atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:05:31 +1100
I had hoped - I suppose most unrealistically - that my original post
wouldn't provoke another discussion about the plural of 'mouse'.
To remove any misunderstanding, I'd better say that, while I do strongly
dislike the plural 'mouses', I wouldn't claim that it's 'incorrect' in any
absolute sense. I think maybe Ken is the only one who's claiming to say
what's correct - though he happens to hold the opposite position. Somewhat
strangely, he dismisses Microsoft's claim to lay down rules by saying 'The
use of English is outside Microsoft's area of expertise', yet apparently
feels he himself can make statements like 'the "ice" plural e.g. mouse &
mice, louse & lice, is only used for biological creatures, so it is
incorrect to use it for an inanimate object' without quoting any authority.
But really, we all know that there *is* no recognised authority on what's
correct. There are a number of people who have expertise on how language is
used, and has historically been used, and it's a good idea to take notice
of what they say. As writers, we too have some right to be heard - and to
question the 'experts' when they make unsubstantiated assertions. But in
the end, as others have pointed out, people will write and say what they
write and say, and they may or may not influence others to do the same. We
can, however, call attention to stupid new usages and do our best to
discourage people from using them.
All I'm doing is exercising my right to express my opinion and to call on
others to justify theirs.
From that point of view, Ken's remark does require some consideration. His
observation connecting the -ice plural with biological creatures does seem
to have some validity, but there are so few example of this plural
formation that it hardly merits turning it into a rule, even in some
empirical sense. (What other examples are there besides 'mouse' and
'louse'?) But it is also notable that many 'irregular' plurals are
associated in some way with living creatures ('geese', 'sheep', 'oxen',
etc) - and also parts of creatures' bodies, like 'foot' and 'tooth'. But we
happily use these in metaphorical ways without changing the plurals. As I
mentioned when we discussed this on this list before, we don't use the
plural form 'tooths' when we're talking about combs or gears. Nor do we use
'foots' when we're discussing measurements - though this is a metaphorical
usage too. In fact, I can't think of any example where we do change the
plural for the metaphorical use, though there probably are some apart from
the 'mouses' we're currently arguing about.
So I remain unconvinced at this stage.
Howard
On 12 February 2012 10:34, Robert Levy <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Incidentally, can you show evidence that more people say "mouses" than
> "mice"?
>
> rwl
>
> On 10/02/2012, at 10:22 PM, Robert Levy wrote:
>
> Everyone counts! I'm not the one saying that anyone else is wrong, and
> neither is Microsoft. Both are just fine. You said that one way is wrong.
>
> It's not a circular argument. It's a description of how language works. I
> wouldn't have said it if only two people use a word in a way that no one
> else understands. But when millions use it that way, and are understood by
> millions more, then it's part of the language.
>
> There's no point saying that English doesn't use a construction that it
> quite obviously does. At least, the way that I define English. I don't know
> how you define it, of course.
>
> rwl
>
> On 09/02/2012, at 11:27 PM, Ken Randall wrote:
>
>
> Who made up that rule and why should the millions of people who say "mice"
> in this context care?
>
> Why should the hundreds of millions who do follow the rule not count?
>
>
> Those people are proof that in English, some inanimate objects indeed do
> use the "ice" plural.
>
> That is a circular argument - I break the rule so there is no rule.
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/2/12, Robert Levy <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert Levy <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Thursday, 9 February, 2012, 9:16 PM
>
> Who made up that rule and why should the millions of people who say "mice"
> in this context care?
>
> Those people are proof that in English, some inanimate objects indeed do
> use the "ice" plural.
>
> rwl
>
> On 09/02/2012, at 9:01 PM, Ken Randall wrote:
>
> Furthermore, the "ice" plural e.g. mouse & mice, louse & lice, is only
> used for
> biological creatures, so it is incorrect to use it for an inanimate
> object.
>
> --- On *Thu, 9/2/12, Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: atw: Microsoft Manual of Style
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Received: Thursday, 9 February, 2012, 10:39 AM
>
> To anyone still reading this list ...
>
> Some of you may know that the most recent version of the Microsoft® Manual
> of Style was recently published. I bought myself a Kindle version for
> $9.99. Some people would probably have nothing to do with a Microsoft
> publication, but I've always found their advice very sensible and they've
> made a serious attempt to standardise terminology relating to user
> interfaces, which was badly needed.
>
> I was interested to read what they said about mouse terminology. We had a
> protracted discussion about the plural of 'mouse' on this list some years
> ago, in which I railed against the word 'mouses'. Microsoft always
> advocated using 'mouse devices', which I thought was a bit silly, but still
> better than 'mouses'. Well, now they appear to have shifted a little bit,
> as the new Manual of Style says 'use *mouse devices *if you can.
> Otherwise, use *mice*.'
>
> As they say, a small step for Man. Or Mouse?
>
> Howard
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
