Editor for this issue: <>
ad Margaret Fleck's remarks about plurals, more specifically indices vs indexes, I woulxd like to cite a rather amusing controversy in the esoteric field of Mathematics called Category Theory. Following Grothendieck's (no, he is not Dutch but French, these days anyhow) use of "topos" for a mathematical object, whose plural in French was of course "topos" (but pronounced without phonetisation of the final 's', just like "un ananas"/"des ananas", "un oeuf"/"des oeufs"), two American mathematicians (Lawvere & Tierney) introduced a variety of this notion which of course they called "topos" in English, the plural being "topoi" as bedeems a Greek word. However some people (notably Johstone, who wrote a book on the subject) insisted on using "toposes", since as they said, "when you go out for a ramble on a cold day, you carry supplies of hot tea in thermoses not thermoi". Michel EytanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
>Date: Wed, 25 Sep 91 12:27:48 -0700 >From: Bill Poser <poserMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecrystals.stanford.edu> >Subject: plurals >I am astounded by the contention that computer mice have the plural >"mouses". I don't think that I have ever heard "mouses" instead of >"mice", and I inhabit a computer-intensive world in which mice >are a frequent topic of conversation. Is this a geographic division, >or one between computer people and others? Who says "mouses"? I do. Of course, I also say "octopodes" instead of the popularized "octopi." >Indeed, in a certain milieu there has been a fashion of extending the >-en plural. Thus, we have the following singular/plural pairs: > > VAX (Digital Equipment computer line) VAXen > Chipmunk (HP 9836 computer) Chipmunken > Macintosh Macintoshen > BLIT (AT&T intelligent terminal) BLITzen Never heard of any of those except "VAXen." The rest sound very odd to me. "VAXen" sounds okay, although I don't use it, since I tend to think of "VAX" as something that can't be pluralized, like the Einsteinian concepts of "time" and "space" (i.e., "times" and "spaces" being different semantically). Erik Carvalhal Miller Indiana University (Bloomington)
Since I'm one of the people who reported *mouses* as a possible plural for *mouse* in its non-rodent sense, perhaps I should say where I first saw it. It was, if I recall, in an early issue of one of the Mac-oriented popular magazines, though I can't remember any more than that. I do know that I really did see it, because it startled me at the time. In response to speculation that's come in over who uses what form, might the split be between those who define themselves as academics or computing professionals vs. those to whom the computer is merely a tool or the basis of a hobby? (I don't know, just a thought that came to mind.) In regard to plurals like VAXen etc., I wonder if this isn't due to the same impulse that gave rise to forms like *Xeroces*. My guess would be that the formations started tongue-in-cheek; note, however, that if they get out into the general public, we'll have some interesting counterevidence to the oft-made claim that inflectional morphology doesn't get borrowed. For the record, I say *VAXes*. Michael KacMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
It has occurred to me that the irregular plurals in computerese (e.g. *VAXen*) have the same ingroup function as many of what might be called normative plurals which are frequent in intellectual concerns--such as linguistics. Of course books have *indexes*; that word is general circulation. But when ling- uists refer to those little sub and superscripts as *indices* we show that we really know the correct form. The same goes for the even clumsier *corpora*. This penchant for considering the original plural (or singular as in graffito) as normative is elitist in effect if not intent. I recall an obnoxious NYU urban studies professor who was leading a walking tour snidely correct an old man who mentioned that he was an "alumni" of some college. Since ideological criteria have become the major source of new prescriptions (witness the sexist language debates) how about a similar attack on these unnecessary complications to our morphology, complications as destined to be as extinct as hippopotomi. (p.s. may hippopotomusses live for ever!)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue