atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
- From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:31:59 +1100
Ken, Howard
There are many more irregular nouns that refer to non-living things than
living things. Here are just a few:
* crisis → crises
* die → dice
* scissors → scissors
* equipment → equipment
* alumnus → alumni
* focus → foci/focuses
* nucleus → nuclei
* radius → radii
* stimulus → stimuli
I could go on and on and on … zzzzzzz
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
P: 03 9596 3456
M: 0419 574 668
F: 03 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Randall
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012 1:50 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
"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"
"His observation connecting the -ice plural with biological creatures does
seem to have some validity"
Empirically, in practice it does seem that only biological creatures have a
plural ending with "-ice". If something always happens, it could be said to
be a rule. By the way, that occurred to me on the spot as I was writing
the email. I had not thought of it before.
You are right that irregular plurals are often used for living creatures.
"Children" is another one. I had not thought of that before either.
--- On Sun, 12/2/12, Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: Sunday, 12 February, 2012, 1:05 PM
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(r) 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:
