agrees that Nathan is very welcome in a.u.e.

--
Guy Barry

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> In article <k3i292$1on1$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,
> na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>> Nathan Sanders <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > #I bought two clothes yesterday.
>> >
>> > In my sentence above, "clothes" is a plural noun, and plural
>> > nouns in general can be syntactically combined with a preceding
>> > number, so the basic syntactic structure is fine.
>>
>> "Clothes" is a plural mass noun.

That strikes me as oxymoronic. (Not that I have a better
description.)

> Right, but is that a syntactic property or a semantic property?
>
> It's not clear to me that either answer is necessarily better than
> the other, but my gut instinct was to go with semantic, which is why
> I marked it with # instead of *.

I'd probably deal with "clothes" the same way I'd deal with "pants",
"shorts", "glasses", "scissors", "pliers", etc.. The others are all
semantically unitary objects these days (though they have a
dual-number heritage, licensing "a pair of"), so the plural verb
agreement would have to be syntactic.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Other computer companies have spent
SF Bay Area (1982-) |15 years working on fault-tolerant
Chicago (1964-1982) |computers. Microsoft has spent
|its time more fruitfully, working
evan.kir...@gmail.com |on fault-tolerant *users*.

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <xL27s.263946$aH7.1...@fx10.am4>,

But "I bought two X" is bad for *any* singular X, regardless of
whether X is a mass noun or not (*I bought two table yesterday, etc.).

Plurality is definitely a syntactic phenomenon[1], but it's not
obvious to me that mass-ness is like plurality and should be treated
as syntactic rather than semantic.

[1] A given pair of sentences or expressions may have the same
semantics, but have different syntactic plurality:

Each of them is going.
They each are going.

This can't be a semantic fact, because the two sentences have the same
semantics (if one is true, the other is necessarily true). Similarly:

The Eagles try hard, but the Philly team is still losing.
The Philly team tries hard, but the Eagles are still losing.

Both "the Eagles" and "the Philly team" refer to the same entity (in
the right context of course), but one counts as plural for the syntax,
while the other counts as singular. See also band names:

The Rolling Stones are performing here next month.
The Velvet Underground is performing here next month.

(I tried to think of a band that changed its name between singular and
plural while retaining the same members, but couldn't come up with an
example.)

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <a737s.341050$yI7.1...@fx09.am4>,

We'll see how long that lasts. :-)

[Mike L]

It was a pretty obvious guess, though. Brace yourself for the next
s/th war.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:36:49 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>> news:h7ul5812sl6asbbav...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> It has become customary to attach an "s" to a word (noun or adjective)
>>> to create a name for a field of study or activity, presumably, by
>>> analogy with physics, mathematics, and similar.
>>
>> "s" is not being attached to a word in those examples. There is no
>> word "mathematic" that I'm aware of,
>
>There used to be. I see it back to
>
> This made Aristotle, who had a Mathematic head, to reject al the
> Oriental Traditions which his Ancestors Thales, Pythagoras, and
> Plato had gathered up, touching on the origine of things and
> Divine maters; and rather to believe an Eternitie of mater,
> because those Jewish Traditions were not backed with Demonstrative
> Arguments.
>
> Theophilus Gale, _The Court of the
> Gentiles_, 1677

But that "mathematic" is the adjective, not the noun

>
>> and the only word "physic" that I know of is an obsolete term for
>> medicine (which isn't relevant here). The suffix that's being
>> attached is "-ics", which is singular as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> The only nouns in "-ics" where I'm aware of a corresponding noun in
>> "-ic" are "statistics" and "ethics".
>
>If you treat it as adding "-ics" to nouns, how do you account for
>things like "mathematics", "statistics", "physics", and "ethics"? Do
>they come from "mathemat", "statist", "phys", and "eth"?

No, they don't, of course. But "statist" does exist: for example, my
birth certificate was issued by the Government Statist for the State
of Victoria. And I feel sure I remember a presumably statistical
journal named _The Statist_.

>
>> The existence of adjectives in "-ic" is irrelevant, because
>> adjectives can't be pluralized.

Odd, though, that we have "music" (formerly both as adjective and
noun) but no academic study named *"musics".

>
>But they can have "-s" added to form a nouns. It's pretty productive.
>If I tell you that certain things are flobulatic (or flobulatical),
>you probably won't be surprised to hear the study of those things
>described as "flobulatics", even if you have no idea what the word
>means.

Not only studies, of course: see "gymnastics", "aerobatics", etc.

--
Mike.

[Mark Brader]

Christian Weisgerber:

>>> "Clothes" is a plural mass noun.

Evan Kirshenbaum:

> That strikes me as oxymoronic.

It works for me. The great majority of mass nouns in English are
singular, but that doesn't mean they all are. My usual example of
a plural mass noun is "graffiti", although for some people that's
not correct.

Nathan Sanders:

>> Right, but is that a syntactic property or a semantic property?

One of each, I'd say. Grammatical number is syntactic. Massness
is semantic.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "History will be kind to me, for I intend
m...@vex.net to write it." -- Churchill

[Mark Brader]

Joachim Pense:

>> I vaguely recall the news talking about "5 police" or "100 troups" (in
>> England). Is my memory blurred here?

Guy Barry:

> You mean "troops" there rather than "troups", but your recollection is
> correct. Even though "troop" originally meant "an armoured unit of
> soldiers", "100 troops" does seem to be used in news reports sometimes to

> mean "100 soldiers"...

We've had threads on this usage before; it's not a new usage invented by
modern-day reporters, but is something like a couple of hundred years old.
--
Mark Brader | "You read war books -- people shooting each other,
Toronto | people bombing each other, people torturing each
m...@vex.net | other. I like to look at people doing, uh, naughty
| things to each other!" -- Ria, "Butterflies"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <4uKdnaS2lraYRcHN...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Christian Weisgerber:
> >>> "Clothes" is a plural mass noun.
>
> Evan Kirshenbaum:
> > That strikes me as oxymoronic.
>
> It works for me. The great majority of mass nouns in English are
> singular, but that doesn't mean they all are. My usual example of
> a plural mass noun is "graffiti", although for some people that's
> not correct.
>
> Nathan Sanders:
> >> Right, but is that a syntactic property or a semantic property?
>
> One of each, I'd say. Grammatical number is syntactic. Massness
> is semantic.

Right, that was my thinking, which is why I marked "two clothes" as
semantically bad (#) rather than syntactically bad (*), because the
problem with "two clothes" is with the mass-ness, not the plurality.

[Christian Weisgerber]

R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Sure it is...but what's the plural of universe?...and can you give two
> examples?...r

Just like atoms aren't indivisible, the universe isn't necessarily
unique.

[R H Draney]

Nathan Sanders filted:

>
> The Eagles try hard, but the Philly team is still losing.
> The Philly team tries hard, but the Eagles are still losing.
>
>Both "the Eagles" and "the Philly team" refer to the same entity (in
>the right context of course), but one counts as plural for the syntax,
>while the other counts as singular. See also band names:
>
> The Rolling Stones are performing here next month.
> The Velvet Underground is performing here next month.
>
>(I tried to think of a band that changed its name between singular and
>plural while retaining the same members, but couldn't come up with an
>example.)

How about place names that are syntactically and grammatically plural?..."Las
Cruces are the home of New Mexico State University"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Christian Weisgerber]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or even amateur linguists. Or, for that matter, even understand what
> a linguist is. Wiki tells me that linguistics is the scientific study
> of human language, but observation of linguists in action - as
> represented in cross-posts here - belie any scientific approach to
> language.

You should read Nathan Sanders' contributions.

Peter T. Daniels and Arnaud Fournet may have academic credentials,
but the former is sci.lang's court jester and the latter clearly
suffers from a crippling personality disorder.

Language Log should also help to restore some faith into linguistics
as a scientific endeavor.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message

news:sanders-0FAB85...@free.teranews.com...

> In article <xL27s.263946$aH7.1...@fx10.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > That was the point I wanted to make earlier, but couldn't quite express
> > properly. "I bought two clothes yesterday" is no more well-formed than
> > "I
> > bought two water yesterday" in my opinion. I think the sentence should
> > be
> > marked (*), not (#).

> But "I bought two X" is bad for *any* singular X, regardless of
> whether X is a mass noun or not (*I bought two table yesterday, etc.).

Yes, fair point. I'm finding it hard to express my thoughts here.

The reason why I don't regard "I bought two clothes yesterday" as
semantically ill-formed (unlike, say, "colourless green ideas sleep
furiously") is that a coherent meaning can be attached to it, namely "I
bought two items of clothing yesterday". If a non-native speaker uttered
that sentence to me, I'd know exactly what they meant, even if I didn't
regard it as correct English. So it's not the semantics of the word
"clothes" that's the problem; it seems to be something to do with the
syntax.

My assumption is that quantifiers like "two" can only be used with nouns
where an explicit singular form exists; i.e. in order to say "two Xs" you've
also got to be able to say "one X". This property isn't restricted to
numerals; you can't say "several clothes" or "various clothes". On the
other hand, you can say "few clothes" or "many clothes". It seems to be
something to do with whether there's an implicit enumeration or not.

> Plurality is definitely a syntactic phenomenon[1], but it's not
> obvious to me that mass-ness is like plurality and should be treated
> as syntactic rather than semantic.

Perhaps not. We had a discussion on here a little while ago about whether
it's acceptable to say "I eat less vegetables these days" (if you accept
that "less" is restricted to use with mass nouns). The point was made that
"I eat fewer vegetables" could be taken as meaning "fewer types of
vegetable" rather than "a smaller amount of vegetable matter". Could
"vegetables" be seen as a mass noun in some contexts?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Mike L" wrote in message
news:5cip58tqdenfqv1na...@4ax.com...

> It was a pretty obvious guess, though. Brace yourself for the next
> s/th war.

Is that:
(1) an argument about how the third person singular in English was once
formed
(2) an argument about how to pronounce soft "c" in Spanish
(3) something else?

--
Guy Barry

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

> The reason why I don't regard "I bought two clothes yesterday" as
> semantically ill-formed (unlike, say, "colourless green ideas sleep
> furiously") is that a coherent meaning can be attached to it, namely "I
> bought two items of clothing yesterday". If a non-native speaker uttered
> that sentence to me, I'd know exactly what they meant, even if I didn't
> regard it as correct English. So it's not the semantics of the word
> "clothes" that's the problem; it seems to be something to do with the
> syntax.

I say it is semantics. The fact that "clothes" is a mass noun means
that it means "clothes in general" or "a quantity of clothing". This
is a meaning that doesn't involve counting, so the attempt to combine
it with a count causes a semantic clash.

> My assumption is that quantifiers like "two" can only be used with nouns

> where an explicit singular form exists...

Well, to count nouns. Are there any count nouns in English that don't
have singulars? Probably not.

> Perhaps not. We had a discussion on here a little while ago about whether
> it's acceptable to say "I eat less vegetables these days" (if you accept
> that "less" is restricted to use with mass nouns). The point was made that
> "I eat fewer vegetables" could be taken as meaning "fewer types of
> vegetable" rather than "a smaller amount of vegetable matter". Could
> "vegetables" be seen as a mass noun in some contexts?

It feels like one to me. Which makes it another example of a plural
mass noun. Thanks, I'd never thought of that one before.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | This process can check if this value is zero, and if
m...@vex.net | it is, it does something child-like. --F. Burkowski

[Guy Barry]

"Mike L" wrote in message

news:o6jp581b4votk1han...@4ax.com...

> Odd, though, that we have "music" (formerly both as adjective and
> noun) but no academic study named *"musics".

The ancient disciplines of the trivium and quadrivium were grammar, logic,
rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music - note that four of
those have forms in "-ic", but none in "-ics". When did subject names in
"-ics" start to occur?

--
Guy Barry

[Mark Brader]

Mike Lyle:

> > It was a pretty obvious guess, though. Brace yourself for the next
> > s/th war.

Guy Barry:

> Is that:
> (1) an argument about how the third person singular in English was once
> formed
> (2) an argument about how to pronounce soft "c" in Spanish
> (3) something else?

3.

A lot of the books that non-native speakers learn English from -- as
well as some dictionaries -- use abbreviations for "something" and
"someone" (or "somebody") in explaining the definition and usage of
a word. For example, they might explain the verb "halve" as "to
break (sth.) into equal parts".

Non-native speakers sometimes deduce from this that "something" and
"someone" (or "somebody") are words that are routinely abbreviated
in English, so they write things like

"I saw sth. on the ground and wanted to ask whose it was.
What should I have said to open the conversation?"

And almost invariably, someone will -- whether disingenuously or
honestly -- post a reponse indicating a failure to understand the
"sth." or "sth" or "s/th" or "s.o." or "SO" or "SB" or whatever.
I think Mike's use of "war" to describe the ensuing unpleasantness
is a tad misleading, though.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The English future is very confusing!
m...@vex.net (This is not a political statement.)"

[Guy Barry]

"Christian Weisgerber" wrote in message

news:k3im8f$2030$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de...

> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Or even amateur linguists. Or, for that matter, even understand what
> > a linguist is. Wiki tells me that linguistics is the scientific study
> > of human language, but observation of linguists in action - as
> > represented in cross-posts here - belie any scientific approach to
> > language.

> You should read Nathan Sanders' contributions.

Also here on a.u.e now, of course.

> Peter T. Daniels and Arnaud Fournet may have academic credentials,
> but the former is sci.lang's court jester and the latter clearly
> suffers from a crippling personality disorder.

Don't you mean vice versa?

> Language Log should also help to restore some faith into linguistics
> as a scientific endeavor.
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/

I'd go along with that - generally very readable even for the
non-specialist.

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <Xg27s.178741$WN2....@fx28.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> If you prefer, consider "linguistics" (which can't be construed as a plural
> as far as I know),

How about "I was in a crazy meeting with a bunch of ambassadors from a
dozen countries, but no three of them shared a common language. The
linguistics of the situation were obviously very tricky."?

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

Don't know, but two of the Muses were said to govern "epic" and "lyric" poetry
respectively...there don't seem to be any "-ics" among the domains of the
others....r