Editor for this issue: <>
It occurs to me that the in-group plural of Mac ought to be Mace.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
What to do with _agenda_ and _propaganda_? I asked this very question of one hypercorrective committee chair, who insists for example that _data_ can only be plural, "Can you have an agenda with only one item?" and got the predictable reply, "Of course." It seems that the correct construal of numbers is both complex and variable. When my daughter went to C.E.S. Henri IV for a year we spent in France she was marked wrong when she said there were 7 continents and no amount of arguing with the teacher could change what was regarded as a universal fact. Of course the English prof also insisted that "number phone"--a calque of the French idiom--was correct British English, and that my daughter's insistence on "phone number" was incorrect, or at best, American. So what do _you_ do with _data_? -- debaronMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuiuc.edu ____________ 217-333-2392 |:~~~~~~~~~~:| fax: 217-333-4321 Dennis Baron |: :| Dept. of English |: db :| Univ. of Illinois |: :| 608 S. Wright St. |:==========:| Urbana IL 61801 \\ """""""" \ \\ """""""" \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
For an example of a regular plural used with the metaphoric sense of a noun that normally takes an irregular plural, recall the lyrics to 'Diamonds are a girl's best friend': That's when those louses Go back to their spouses Diamonds are a girl's best friend! ****************************************************************************** Aaron Broadwell, Dept. of Linguistics, University at Albany -- SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 gb661Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueleah.albany.edu "Chi Wen Tzu always thought three times before taking action. Twice would have been quite enough." -- Confucious ******************************************************************************
I would like to add a small grain of salt to the debate, but in a very exotic language -- viz. French. Some time ago I taught a course in Automata Theory. The formal definition implies a set of final states, that I called "un ensemble d'e'tats *finals*'. This seemed to confuse quite a bit the students, used to form the plural of adjectives in -al as -aux. My only argument was that of 'euphonia', but I am no more so sure of this sort of reason. Michel Eytan De'pt. Info. Univ. Strasbourg IIMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
I have gotten corrections publicly and privately regarding *propoganda*; my thanks to the correctors. There's a sense, however, in which the general point remains unaffected: if *propoganda* is an ablative form then one would not expect to find it used as a subject, for example (I don't believe that there are any Latin verbs which govern ablative for subject, though maybe that's too strong a claim). The general point, which is that prescriptive rules, including ones of the genreal form 'This comes from language X so you have to use it in the way it's used in that language' are invariably belied by at least some usages by those who adamantly tout the rules. Ellen Prince mentions *data*. This is actually an interesting case -- my own usage (which tends to be rather puristic, my linguistic political correctness notwithstanding) is actually inconsistent. I'll say things like 'The data are on page 3' but also 'There's a lot of data to support that claim'. But the most interesting phenomenon I've run into is that in some branches of computer science the plural *datums* has now entered the lexicon, in a sense that I'm not sure I understand, but about which I have some suspicions. There are some bona fide computer scientists out there -- comments on this one would be most welcome (to me, at least). Michael KacMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Usually I ignore my urge to reply to linguistic trivia questions and let the mavens handle them, but on the Yiddish diminutive plurals I just couldn't resist! Some time ago the question intried me and I decided to look into it, figuring, as one of our colleagues mused, that it was either Slavic or Hebrew. Friends told me it couldn't be Hebrew, and it didn't look that Slavic either, unfortunately. Finally, I came up with what appears to be the right answer, although right now I can't come up with a more authoritative source than what I give here. The plural ...l-ech seems to be from Germanic! Krahe/ Meid (Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, vol. 3), p. 194, note about the IE collective suffix *-ahja- that it survives in Gmc. as *-aha: cf. OGH eihhahi "Eichengehoelz", widahi "Weidicht" rorahi "Roehricht", etc. They go on to note that in MHG & NHG dialects (East Franconian) -(l)ech serves as a plural suffix: MHG ermelech (< ermel) "Aermel", knehtelech "Knechte"; and NHG dial. zaehnlich, oerhlich. I thought I had a more decisive reference to prove conclusively that this was the source of the Yiddish dimunitive plural, but that's the best I can do right now. It certainly looks pretty good, however, faute de mieux! tom shannon, uc berkeley german department tshannonMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuegarnet.berkeley.edu
Both French and Italian designations can be translated as "hunter's chicken." What interested me was the fact that Italian-Americans here (admittedly a casual sample) use an Anglicized French designation for the Italian dish (cacciatore). A personal message informs me that poulet chasseur, strictly so-called, is made differently from chicken cacciatore, strictly so-called. This makes the blending of terminology even more interesting. "Chicken chaser" seems to be cacciatore in Providence no matter what your ethnic heritage might be, but its name is Anglicized via French. -- Rick RussomMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
For those of you especially interested in the multicultural dimensions of the kreplach/wonton/dumpling/ravioli issue, I recommend the lead article in today's (actually Wednesday, October 2's) New York Times Living Section, "The Universal Dumpling", by Molly O'Neill (the only food writer whose brother is a major league outfielder). O'Neill quotes deli owner Joseph Ben-Moha, organizer of last week's dumpling derby, as asking rhetorically, "What makes a wonton not a kreplach, a kreplach not a pirogi, a pirogi not a wonton?" While kosher caterer Dan Lenchner (whose repertoire includes a wonton stuffed with Mexican fried beef and chili) speculates that "small, wrapped food is a universal concept, and while chefs Janny Leung and Tony Yep--who describe them- selves as dumpling makers--are reported to have "waved aside the semantics", the constraints on UD (Universal Dumpling, of course) remain to be elucidated.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Both French and Italian designations can be translated as "hunter's chicken." What interested me was the fact that Italian-Americans here (admittedly a casual sample) use an Anglicized French designation for the Italian dish (cacciatore). A personal message informs me that poulet chasseur, strictly so-called, is made differently from chicken cacciatore, strictly so-called. This makes the blending of terminology even more interesting. "Chicken chaser" seems to be cacciatore in Providence no matter what your ethnic heritage might be, but its name is Anglicized via French. -- Rick RussomMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue