atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
- From: Peter.Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:59:52 +1100
Hmm. Just when I thought it might die down.
And for the regular diversion, might I point out that, as a good Latin
native speaker, I object to having Anglo Saxons and Celts degrade the
quality of my language and abuse its grammar by not employing words like
radiuses, stimuluses, locuses, and similar derivations when they speak
their crude native tongue -- which would at least might otherwise serve
to spare true Romans of unnecessary pain and embarrassment. Just
because I'm clearly dead, these barbarians have no cause to jangle my
sensitivities!
How dare they attempt refer willy-nilly to "radii" and "stimuli" and
"foci" and "referenda", while ignoring the requirements for the proper
and correct variations in form due when they face possible variations
caused by their use in their bastard language of such silly piddling
things as "by", "with", "from", "to" "from" or "of" in front of their
silly static plurals!
Don't they know there are standards and well-determined ways of using
proper language ? What's happened to our youth today ?
I blame in on those mobile things they hold to their ears. No good will
ever come of that.
QED and Semper Fidelis and et cetera.
Peter M
From: "Geoffrey" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 12/02/2012 03:33 PM
Subject: atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: 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? 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
--
This message contains privileged and confidential information only
for use by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, you must not disseminate, copy or use
it in any manner. If you have received this message in error,
please advise the sender by reply e-mail. Please ensure all
e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or
using.
Other related posts:
- » atw: Re: Microsoft Manual of Style [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] - Peter . Martin
