(Sorry list ... this is my last comment on the issue) Hi Howard, You said: "But if you can provide evidence that 'mouses' is not only acceptable but recognized as the standard form, I'll retreat gracefully." I shouldn't have to tell you how to suck eggs but 'Mouses' is recognized as the ONLY form in both the Macquarie and the Oxford. This was pointed out in two previous emails in the thread. If this word is too uncomfortable, then avoid its use. Also, if you have more definitive works than these two dictionaries, I'd like to know what they are because they are certainly unknown to me. As for pomposity, I think you've lost the point. This is simply a matter of using the correct word as defined in a dictionary and not inventing your own or promoting the incorrect use of a word frequently used incorrectly. Remember that we are technical writers. Entrepreneurial language should come from journalists, jingo writers or advertising copy writers, not us. We should be defending the language to allow standardization, consistency and a clear understanding of the message we are trying to get across. As such, there is no like/dislike about the use of mice/mouses, there is simply a right and a wrong based on the definitions found in a dictionary. As a technical writer, you should understand this. As for teeth/tooths et al., we are all aware of the idiosyncrasies of the language but unless you intend to declare yourself a greater reference source than our main dictionaries, learn to use what is already there. And one final thing Howard, I don't particularly care if you need evidence other than the clear, succinct references in two major dictionaries or if you think it bizarre to need to defend the incorrect use of a word, or for that matter, if you will retreat gracefully when more proofs are offered, because I have made my living, in part, over the last 18 years, correcting these sort of errors. There is nothing personal here Howard, I just think that on this one occasion, you are defending the indefensible and by doing so, you are sending the wrong message out. Cheers, Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Howard.Silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:25 AM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Mouses?? Well, after a long weeked to recover from the pressure of work, perhaps I can calm the waters a bit. I hope Melanie's and Michael Granat's efforts to lighten us up have an effect too. Good on you, guys, for refusing to take the subject too seriously! Who would think that those little devices (whatever we call them) could be the cause of such disagreement! Thank you, too, to Janice for responding to my earnest request for someone to explain what it is that people dislike about 'mice'. I do agree with you that it's a good idea to avoid distracting the reader with usage that's going to create a 'jar', whenever we can easily do so. I'm a bit surprised that you think using 'mice' would be an instance of that - but I guess that's a matter for individual judgment. On the other hand, I definitely agree with you that using 'mouses' could be jarring - it jars like anything for me. And 'mouse devices' jars almost as much. Bruce and I appear to be alike in having strong opinions on this issue - perhaps stronger than the subject calls for, but others can judge that. My strong opinions come from a dislike of pomposity and a preference for technical language to be as close to 'normal' usage as possible. Bruce seems to think I'm trying to fight a battle that's long ago been lost. If you can give me some evidence of this, Bruce, I'll be happy to look at it - what I've seen so far appears to suggest that both usages are acceptable at present, so I thought it was a good time to bring the subject up. The idea of having to 'defend' the plural 'mice' seems bizarre to me - as I said before, it seems like defending the use of 'teeth' against 'tooths' for the objects we find on gears or combs. But if you can provide evidence that 'mouses' is not only acceptable but recognised as the standard form, I'll retreat gracefully. Howard Howard Silcock Technical Writer ADI Limited Electronic Systems 1 Phipps Close, Deakin, ACT 2600 Ph. +61 2 6234 6075 Fax +61 2 6234 6011 Email: howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web page: www.adi-limited.com.au DISCLAIMER:------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- This Email may contain confidential and/or privileged information and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named. If you have received this information in error, or are advised that you have been posted this Email by accident, please notify the sender by return Email, do not redistribute it, delete the Email and keep no copies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ************************************************** To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field. To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field. To search the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ************************************************** ************************************************** To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field. To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field. To search the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **************************************************