Pizzerie and plural attributive nouns
Mike Oliver
what is a true New York pizzeria. I have some tangential considerations
concerning the word itself.
The fact is that the alternative spelling "pizzaria", while perhaps
not an outright error, is much less common, and it has always
seemed to me that a _pizzeria_ is a place you get _pizze_, the
plural of _pizza_. But in English we call it a "pizza place",
not a "pizzas place".
(There might be an alternative explanation -- it just occurred
to me that one says _gelateria_ and not _gelatiria_, so maybe
the suffix is -eria rather than just -ria. But let's ignore
that for now.)
Does English ever use plural nouns in this way? Feetball
rather than football?
There's an example from Spanish that seems to swing both
ways: You can use either _chupacabra_ or _chupacabras_
as a masculine singular noun -- "goat sucker" or "goats sucker".
I suppose the plural of either would be _los_chupacabras_,
but I'm not sure of that.
Ben Zimmer
Mike Oliver wrote:
>
> Richard recently blessed us with a set of indicia for determining
> what is a true New York pizzeria. I have some tangential considerations
> concerning the word itself.
>
> The fact is that the alternative spelling "pizzaria", while perhaps
> not an outright error, is much less common, and it has always
> seemed to me that a _pizzeria_ is a place you get _pizze_, the
> plural of _pizza_. But in English we call it a "pizza place",
> not a "pizzas place".
>
> (There might be an alternative explanation -- it just occurred
> to me that one says _gelateria_ and not _gelatiria_, so maybe
> the suffix is -eria rather than just -ria. But let's ignore
> that for now.)
Let's not! Surely that's the correct explanation. Compare:
birra birreria
libro libreria
pasticcio pasticceria
profumo profumeria
tabacco tabaccheria
etc.
> Does English ever use plural nouns in this way? Feetball
> rather than football?
>
> There's an example from Spanish that seems to swing both
> ways: You can use either _chupacabra_ or _chupacabras_
> as a masculine singular noun -- "goat sucker" or "goats sucker".
> I suppose the plural of either would be _los_chupacabras_,
> but I'm not sure of that.
Thread synchronicity: while following the person/people thread, I
noticed this usage note in the American Heritage Book of English
Usage:
----------
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0226.html
Only the singular "person" is used in compounds involving a specific
numeral: "a six-person car", "a two-person show". But "people" is used
in other compounds: "people mover", "people power". These examples are
exceptions to the general rule that plural nouns cannot be used in
such compounds; note that we do not say "teethpaste" or
"books-burning".
----------
Ben Zimmer
>
> Mike Oliver wrote:
> >
> > Does English ever use plural nouns in this way? Feetball
> > rather than football?
> >
> > There's an example from Spanish that seems to swing both
> > ways: You can use either _chupacabra_ or _chupacabras_
> > as a masculine singular noun -- "goat sucker" or "goats sucker".
> > I suppose the plural of either would be _los_chupacabras_,
> > but I'm not sure of that.
>
> Thread synchronicity: while following the person/people thread, I
> noticed this usage note in the American Heritage Book of English
> Usage:
>
> ----------
> http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0226.html
> Only the singular "person" is used in compounds involving a specific
> numeral: "a six-person car", "a two-person show". But "people" is used
> in other compounds: "people mover", "people power". These examples are
> exceptions to the general rule that plural nouns cannot be used in
> such compounds; note that we do not say "teethpaste" or
> "books-burning".
> ----------
And for explanations from several linguists (including our own Mr.
Lawler) as to why this is so, see the thread "Can we say, a 'teeth
paste'?" from Ask A Linguist:
http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/thrd61.html
Mike Oliver
> Thread synchronicity: while following the person/people thread, I
> noticed this usage note in the American Heritage Book of English
> Usage:
How can you respond to this without repeating my favorite Spanish
word? Chupacabra, chupacabra, chupacabra. It's so *satisfying*
to say. Los chupacabras chupan las cabras. Can a chupacabra
man a catamaran?
Ben Zimmer
Chupacadabra, chupacazam.
Speaking of thread synchronicity, you might enjoy this AFU thread:
Javi
>
> There's an example from Spanish that seems to swing both
> ways: You can use either _chupacabra_ or _chupacabras_
> as a masculine singular noun -- "goat sucker" or "goats sucker".
> I suppose the plural of either would be _los_chupacabras_,
> but I'm not sure of that.
You are right. When we use similar compound words we say "el matamoscas"
(the fly spray or swatter), "los matamoscas"; "el matasanos" (the quack,
lit. healthy people killer), "los matasanos"; "el guardaespaldas" (the
bodyguard), "los guardaespaldas"; "el guardacostas" (the coastguard person
or ship), "los guardacostas"; "el guardabarros" (the mudguard) , "los
guardabarros"; etc.
I believe that "chupacabras" is more often used than "chupacabra".
--
Best regards
Javi
"There are no grades of vanity, there are only grades of ability in
concealing it."
- Mark Twain -
Richard Fontana
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Mike Oliver wrote:
> Richard recently blessed us with a set of indicia for determining
> what is a true New York pizzeria. I have some tangential considerations
> concerning the word itself.
>
> The fact is that the alternative spelling "pizzaria", while perhaps
> not an outright error, is much less common,
I'd consider "pizzaria" in English an outright error. The Google results
(without any attempt to weed out non-English sites) are:
pizzaria 41000
pizzeria 436000
Quite a few of the first ten hits for "pizzaria" are from
Portuguese-language Brazilian sites. If we omit all .br sites, we get:
pizzaria 24300
pizzeria 396000
which looks like a substantial drop in "pizzaria".
M-W only gives "pizzeria".
Whatever else one might say about the fast food restaurant chains
"Pizzeria Uno" (national, Chicago origin) and "Pizzeria Regina" (Boston
region), at least they've helped cement the proper spelling of "pizzeria"
in English.
> and it has always
> seemed to me that a _pizzeria_ is a place you get _pizze_, the
> plural of _pizza_. But in English we call it a "pizza place",
> not a "pizzas place".
Well, but we often use "pizza" in a plural-like, noncountable sense. "We
ate pizza at the meeting" doesn't mean there was only one "pie", as New
York people say. I have to respond to another posting by Brian, but in
that one I point out that I think the New York usage of "pie" has slowly
been dying out anyway. Today I don't think I'd use "pie" when ordering a
pizza (that is, a boxed integral pizza) from a true New York pizzeria.
Actually, though, I think if I were in the Boroughs (i.e., Brooklyn or
Queens) I might still use "pie". Note also that you can't call a slice of
pizza "a pizza"; it's just pizza. You can of course, even in my idiolect,
use "pizzas" as an equivalent of older New York "pies".
Mike Oliver
> I believe that "chupacabras" is more often used than "chupacabra".
Would a person who says _el_chupacabra_ say _los_chupacabras_
or _los_chupacabra_?
Javi
I think that he'd say "los chupacabras", because the plural of "el
guardabosque" (the forester) is "los guardabosques"; note that some people
say "el guardabosques", probably influenced by the fact that most Spanish
compound word formed by a verbal root and a direct object use the plural
form for the direct object, though according to DRAE it is "el
guardabosque".
Ben Zimmer
>
> Mike Oliver wrote:
> >
> > There's an example from Spanish that seems to swing both
> > ways: You can use either _chupacabra_ or _chupacabras_
> > as a masculine singular noun -- "goat sucker" or "goats sucker".
> > I suppose the plural of either would be _los_chupacabras_,
> > but I'm not sure of that.
>
> You are right. When we use similar compound words we say "el matamoscas"
> (the fly spray or swatter), "los matamoscas"; "el matasanos" (the quack,
> lit. healthy people killer), "los matasanos"; "el guardaespaldas" (the
> bodyguard), "los guardaespaldas"; "el guardacostas" (the coastguard person
> or ship), "los guardacostas"; "el guardabarros" (the mudguard) , "los
> guardabarros"; etc.
>
> I believe that "chupacabras" is more often used than "chupacabra".
This seems to be true in Spanish-- Google has:
Spanish pages only:
chupacabras: 3,770
chupacabra: 575
entire Web:
chupacabras: 13,900
chupacabra: 25,100
So is "chupacabra" a false singular, like "kudo", "cherry", or "pea"?
Javi
>
> So is "chupacabra" a false singular, like "kudo", "cherry", or "pea"?
Yes, it can be called a false singular, as "chupacabras" is already
singular."Chupacabras" is singular if you use a singular article and plural
if you use a plural article. Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use
"chupacabra". See my previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the
matter.
John Smith
> ----------
> http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0226.html
> Only the singular "person" is used in compounds involving a specific
> numeral: "a six-person car", "a two-person show". But "people" is used
> in other compounds: "people mover", "people power". These examples are
> exceptions to the general rule that plural nouns cannot be used in
> such compounds; note that we do not say "teethpaste" or
> "books-burning".
So, I guess Bartleby would have it that the Senate Foreign Relation
Committee voted out a human right bill last week.
\\P. Schultz
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use "chupacabra". See my
> previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the matter.
And according to Google, at least some of those who would (7 out of
158) have further reanalyzed it to "la chupacabra" (with 8 hits for
"las chupacabras").
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Object-oriented designs are like
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |software development on drugs...you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |take inanimate objects and bring
|them to life.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Craig Larman
(650)857-7572
Javi
> "Javi" <poziSP...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use "chupacabra". See my
>> previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the matter.
>
> And according to Google, at least some of those who would (7 out of
> 158) have further reanalyzed it to "la chupacabra" (with 8 hits for
> "las chupacabras").
It would be interesting to find out whether it was written by native
speakers. Some people of Mexican ancestry who are born and live in USA learn
English first or at the same time, and never really master Spanish, though
can speak it. Is "diglossia" used in English to indicate a kind of
bilingualism where one language has more prestige than the other, and the
latter is only used in some enviroments, as the familiar enviroment?
Ben Zimmer
Javi wrote:
>
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > "Javi" <poziSP...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use "chupacabra". See my
> >> previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the matter.
> >
> > And according to Google, at least some of those who would (7 out of
> > 158) have further reanalyzed it to "la chupacabra" (with 8 hits for
> > "las chupacabras").
>
> It would be interesting to find out whether it was written by native
> speakers. Some people of Mexican ancestry who are born and live in USA learn
> English first or at the same time, and never really master Spanish, though
> can speak it. Is "diglossia" used in English to indicate a kind of
> bilingualism where one language has more prestige than the other, and the
> latter is only used in some enviroments, as the familiar enviroment?
The original formulation of "diglossia" by Charles Ferguson in 1959
only dealt with differentiated varieties of a single language (e.g.,
colloquial vs. classical Arabic). Joshua Fishman expanded the
definition in 1967 to include the sort of bilingual situation you're
talking about, but many sociolinguists have disagreed with Fishman's
extension of the term.
See: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/messeas/diglossia/node1.html
Javi
> "Javi" <poziSP...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use "chupacabra". See my
>> previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the matter.
>
> And according to Google, at least some of those who would (7 out of
> 158) have further reanalyzed it to "la chupacabra" (with 8 hits for
> "las chupacabras").
I've been Googling about it (and learning to use Google) and this is what
I've found:
- "el chupacabras": 2000 instances in total, 663 in Spanish, of which 663
are in Spanish, and 632 in English.
- "la chupacabras": 9 instances in total, all of them in Spanish.
- "los chupacabras": 192 instances in total, 65 in Spanish, 126 in English.
- "las chupacabras": 15 instances in total, all of them in English.
- "el chupacabra": 3530 instances in total, 99 in Spanish, 3280 in English.
- "la chupacabra": 236 instances in total, 19 in Spanish, 211 in English.
It is interesting that most instances of "el chupacabra" (67 instances) in
Spanish are from messages in soc.culture.puerto-rico, (the mythic animal is
believed by some people to live also in Puerto Rico); most instances of "la
chupacabra" (15) in Spanish are messages in soc.culture.puerto-rico. I
believe that diglossia is strong in Puerto Rico, and most of those messages
seem to have been written by persons who cannot express properly in
Spanish.When it appears in other Spanish messages, it's mostly used to refer
to a woman (la chupacabra Rigoberta Menchu) or to make pun with the meaning
of "chupa" (=suck).
About the English messages, there are two guys suc...@goat.net.ca and
johnn...@worldnet.att.net who use the nick "la chupacabra". It also seems
that some people with a superficial knowledge of Spanish believe that
"chupacabras" is a feminine world and write it "la chupacabra" and "las
chupacabras".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > "Javi" <poziSP...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Anyway, most Spanish speakers wouldn't use "chupacabra". See my
> >> previous post in this thread for a hypothesis on the matter.
> >
> > And according to Google, at least some of those who would (7 out of
> > 158) have further reanalyzed it to "la chupacabra" (with 8 hits for
> > "las chupacabras").
>
> It would be interesting to find out whether it was written by native
> speakers.
I can't really speak to that, but the sites represented are
geocities.com
jornada.unam.mx
nashville.com
buffalo.edu
www.cfbisd.edu
intercom.es
espanol.yahoo.com
diariocronica.com.ar
vegahappyline.com
javieraguacero.org
The one from Spain is a link to a .com page that appears to be written
in English. (The link text is "La Chupacabra - Aliens or New Breed?")
The Mexican one is
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/1996/oct96/961002/chupacabras.html
The dateline is Washington, so the writers may well be American. The
Argentinian one is
http://www.diariocronica.com.ar/2002/julio/01_07_02/vacas.htm
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
Javi
This is about a demonstration against IMF and a woman who dressed herself up
as a chupacabras. The fact that she was a woman probably led the writer to
use "la".
> The Argentinian one is
>
> http://www.diariocronica.com.ar/2002/julio/01_07_02/vacas.htm
This is an explanation of the mutilations found in some dead animals that
are attributed to "el chupacabras". It says that some Argentinian
veterinarians believe that those mutilations are caused by a kind of wasp,
vespula germanica, that eat soft tissues of dead animals; as dead animals
don't bleed, this explains the absence of blood around the body.
About the use of "las" instead of the expected "los", note that the headline
says "Las avispas chaqueta amarilla son las 'chupacabras'"; the subject "las
avispas" (the wasps) probably attracted the attribute to "las".