atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:59:57 +1100
Of course, that's true (though it's amusing that you count alumni among
non-living things!). I was trying hard to uncover what Ken was getting at,
and the two things I could see were: the -ouse/-ice pluralisation does seem
to go with living things but there are only two examples; and irregular
plural forms seem to be a bit more common among names of living things (not
commoner in absolute number, but in proportion to the number of names
altogether for each). So what? you may ask. Well, that I can't really
answer! Ken was trying to infer that 'mice', as an irregular plural,
*must* refer
to living things - but that would only follow from the quite different
assertion that 'irregular plurals ONLY come from names of living things'.
And that *is* refuted by your list.
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: 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<http://mc/compose?to=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<http://mc/compose?to=robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >* wrote:****
>
>
> From: Robert Levy
> <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://mc/compose?to=robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Subject: atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
> To:
> austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<http://mc/compose?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:
