 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Ugly word... |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nathan Sanders... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <lkg4s6xp3c.ln2 at (no spam) news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-02, alan wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:33 pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
"alan" == alan <in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics".
I would have called them plural. While the online Merriam Webster seems to
think so as well, defining their function as "noun plural but singular in
construction" (in which case the -s *would* be a plural morpheme), the
online Cambridge prefers to think of them as "noun [U] " ("[U]"
designating
" Uncountable or singular noun: a noun that has no plural" (in which case
the -s would *not* be a plural morpheme; I have, however, no idea what kind
of a morpheme that -s would be).
Since Peter doesn't consider it pluralizing, perhaps he could explain what
kind of a morpheme he'd call it . . .
AFAICT they are always treated as singular in English, e.g.,
"Linguistics [economics, etc.] is interesting and it is..."; same with
"math" (AmE), "maths" (BrE), and "mathematics" (both). ("Les
mathématiques" is unusual in French; most are like "la physique".)
What's the basis for saying these words have a plural function in
English?
[/quote]
Some of them do have plural uses, when not talking about the fields of
study, but rather, conditions or calculations:
The economics/physics/mathematics are complicated.
I also just realized that, contrary to an earlier claim in this
thread, there is at least one American English analogue to "maths"
that is almost always plural when referring to a field of study:
I'm taking stats/*stat next term.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:28 am, "Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to) at (no spam) none.invalid> wrote:
[quote]On 1-Nov-2009, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote in message
652e5b6f-fadc-44a0-a1af-f8cf78d97... at (no spam) j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
Mercy! I thought it was just PTD who was affronted by the idea that
people outside the USA should persist in speaking English their own
way. Now we have another one...
Where it came from is so obvious that I won't play into your hands by
explaining it. Who uses it is, I believe, most people in the UK,
Australia & New Zealand.
As a former math major brought up saying "math", but now living in
"maths" country, I admit it is not natural to me. I'll even admit that
its final consonantism is a little more complicated than that of
"math". About as complicated as "paths" or "baths", to be precise.
Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no one's
called attention to "paths" and "baths" having voiced final
consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/,
but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three dictionaries
I have on hand notes this plural voicing for "baths", and not even
that one has it for "paths".
Now that I think about it, I doubt I'd bat an eye at hearing /p&Ts/
or /b&Ts/. Perhaps both are current hereabouts?
[/quote]
The knife / knives pattern is fairly unusual (but is still available
for analogizing off of). Remember, Tolkien _invented_ the form
"dwarves" -- it is not attested in the entire history of the English
language before him.
But again, why is it relevant, since the -s in "maths" isn't a plural
marker? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:36 am, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 pm, António Marques <ento... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 am, Ruud Harmsen <r... at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:15 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
"alan" == alan <in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics".
It may be interesting to look at the Dutch equivalents. Endings vary,
but none of them has a final s:
Linguïstiek, fonetiek, informatica, economie, fysica, optiek/optica,
mechanica, hydrauliek/hydraulica, dynamica.
You still hear many people using -as in portuguese - Humanísticas,
Matemáticas, Físico-Químicas. Afaict all of those are short forms for
'Ciências [something]', and that makes me believe the english forms
are a compromise: 'linguistic/mathematical/physical sciences' -
linguistics/mathematics/physics. If that's correct, then the english -
s really *is* the plural morpheme.-
It certainly *was* the plural morpheme etymologically, but no longer is,
synchronically, IMO.
Linguistics itself was named far too late to have participated in such
phrases (for which I doubt there is any early evidence).
Physics at any rate dates back to the Greek "ta physika", literally
"natural things", via Latin "re:s physica". I don't think the phrase
"scientica physica" (natural sciences) predates the late Middle Ages.
Greek "mathema" = something learned, hence the (Greek and) Latin
adjective "mathematicus". "Mathematica/mathematics" for geometry,
algebra, astrology, etc is late Middle Ages, as is "mathematical
sciences" I think.
The earliest cite for "linguist" is sixteenth century, and
"linguistic(s)" not before the nineteenth century, in English at any
rate. I don't know if "linguistical sciences" was ever in use in the
nineteenth century, but, even if it was, the "-ics" in linguistics no
doubt arose by analogy with "physics", "mathematics", etc, as Peter implies.
[/quote]
M-W has "ca. 1837," whatever that means, for linguistics.
And 1828 for the adjective "linguistic," with no indication it was
ever a noun.
[quote]My old Shorter Oxford claims that, while "mathematics" is singular now
(by which I mean, takes singular agreement), in the phrase "(the) higher
mathematics" it's still plural. I don't think this it's plural for me
though.
French still has "les mathematiques" though, doesn't it?[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Heckman... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 1-Nov-2009, "benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz>
wrote in message
<652e5b6f-fadc-44a0-a1af-f8cf78d97100 at (no spam) j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
[quote]Mercy! I thought it was just PTD who was affronted by the idea that
people outside the USA should persist in speaking English their own
way. Now we have another one...
Where it came from is so obvious that I won't play into your hands by
explaining it. Who uses it is, I believe, most people in the UK,
Australia & New Zealand.
As a former math major brought up saying "math", but now living in
"maths" country, I admit it is not natural to me. I'll even admit that
its final consonantism is a little more complicated than that of
"math". About as complicated as "paths" or "baths", to be precise.
[/quote]
Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no one's
called attention to "paths" and "baths" having voiced final
consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/,
but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three dictionaries
I have on hand notes this plural voicing for "baths", and not even
that one has it for "paths".
Now that I think about it, I doubt I'd bat an eye at hearing /p&Ts/
or /b&Ts/. Perhaps both are current hereabouts?
[quote]But
"ugly"? Chill out, bro.
And I'd advise you to get used to it rather than wait for it to "go
away".
Or is this PTD Parody Week and nobody told me?
Ross Clark
[/quote]
--
Jim Heckman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 8:22 pm, António Marques <ento... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 am, Ruud Harmsen <r... at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:15 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
"alan" == alan <in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics".
It may be interesting to look at the Dutch equivalents. Endings vary,
but none of them has a final s:
Linguïstiek, fonetiek, informatica, economie, fysica, optiek/optica,
mechanica, hydrauliek/hydraulica, dynamica.
You still hear many people using -as in portuguese - Humanísticas,
Matemáticas, Físico-Químicas. Afaict all of those are short forms for
'Ciências [something]', and that makes me believe the english forms
are a compromise: 'linguistic/mathematical/physical sciences' -
linguistics/mathematics/physics. If that's correct, then the english -
s really *is* the plural morpheme.-
It certainly *was* the plural morpheme etymologically, but no longer is,[/quote]
synchronically, IMO.
[quote]
Linguistics itself was named far too late to have participated in such
phrases (for which I doubt there is any early evidence).
Physics at any rate dates back to the Greek "ta physika", literally[/quote]
"natural things", via Latin "re:s physica". I don't think the phrase
"scientica physica" (natural sciences) predates the late Middle Ages.
Greek "mathema" = something learned, hence the (Greek and) Latin
adjective "mathematicus". "Mathematica/mathematics" for geometry,
algebra, astrology, etc is late Middle Ages, as is "mathematical
sciences" I think.
The earliest cite for "linguist" is sixteenth century, and
"linguistic(s)" not before the nineteenth century, in English at any
rate. I don't know if "linguistical sciences" was ever in use in the
nineteenth century, but, even if it was, the "-ics" in linguistics no
doubt arose by analogy with "physics", "mathematics", etc, as Peter implies.
My old Shorter Oxford claims that, while "mathematics" is singular now
(by which I mean, takes singular agreement), in the phrase "(the) higher
mathematics" it's still plural. I don't think this it's plural for me
though.
French still has "les mathematiques" though, doesn't it?
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Heckman wrote:
[quote]On 1-Nov-2009, "benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote in message
652e5b6f-fadc-44a0-a1af-f8cf78d97100 at (no spam) j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>:
Mercy! I thought it was just PTD who was affronted by the idea that
people outside the USA should persist in speaking English their own
way. Now we have another one...
Where it came from is so obvious that I won't play into your hands by
explaining it. Who uses it is, I believe, most people in the UK,
Australia & New Zealand.
As a former math major brought up saying "math", but now living in
"maths" country, I admit it is not natural to me. I'll even admit that
its final consonantism is a little more complicated than that of
"math". About as complicated as "paths" or "baths", to be precise.
Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no one's
called attention to "paths" and "baths" having voiced final
consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/,
but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three dictionaries
I have on hand notes this plural voicing for "baths", and not even
that one has it for "paths".
Now that I think about it, I doubt I'd bat an eye at hearing /p&Ts/
or /b&Ts/. Perhaps both are current hereabouts?
I have /ba:Dz/ and /pa:Dz/, and so does the Oxford.[/quote]
The only plural words I can think of that rhyme with "maths" for me are
"laths" /l&Ts/ and "Kaths" /k&Ts/
[...]
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Athel Cornish-Bowden... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:15 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
<dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
[quote]"alan" == alan <in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics"
[/quote]
The only one of these words that I use every day -- not in your list,
but a similar word, anyway -- is "kinetics", which is treated as
singular or plural (not just by me, but by most people who have
occasion to use it) according to context:
Kinetics is the study of how fast chemical reactions proceed
The kinetics of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction are complicated
It's more often plural when preceded by "the", more often singular when
it isn't, but I doubt whether that's a reliable rule.
athel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Atkinson wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 pm, António Marques<ento... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 am, Ruud Harmsen<r... at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:15 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
"alan" == alan<in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics".
It may be interesting to look at the Dutch equivalents. Endings vary,
but none of them has a final s:
Linguïstiek, fonetiek, informatica, economie, fysica, optiek/optica,
mechanica, hydrauliek/hydraulica, dynamica.
You still hear many people using -as in portuguese - HumanÃsticas,
Matemáticas, FÃsico-QuÃmicas. Afaict all of those are short forms for
'Ciências [something]', and that makes me believe the english forms
are a compromise: 'linguistic/mathematical/physical sciences' -
linguistics/mathematics/physics. If that's correct, then the english -
s really *is* the plural morpheme.-
It certainly *was* the plural morpheme etymologically, but no longer is,
synchronically, IMO.
[/quote]
Oh. Yes, in this particular case what got me interested was the
etymology, rather than its present condition.
[quote]French still has "les mathematiques" though, doesn't it?
[/quote]
In pt there is a distinction between 'Matemáticas', a dignified and
complex and insipid field of study, 'Matemática', an insipid school
subject, and a rarer 'matemática', reckoning. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 6:36 am, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 pm, António Marques <ento... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:22 am, Ruud Harmsen <r... at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:15 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
"alan" == alan <in_flagra... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
alan> The "final consonantism", however, is the same. BTW, if the
alan> -s in maths is not a plural morpheme, what is it?
What is the "-s" in the following words, then?
"linguistics", "phonetics", "informatics", "economics", "physics",
"optics", "mechanics", "hydraulics", "dynamics".
It may be interesting to look at the Dutch equivalents. Endings vary,
but none of them has a final s:
Linguïstiek, fonetiek, informatica, economie, fysica, optiek/optica,
mechanica, hydrauliek/hydraulica, dynamica.
You still hear many people using -as in portuguese - Humanísticas,
Matemáticas, Físico-Químicas. Afaict all of those are short forms for
'Ciências [something]', and that makes me believe the english forms
are a compromise: 'linguistic/mathematical/physical sciences' -
linguistics/mathematics/physics. If that's correct, then the english -
s really *is* the plural morpheme.-
It certainly *was* the plural morpheme etymologically, but no longer is,
synchronically, IMO.
Linguistics itself was named far too late to have participated in such
phrases (for which I doubt there is any early evidence).
Physics at any rate dates back to the Greek "ta physika", literally
"natural things", via Latin "re:s physica". I don't think the phrase
"scientica physica" (natural sciences) predates the late Middle Ages.
Greek "mathema" = something learned, hence the (Greek and) Latin
adjective "mathematicus". "Mathematica/mathematics" for geometry,
algebra, astrology, etc is late Middle Ages, as is "mathematical
sciences" I think.
The earliest cite for "linguist" is sixteenth century, and
"linguistic(s)" not before the nineteenth century, in English at any
rate. I don't know if "linguistical sciences" was ever in use in the
nineteenth century, but, even if it was, the "-ics" in linguistics no
doubt arose by analogy with "physics", "mathematics", etc, as Peter implies.
M-W has "ca. 1837," whatever that means, for linguistics.
And 1828 for the adjective "linguistic," with no indication it was
ever a noun.
Interesting. My Shorter Oxford gives 1837 for the adjective[/quote]
"linguistic: of or pertaining to the knowledge or study of languages",
and also 1837 for the noun "linguistic: the science of languages;
philology". Their first cite for "linguistics" with an "-s" is 1855.
Anyway, early nineteenth century. Though that doesn't mean that it
wasn't a little earlier in, say, French, I'd be surprised if it turns up
anywhere more than a century earlier.
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Heckman <weu_rznvy-hfrarg at (no spam) lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote:
[quote]Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no one's
called attention to "paths" and "baths" having voiced final
consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/,
but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three dictionaries
I have on hand notes this plural voicing for "baths", and not even
that one has it for "paths".
[/quote]
Merriam-Webster Online (= MWCD) offers voiced and unvoiced plural
variants for both "paths" and "baths".
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
[quote]Jim Heckman<weu_rznvy-hfrarg at (no spam) lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote:
Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no one's
called attention to "paths" and "baths" having voiced final
consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/,
but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three dictionaries
I have on hand notes this plural voicing for "baths", and not even
that one has it for "paths".
Merriam-Webster Online (= MWCD) offers voiced and unvoiced plural
variants for both "paths" and "baths".
[/quote]
There's this unertraeglich guy from Autralia who sings and I could swear
he uses [pA::s] for paths (extra-long A and no consonant). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc... at (no spam) csuohio.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:47:49 GMT, John Atkinson
johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in
news:FLUHm.51850$ze1.48357 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
Jim Heckman wrote:
[...]
Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no
one's called attention to "paths" and "baths" having
voiced final consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me
they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/, but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three
dictionaries I have on hand notes this plural voicing
for "baths", and not even that one has it for "paths".
Now that I think about it, I doubt I'd bat an eye at
hearing /p&Ts/ or /b&Ts/. Perhaps both are current
hereabouts?
I have /ba:Dz/ and /pa:Dz/, and so does the Oxford.
Likewise, though I'd write /A:/. M-W Online gives four
pronunciations, essentially /-æDz/, /-æTs/, /-ADz/, and
/-ATs/, in that order, and I'm pretty sure that I've heard
all of them.
The only plural words I can think of that rhyme with
"maths" for me are "laths" /l&Ts/ and "Kaths" /k&Ts/
There's also <raths>, plural of <rath> 'a circular enclosure
surrounded by an earthen wall', from Irish. (I leave it as
an exercise for the reader to decide whether the raths that
may be mome also count.) And I suppose that one could ask
how many <hath>s there are in the KJV, say.
[/quote]
Can you imagine a "circular enclosure surrounded by an earthen wall"
-- which leads one to wonder whether there are one wall or two --
outgribing? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joe Fineman... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nathan Sanders <nsanders at (no spam) williams.edu> writes:
[quote]In article <lkg4s6xp3c.ln2 at (no spam) news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) ducksburg.com> wrote:
AFAICT they are always treated as singular in English, e.g.,
"Linguistics [economics, etc.] is interesting and it is..."; same
with "math" (AmE), "maths" (BrE), and "mathematics" (both). ("Les
mathématiques" is unusual in French; most are like "la physique".)
What's the basis for saying these words have a plural function in
English?
Some of them do have plural uses, when not talking about the fields
of study, but rather, conditions or calculations:
The economics/physics/mathematics are complicated.
[/quote]
Fowler in MEU s.v. -ics 2 (1927) says:
This is not so simple a matter as it is sometimes thought.... The
rules that seem to emerge are: (1) Singular for the name of a
science strictly so used; _Metaphysics_, or _Acoustics_, deals
_with abstractions_, or _sound_. (2) Plural for those same names
more loosely used, e.g. for a manifestation of qualities; often
recognizable by the presence of _his_, _the_, &c: _His
mathematics_ are _weak_; _Such ethics_ are _abominable_; _The
acoustics of the hall_ are _faulty_. (3) Plural for names
denoting courses of action or the like: _Heroics_ are _out of
place; _Hysterics_ leave _me cold_. (4) The presence of a
singular noun complement often makes the verb singular:
_Mathematics_, or even _Athletics_, is _his strong point_.
--
--- Joe Fineman joe_f at (no spam) verizon.net
||: The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents, and  |
||: the second half by our children. | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:47:49 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:FLUHm.51850$ze1.48357 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
[quote]Jim Heckman wrote:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]Not that it matters for your point, but I'm surprised no
one's called attention to "paths" and "baths" having
voiced final consonantism, unlike "maths"; so for me
they're /p&Dz/ and /b&Dz/, but /m&Ts/.
Or am I in the minority here? Only one of the three
dictionaries I have on hand notes this plural voicing
for "baths", and not even that one has it for "paths".
Now that I think about it, I doubt I'd bat an eye at
hearing /p&Ts/ or /b&Ts/. Perhaps both are current
hereabouts?
I have /ba:Dz/ and /pa:Dz/, and so does the Oxford.
[/quote]
Likewise, though I'd write /A:/. M-W Online gives four
pronunciations, essentially /-æDz/, /-æTs/, /-ADz/, and
/-ATs/, in that order, and I'm pretty sure that I've heard
all of them.
[quote]The only plural words I can think of that rhyme with
"maths" for me are "laths" /l&Ts/ and "Kaths" /k&Ts/
[/quote]
There's also <raths>, plural of <rath> 'a circular enclosure
surrounded by an earthen wall', from Irish. (I leave it as
an exercise for the reader to decide whether the raths that
may be mome also count.) And I suppose that one could ask
how many <hath>s there are in the KJV, say.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:20:02 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke
<dkleinecke at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in
<news:0cf0cdd4-17d7-40f9-bccb-e188062dadfa at (no spam) z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote]Where did the ugly word "maths" come from?
[/quote]
Obviously from 'math(ematic)s'.
[quote]And exactly who uses it?
[/quote]
Probably just about every variety of English except U.S. and
Canadian.
[quote]As a speaker of USA English and a card-carrying
mathematician I flinch every time I see "maths".
[/quote]
I'm both, and it doesn't bother me. I might even make an
effort to use it if I were speaking to a predominantly
Rightpondian audience.
[...]
[quote]Is there any chance that "maths" will go away?
[/quote]
I very much doubt it.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:25 am
|
|