(intended as a comment, but too big)
In set theory one now speaks of both sets and classes which have different meanings.
The early development of set theory, from Cantor through to Von Neumann seems to be dominated by German publications, in which the term "mengenlehre" is used.
English translations of these works use the term "Set Theory" for mengenlehre.
The distinction between set and class originates with a distinction made by Cantor between consistent and inconsistent multiplicities, but does not seem to appear in axiomatic set theory until Von Neuman in 1925 published an axiomatic set theory in which a similar distinction appears.
Ontologically this is a strange set theory, since the entities involved are functions rather than sets. Nevertheless the paper, in german, again uses the term mengenlehre in the title.
It may however be the source of the migration of mathematical logicians from talk of classes (which is the term used by Russell) to sets (with classes as collections which do not qualify as sets).
Von Neumann's introduction into axiomatic set theory of Cantor's distinction between consistent and inconsistent multiplicities leads eventually to the NBG (Neumann, Bernays, Goedel) set theory in which the ontology involves two kinds of multiplicity called classes and sets. The sets are the ones which correspond to the multiplicities in theories which do not make the distinction (they lack the distinction because their ontologies lack the entities which are known in NBG as classes).
It is possibly because of the need to make this distinction that we have two terms for menge, and the (possibly arbitrary) choice to use "class" for the "inconsistent" multiplicities (which are rendered consistent in the formal theories in which both kinds occur), seems to have forced a migration of terminology in the English speaking world from talk of classes to talk of sets (bearing in mind that the set theories in which the distinction appears, and in which there are classes in this new sense, have largely disappeared from active use, so far as I am aware). The term class, once use as menge, was appropriate for use specifically for a kind of collection which we don't really need, and mengenlehre became set theory.
How this played out in German I have no idea.
Presumably German set theorists do now have to make the same distinction, at least when they speak of systems like NBG, but how they do it I have no idea.
Possibly by talking of sets and classes!
This seems to me a case where prior usage is of marginal influence. If one had considered prior usage of the words "set" and "class" one might come up with grounds for chosing which to use for (let us say) consistent or inconsistent multiplicities (or grounds perhaps connected with the fact that classes are larger than sets) but it is doubtful that any such exercise was ever undertaken or that mathematicians ever go into such matters when chosing their terms.
(another example one might speculate about is the choice of the term "category theory", which actually seems to me quite appropriate).
Apparently the word set used as a noun for collection dates back to 15C, long before the mathematicians got in on the act, and possibly originates in the old French "sette".
Roger Jones
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Was Grice A Pluralist? (The Implicature of "-s")
J:
"maths people say one is unique--a "singleton" -- generally because they haven't decided it's prime or not. But it's still included in classes--ie the class (or set, if you will) of natural numbers. Yet...who cares?"
Exactly. Oddly, Grice never forgave J. L. Austin for having spent more than a weekend on that 'dreadful bore': Frege's "The concept of number".
--- "The page numbering is inadequate".
--
"The bridge holds or it doesn't; the plane flies or it don't. The equations are important, but only insofar that they produce useful, working tools or technology, etc(or perhaps models)."
Yes, plus the Arabs invented the zero, but the ROMANS invented the bridges.
"The proof's in the pudding. Now, supposed universals are useful as well--mammals, or natural numbers, or polygons, or even "Justice", whatever--but I think it's because they're useful that we...use them!"
Yes, I think 'dodo' is a good class. People say Dodgson was considering universalia when he had the Dodo as a critter in "Wonderland". But having been to Oxford (and the Ashmolean) I found that there is a stuffed dodo in there, which may have influenced Dodgson, too. Plus, as Alice Harvgreaves, "the real Alice", reminisced:
"Professor Dodgson had an annoying stutter. We would laugh at him! He couldn't even pronounce his name: "Do-Do-Do-Dodgson", he'd say. We called him Dodo".
"Not because they have some platonic existence. Pragmatic analyticity, instead of Russell/Frege crypto-platonic logicism. So perhaps that's a type of conceptualism rather than the dreaded N-word.
Yes. Plurals are also important, because while we cannot say, "justices", in the plural, and mean it (unless in very special circumstances) we can still refer to the 'class of all singletons', or stuff.
There's the universalia problem, and the plural problem. Spinoza (who called himself a monist) thought he had resolved the 'plural' ('pluralitas') problem. He refused to use the plural -- even as applied to food ("potato" was a mass noun for him).
His views is referred to as "monism", which influenced Leibniz. For Leibniz, there is only ONE thing (singular), which he called, for lack of a better term, "Monad".
Strictly, there is only ONE thing. It may be big, even 'infinite'. When we say, "There are two apples in the tree", strictly -- who cares (to echo J). The universe is just one. Others (O. D.?) may disagree and speak instead of the pluriverse, multiverse, or di-verse.
---
In general, Monism is easy to prove.
On the other hand, Pluralism can be a bother. To echo Grice,
"Surely when we say we are pluralists we don't
meant to say that we believe in the existence
of two bananas. The issue goes deeper than that."
For Grice, a pluralist is someone who holds NOT that there are more than one entity, but more than one TYPE of entity. This may beg the question, but then most people beg questions all the time ("What time is it?") and it's not like begging the question is a crime.
"Begging the question" is "petitio principii" which is a different class of animal.
To prove the pluralist wrong, or the conceptualist, or the realist, try interpersing each noun with "mass" expressions:
"I'm not the sort of guy to tolerate that"
-- meaning?
"I saw a kind of curious film."
----
"My mother has two classes of dogs".
etc.
And see how silly the implicatures those expressions trigger.
Or not.
"maths people say one is unique--a "singleton" -- generally because they haven't decided it's prime or not. But it's still included in classes--ie the class (or set, if you will) of natural numbers. Yet...who cares?"
Exactly. Oddly, Grice never forgave J. L. Austin for having spent more than a weekend on that 'dreadful bore': Frege's "The concept of number".
--- "The page numbering is inadequate".
--
"The bridge holds or it doesn't; the plane flies or it don't. The equations are important, but only insofar that they produce useful, working tools or technology, etc(or perhaps models)."
Yes, plus the Arabs invented the zero, but the ROMANS invented the bridges.
"The proof's in the pudding. Now, supposed universals are useful as well--mammals, or natural numbers, or polygons, or even "Justice", whatever--but I think it's because they're useful that we...use them!"
Yes, I think 'dodo' is a good class. People say Dodgson was considering universalia when he had the Dodo as a critter in "Wonderland". But having been to Oxford (and the Ashmolean) I found that there is a stuffed dodo in there, which may have influenced Dodgson, too. Plus, as Alice Harvgreaves, "the real Alice", reminisced:
"Professor Dodgson had an annoying stutter. We would laugh at him! He couldn't even pronounce his name: "Do-Do-Do-Dodgson", he'd say. We called him Dodo".
"Not because they have some platonic existence. Pragmatic analyticity, instead of Russell/Frege crypto-platonic logicism. So perhaps that's a type of conceptualism rather than the dreaded N-word.
Yes. Plurals are also important, because while we cannot say, "justices", in the plural, and mean it (unless in very special circumstances) we can still refer to the 'class of all singletons', or stuff.
There's the universalia problem, and the plural problem. Spinoza (who called himself a monist) thought he had resolved the 'plural' ('pluralitas') problem. He refused to use the plural -- even as applied to food ("potato" was a mass noun for him).
His views is referred to as "monism", which influenced Leibniz. For Leibniz, there is only ONE thing (singular), which he called, for lack of a better term, "Monad".
Strictly, there is only ONE thing. It may be big, even 'infinite'. When we say, "There are two apples in the tree", strictly -- who cares (to echo J). The universe is just one. Others (O. D.?) may disagree and speak instead of the pluriverse, multiverse, or di-verse.
---
In general, Monism is easy to prove.
On the other hand, Pluralism can be a bother. To echo Grice,
"Surely when we say we are pluralists we don't
meant to say that we believe in the existence
of two bananas. The issue goes deeper than that."
For Grice, a pluralist is someone who holds NOT that there are more than one entity, but more than one TYPE of entity. This may beg the question, but then most people beg questions all the time ("What time is it?") and it's not like begging the question is a crime.
"Begging the question" is "petitio principii" which is a different class of animal.
To prove the pluralist wrong, or the conceptualist, or the realist, try interpersing each noun with "mass" expressions:
"I'm not the sort of guy to tolerate that"
-- meaning?
"I saw a kind of curious film."
----
"My mother has two classes of dogs".
etc.
And see how silly the implicatures those expressions trigger.
Or not.
Numbers of Numbers
J:
"I think it's only philosophers, and a few mathematicians who would say there are classes or sets with only one member."
Well, there's nothing in the word 'set' (as per word) that implicates, implies, entails ... plurality. Surely a hen can set (is that the word) just ONE egg.
"The table is set for ONE".
I wouldn't know why the English think of 'set' (which is such a bit of an emtpy word) to refer to what the Germans call 'menge', as I think they do, as per 'set theory'. The French may be even more charismatic.
"class" may be a more pedantic Latinate choice. I think Carroll used it, and I can be pedantic at times.
But after studying the 'classics', I found out that Cicero and his ilk were never sure as to why the 'classics' had to be 'classics'. Apparently, it's from 'class'. But then implicated to mean 'FIRST' class.
I rather feel nominalistic ANYday!
---
Or not.
"I think it's only philosophers, and a few mathematicians who would say there are classes or sets with only one member."
Well, there's nothing in the word 'set' (as per word) that implicates, implies, entails ... plurality. Surely a hen can set (is that the word) just ONE egg.
"The table is set for ONE".
I wouldn't know why the English think of 'set' (which is such a bit of an emtpy word) to refer to what the Germans call 'menge', as I think they do, as per 'set theory'. The French may be even more charismatic.
"class" may be a more pedantic Latinate choice. I think Carroll used it, and I can be pedantic at times.
But after studying the 'classics', I found out that Cicero and his ilk were never sure as to why the 'classics' had to be 'classics'. Apparently, it's from 'class'. But then implicated to mean 'FIRST' class.
I rather feel nominalistic ANYday!
---
Or not.
Troops, Singletons -- and Stuff
J:
"A committe implies a group of people".
Or as I would say,
"implicates"
From wiki:
"a singleton is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton."
"I found a set in the room".
"A set of what?"
" {0} -- you said my shoes would be there but they aren't"
---
Wiki:
"Note that a set such as
{{1, 2, 3}}
is also a singleton."
-----
A: You have THREE of them?
B: Yes. But I have arranged them in such a way -- {{1, 2, 3}} -- that they, strictly, only count as one.
A: Gebirge!
Wiki:
"the only element is a set (which itself is however not a singleton). A set is a singleton iff its cardinality is 1."
---- So, if the cardinality of the 'berge' is 1 (The Himalaya) a mountain can be its own range. Or not.
Wiki:
"In the set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers, the number 1 is defined as the singleton {0}. In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing."
Pretty much as elsewhere. In Biology, too, the existence of plurality is a consequence of (the axiom of) pairing (or 'mating', in the vernacular).
Wiki:
"for any set A that axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A,A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as element).
If A is any set and S is any singleton, there exists precisely one function from A to S, the function sending every element of A to the one element of S. In topology, a space is a T1 space if and only if every singleton is closed. Structures built on singletons often serve as terminal objects or zero objects of various categories."
---- such as one-mountain mountain ranges -- topologically.
Wiki:
"The statement above shows that the singleton sets are precisely the terminal objects in the category Set of sets. No other sets are terminal. Any singleton can be turned into a topological space in just one way (all subsets are open). These singleton topological spaces are terminal objects in the category of topological spaces and continuous functions. No other spaces are terminal in that category."
--- "ontological pluralism" (needless):
"Any singleton can be turned into a group."
--- "My classes are usually big. His name is Jim."
--- "You are a lucky one. My class is not so big, but the uni still pays for it. Oxford you know."
Wiki:
"Any singleton can be turned into a group in just one way (the unique element serving as identity element). These singleton groups are zero objects in the category of groups and group homomorphisms."
--- "That's strictly, not a one-mountain mountain range. It is a group homomorphism, if you must."
---
Wiki:
"No other groups are terminal in that category. Let S be a class defined by a Boolean-valued function . Then:
"S is called a singleton iff b is equal to some function c, with c(x) = (x = y) for some c." (or something) (check with wiki for formalism -- it's not plain text, by far!).
"Traditionally, this definition was introduced by Whitehead and Russell[1] along with the definition of the natural number 1, a as b , where c." Very complex formulae here, in hypertext. What's wrong with wiki?
See also
Class (set theory)
References
1.^ Whitehead, Alfred North; Bertrand Russell (1861). Principia Mathematica. pp. 37.
"A committe implies a group of people".
Or as I would say,
"implicates"
From wiki:
"a singleton is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton."
"I found a set in the room".
"A set of what?"
" {0} -- you said my shoes would be there but they aren't"
---
Wiki:
"Note that a set such as
{{1, 2, 3}}
is also a singleton."
-----
A: You have THREE of them?
B: Yes. But I have arranged them in such a way -- {{1, 2, 3}} -- that they, strictly, only count as one.
A: Gebirge!
Wiki:
"the only element is a set (which itself is however not a singleton). A set is a singleton iff its cardinality is 1."
---- So, if the cardinality of the 'berge' is 1 (The Himalaya) a mountain can be its own range. Or not.
Wiki:
"In the set-theoretic construction of the natural numbers, the number 1 is defined as the singleton {0}. In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing."
Pretty much as elsewhere. In Biology, too, the existence of plurality is a consequence of (the axiom of) pairing (or 'mating', in the vernacular).
Wiki:
"for any set A that axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A,A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as element).
If A is any set and S is any singleton, there exists precisely one function from A to S, the function sending every element of A to the one element of S. In topology, a space is a T1 space if and only if every singleton is closed. Structures built on singletons often serve as terminal objects or zero objects of various categories."
---- such as one-mountain mountain ranges -- topologically.
Wiki:
"The statement above shows that the singleton sets are precisely the terminal objects in the category Set of sets. No other sets are terminal. Any singleton can be turned into a topological space in just one way (all subsets are open). These singleton topological spaces are terminal objects in the category of topological spaces and continuous functions. No other spaces are terminal in that category."
--- "ontological pluralism" (needless):
"Any singleton can be turned into a group."
--- "My classes are usually big. His name is Jim."
--- "You are a lucky one. My class is not so big, but the uni still pays for it. Oxford you know."
Wiki:
"Any singleton can be turned into a group in just one way (the unique element serving as identity element). These singleton groups are zero objects in the category of groups and group homomorphisms."
--- "That's strictly, not a one-mountain mountain range. It is a group homomorphism, if you must."
---
Wiki:
"No other groups are terminal in that category. Let S be a class defined by a Boolean-valued function . Then:
"S is called a singleton iff b is equal to some function c, with c(x) = (x = y) for some c." (or something) (check with wiki for formalism -- it's not plain text, by far!).
"Traditionally, this definition was introduced by Whitehead and Russell[1] along with the definition of the natural number 1, a as b , where c." Very complex formulae here, in hypertext. What's wrong with wiki?
See also
Class (set theory)
References
1.^ Whitehead, Alfred North; Bertrand Russell (1861). Principia Mathematica. pp. 37.
Monolingual Implicatures
J:
"I think ordinary usage entails that a set of things --ie a collective or group noun-- has more than one member, otherwise it's just an individual. Could you have a committee with only one person? Not really--the committee implies a group of people. The Alps are a set of mountains, like the rockies--a range. Mt Shasta, just one mountain. Not a range."
Dunno. In my idiolect, 'committee' can apply to just one person. But then people do call me solipsist (only I don't listen).
"I think ordinary usage entails that a set of things --ie a collective or group noun-- has more than one member, otherwise it's just an individual. Could you have a committee with only one person? Not really--the committee implies a group of people. The Alps are a set of mountains, like the rockies--a range. Mt Shasta, just one mountain. Not a range."
Dunno. In my idiolect, 'committee' can apply to just one person. But then people do call me solipsist (only I don't listen).
Mass nouns: from the implicatural to the metaphysical
J discusses some German idioms:
"What about the grand metaphysics, JL? The difference could relate to a universal/particular distinction more evident in the ...traditional euro languages, such as Latin and German (which have the cases, more formal declensions, etc), than in english, french, etc."
---- Yes, but I did study Greek and Latin (to no avail, really) for my Philo degree. And my Latin teacher used to tell me that the Greeks and the Latins were (and are) very confused about number.
--- In Latin and Greek, for example, the neuter plural is -a, as in "agenda" (things to be done, strictly), or "ta meta ta physika". But, sometimes, -a is also used for feminine singular (as in "Maria"). So this is confusing. Some people then are unable to say if something ('agenda') is a neuter-collective (things to be done) or something individual, as "Maria".
---
My teacher knew common-Indo-European (he would use proto-Indoeuropean to pick up girls in bars). They (the proto-Indoeuropeans) were just as confused. Later I learned some etymology of Italian. "Pagliaccio", plural, "Pagliacci". One would think that this is just a relic of Old Roman. But my teacher said that it was originally, "pagliaccios", but with the -s dropped for good measure. So, it's not like there was a direct line -- from the Graeco-Romans (who were confused) to the Romancers (who ARE confused).
The English fare not better. A friend of mine uses 'chicken' only as a plural. (Not to confuse it with 'chickenen'). He also uses 'geet' as the collective (or plural, he doesn't distinguish there) of 'goat'.
J:
"It would take some time to establish, but I think Deutsch allows for more collective nouns, such as Das Hochgebirge (see my latest note-scrawl), w/o the plural indicated."
Yes. They seem to avoid the final -s like the plague. A good collective recourse in English is 'twin' and 'both' and 'tween' as in 'bet-tween'. This is more like "DUAL". The need to lexicalise a 'pair of two'. E.g. "a pair of ..." is perhaps best rendered, I submit, my adding the formative prefix, 'th-', so that 'thball' becomes 'a pair, or two, balls'. While English only lexicalises 'two' ("They both came") rather than 'three' (or larger numbers) I find irritating.
"I said it thrice", says the Bellman in "Hunting of the Snark" ("What I say thrice is true") but that must be it.
As a consequence of this, you see that
"They both came"
neeeds a special formalisation ("Ex.Cx & Ex2 Cx & Cy"). I'm less sure what the Germans mean, as per logical form, by their exclamatives:
"Wunderbar Gebirge!"
----
But then, they possibly treat "Deutschland" as a mass noun, too.
Anglo does allow some collectives but usually indicates the plural. Or something. At least the german doesn't just append "s", but has various ways on indicating plural, collective, mass nouns, etc.
"What about the grand metaphysics, JL? The difference could relate to a universal/particular distinction more evident in the ...traditional euro languages, such as Latin and German (which have the cases, more formal declensions, etc), than in english, french, etc."
---- Yes, but I did study Greek and Latin (to no avail, really) for my Philo degree. And my Latin teacher used to tell me that the Greeks and the Latins were (and are) very confused about number.
--- In Latin and Greek, for example, the neuter plural is -a, as in "agenda" (things to be done, strictly), or "ta meta ta physika". But, sometimes, -a is also used for feminine singular (as in "Maria"). So this is confusing. Some people then are unable to say if something ('agenda') is a neuter-collective (things to be done) or something individual, as "Maria".
---
My teacher knew common-Indo-European (he would use proto-Indoeuropean to pick up girls in bars). They (the proto-Indoeuropeans) were just as confused. Later I learned some etymology of Italian. "Pagliaccio", plural, "Pagliacci". One would think that this is just a relic of Old Roman. But my teacher said that it was originally, "pagliaccios", but with the -s dropped for good measure. So, it's not like there was a direct line -- from the Graeco-Romans (who were confused) to the Romancers (who ARE confused).
The English fare not better. A friend of mine uses 'chicken' only as a plural. (Not to confuse it with 'chickenen'). He also uses 'geet' as the collective (or plural, he doesn't distinguish there) of 'goat'.
J:
"It would take some time to establish, but I think Deutsch allows for more collective nouns, such as Das Hochgebirge (see my latest note-scrawl), w/o the plural indicated."
Yes. They seem to avoid the final -s like the plague. A good collective recourse in English is 'twin' and 'both' and 'tween' as in 'bet-tween'. This is more like "DUAL". The need to lexicalise a 'pair of two'. E.g. "a pair of ..." is perhaps best rendered, I submit, my adding the formative prefix, 'th-', so that 'thball' becomes 'a pair, or two, balls'. While English only lexicalises 'two' ("They both came") rather than 'three' (or larger numbers) I find irritating.
"I said it thrice", says the Bellman in "Hunting of the Snark" ("What I say thrice is true") but that must be it.
As a consequence of this, you see that
"They both came"
neeeds a special formalisation ("Ex.Cx & Ex2 Cx & Cy"). I'm less sure what the Germans mean, as per logical form, by their exclamatives:
"Wunderbar Gebirge!"
----
But then, they possibly treat "Deutschland" as a mass noun, too.
Anglo does allow some collectives but usually indicates the plural. Or something. At least the german doesn't just append "s", but has various ways on indicating plural, collective, mass nouns, etc.
Implicatures Missed (Not Lost) in German(y)
J:
"I could have been a bit more precise. Die Berge is mountains, and Das Gebirge more like mountain range. Die Berge sind sehr schön! The mountains...are very beee-u-tiful
Das Gebirge ist sehr schön! The mountain range is very beautiful."
Exactly. Each is supposed to trigger a different implicature:
--- "Die Berge sind sehr schoen"
--- "Das gebirge ist sehr schoen".
My point is that, truth-conditionally (even truth-functionally) they are equivalent. No way "das gebirge" can NOT be 'schoen' if 'die berge' are NOT. Or vice versa.
J:
"You note that in Angloish sometimes--"The Himalaya is ...sublime". But usually plural...the sierras, the rockies are.... But "mountain range" is singular of course."
---- Well, not Strawsonianly. Surely the Germans may think that you need at least TWO mountains (zwei berge) to make a mountain range (gebirge). Whereas the more logical Griceian point is that one mountain can make its own range.
---
J:
"So. But the point is that a set of objects (like a mountain range) while plural can be treated as singular, in both English and German, though much less frequent in Anglo--I think because of the latinate influence (las montanas, or les montagnes)."
----
Yes. This must be because of the Roman, as per Roman, influence. When I was in Rome, I was constantly reminded of the 'seven' hills, but I didn't notice just ONE. It all seemed rather 'low' to mean. Perhaps ONE hill is noticeable enough -- but Kant say 'seven' are.
---
By the same tokens, for each noun (e.g. 'hill' as in 'the seven hills of Rome') there should be a collective. Which would be absurd.
----
Pencil -- set of pencils?
Apparently, in English you can use -ade or -age to make a collective. So I submit, 'pencilade' and 'pencilage'.
But again, if a pencil is culled out of a pencilade, one by one, so that the pencilade ends up as consitsting just of ONE pencil, I would still call it a 'pencilade' (which makes the singular-plural distintion otiose -- and as such unrecognised by Frege and Grice -- "(Ex)" "some (at least one)" --.
I would go Meinongian and say that if ALL the pencils are culled out of the pencilade, the thing while may not sub-sist, still 'in-sists'. (Ex-istence, in-sistence, sub-sistence), etc.
"I could have been a bit more precise. Die Berge is mountains, and Das Gebirge more like mountain range. Die Berge sind sehr schön! The mountains...are very beee-u-tiful
Das Gebirge ist sehr schön! The mountain range is very beautiful."
Exactly. Each is supposed to trigger a different implicature:
--- "Die Berge sind sehr schoen"
--- "Das gebirge ist sehr schoen".
My point is that, truth-conditionally (even truth-functionally) they are equivalent. No way "das gebirge" can NOT be 'schoen' if 'die berge' are NOT. Or vice versa.
J:
"You note that in Angloish sometimes--"The Himalaya is ...sublime". But usually plural...the sierras, the rockies are.... But "mountain range" is singular of course."
---- Well, not Strawsonianly. Surely the Germans may think that you need at least TWO mountains (zwei berge) to make a mountain range (gebirge). Whereas the more logical Griceian point is that one mountain can make its own range.
---
J:
"So. But the point is that a set of objects (like a mountain range) while plural can be treated as singular, in both English and German, though much less frequent in Anglo--I think because of the latinate influence (las montanas, or les montagnes)."
----
Yes. This must be because of the Roman, as per Roman, influence. When I was in Rome, I was constantly reminded of the 'seven' hills, but I didn't notice just ONE. It all seemed rather 'low' to mean. Perhaps ONE hill is noticeable enough -- but Kant say 'seven' are.
---
By the same tokens, for each noun (e.g. 'hill' as in 'the seven hills of Rome') there should be a collective. Which would be absurd.
----
Pencil -- set of pencils?
Apparently, in English you can use -ade or -age to make a collective. So I submit, 'pencilade' and 'pencilage'.
But again, if a pencil is culled out of a pencilade, one by one, so that the pencilade ends up as consitsting just of ONE pencil, I would still call it a 'pencilade' (which makes the singular-plural distintion otiose -- and as such unrecognised by Frege and Grice -- "(Ex)" "some (at least one)" --.
I would go Meinongian and say that if ALL the pencils are culled out of the pencilade, the thing while may not sub-sist, still 'in-sists'. (Ex-istence, in-sistence, sub-sistence), etc.
Die Berge, Das Gebirge: A Gricean otiosity (in Germany)
In Germany (German), if you see a set of mountains, you exclaim, "Beautiful gebirge", where 'gebirge' is collective for 'set of mountains'. The point is that the thing is perceived (alla Strawson) as an 'individual'. This is totally different, they claim, from "What beautiful mountains!"
Die Berge des Himalaya (The mountains of Himalaya). Everest, K2, Kanchenjunga, Lhotse, Makalu, Cho Oyu, Dhaulagiri I, Manaslu, Nanga Parbat, Broad Peak, ...
www.himalaya-info.org/ -
I claim that the difference is implicatural. Alla, "One troop was killed and his name was Jim."
Die Berge des Himalaya (The mountains of Himalaya). Everest, K2, Kanchenjunga, Lhotse, Makalu, Cho Oyu, Dhaulagiri I, Manaslu, Nanga Parbat, Broad Peak, ...
www.himalaya-info.org/ -
I claim that the difference is implicatural. Alla, "One troop was killed and his name was Jim."
gebirge: or "German Grice"
So, the plural of 'berg' is "berge"
and it translates:
Oxford-Duden German Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
"Bẹrg der; Bẹrg[e]s, Bẹrge
a.
"hill"
;
(im Hochgebirge) mountain;
b.(Haufen) huge pile;
(von Akten, Abfall auch) mountain
---
Note: "im Hochgebirge", though. Versus the simpler, "gebirge".
Or something (especially something).
and it translates:
Oxford-Duden German Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
"Bẹrg der; Bẹrg[e]s, Bẹrge
a.
"hill"
;
(im Hochgebirge) mountain;
b.(Haufen) huge pile;
(von Akten, Abfall auch) mountain
---
Note: "im Hochgebirge", though. Versus the simpler, "gebirge".
Or something (especially something).
A one-mountain "gebirge": how collective can the German ("Hun") be?
J:
"Der Berg = mountain. Das Gebirge = mountains. In that case I reluctantly grant that the piratenzunge, aka Anglo might be superior, or at least easier than the formal yet poetic Deutsch."
Poetic?
The logical point is geographical. Surely, there are no big mountains in England (cfr. that Wales-filmed film with Hugh Grant, "The Englishman who went up a hill and come down a mountain", or something).
J:
"There is a Mountain; there are the mountains. So the Anglo picks up the french-y plural with "s", instead of german root changes, case, and the blasted articles."
Yes. But surely the Germans could just as well called these "die" (plural 'the') and 'Berge' (plural for 'Berg', as in "Die Berge des Himalaya", in Asia, as seen by the Germans). So 'ge-birge' seems otiose, and odd.
J:
"But in German there are few if any ambiguities (same with trad. latin, and greek I imagine). The cases/plurals/objects are always quite clear (if puzzling to Mericans, who want to know why mountains are male...o Mr Mountain. Then they do the same with any euro language...Las Montanas...what the F's up wit' dat, Jed? Montanas? Like a female mountain?? )
----
Yes, the blame is in indo-European, which had gender.
Oddly, English still retains gender ("That ship is a beauty, she is" -- but oddly, I was told that 'ship' was a _neuter_ noun in Old English).
But I may want to analyse further the problem with the one-mountain 'mountain group' (gebirge). So stay tuned.
"Der Berg = mountain. Das Gebirge = mountains. In that case I reluctantly grant that the piratenzunge, aka Anglo might be superior, or at least easier than the formal yet poetic Deutsch."
Poetic?
The logical point is geographical. Surely, there are no big mountains in England (cfr. that Wales-filmed film with Hugh Grant, "The Englishman who went up a hill and come down a mountain", or something).
J:
"There is a Mountain; there are the mountains. So the Anglo picks up the french-y plural with "s", instead of german root changes, case, and the blasted articles."
Yes. But surely the Germans could just as well called these "die" (plural 'the') and 'Berge' (plural for 'Berg', as in "Die Berge des Himalaya", in Asia, as seen by the Germans). So 'ge-birge' seems otiose, and odd.
J:
"But in German there are few if any ambiguities (same with trad. latin, and greek I imagine). The cases/plurals/objects are always quite clear (if puzzling to Mericans, who want to know why mountains are male...o Mr Mountain. Then they do the same with any euro language...Las Montanas...what the F's up wit' dat, Jed? Montanas? Like a female mountain?? )
----
Yes, the blame is in indo-European, which had gender.
Oddly, English still retains gender ("That ship is a beauty, she is" -- but oddly, I was told that 'ship' was a _neuter_ noun in Old English).
But I may want to analyse further the problem with the one-mountain 'mountain group' (gebirge). So stay tuned.
The pragmatics (and implicatures) of collectives: number problems
A commentary on the wiki for "Collective noun"
"In linguistics, a collective noun is a word used to define a group of objects, where objects can be people, animals, emotions, inanimate things, concepts, or other things."
"where objects can be objects", I'd prefer to say. But then I'm no linguist. Don't you get slightly irritated by the phrase: "in linguistics". Surely we don't need to specify, in WHAT. Cfr. "In zoology, an elephant has a trunk."
---
The wiki continues:
"For example, in the phrase "a pride of lions," pride is a collective noun."
i.e. a collection of lions.
"Most collective nouns encountered in everyday speech, such as "group," are mundane and are not specific to one kind of constituent object."
Or 'menge' in German -- or 'set' in English. There is a symbolism for this:
A =E [a, b, ... n] where A is a 'set' and a,b,...n its members. If we can provide such a symbolism for a claim, then the denotans for 'A' is a collective
The wiki:
""For example, the terms "group of people," "group of dogs," and "group of ideas" are all correct uses. Others, especially words belonging to the large subset of collective nouns known as terms of venery (words for groups of animals), are specific to one kind of constituent object. For example, "pride" as a term of venery refers to lions— but not to dogs or llamas."
---- It's odd that a linguist should use 'correct' and 'incorrect' like that. I wouldn't think that "a pride of mice" is INCORRECT, per se. After all, 'pride' as in 'pride of lions' is a metaphor, i.e. a conversational implicature. It's nothing about what is being _said_.
The wiki:
"Collective nouns should not be confused with mass nouns, or with the collective grammatical number."
Just because they say I shouldn't confuse them, I do. I find this the 'counter-suggestion' type of style. "The WWI should not be confused with the WII". Who said we should?
Wiki:
"Derivation accounts for many collective words. Because derivation is a slower and less productive word formation process than the more overtly syntactical morphological methods, there are fewer collectives formed this way. As with all derived words, derivational collectives often differ semantically from the original words, acquiring new connotations and even new denotations. The English endings
"-age"
and
"-ade"
often signify a collective. Sometimes the relationship is easily recognizable:
baggage
drainage
blockade.
"However, even though the etymology is plain to see, the derived words take on quite a special meaning. German uses the prefix
"Ge-"
to create collectives. The root word often undergoes umlaut and suffixation as well as receiving the Ge- prefix. Nearly all nouns created in this way are of neuter gender. Examples include:
"das Gebirge"
"group of mountains," from der Berg, "mountain"
"das Gepäck",
"luggage, baggage" from der Pack, "pack, bundle, pile"
"das Geflügel",
"poultry, fowl (birds)" from late MHG gevlügel(e), under the influence of der Flügel, "wing," from MHG gevügel, from OHG gifugili = collective formation, from fogal, "bird"
"das Gefieder", "plumage" from die Feder, "feather"
----
Personally, I wouldn't think it is NECESSARY to have created a word for 'group of birds'. What's wrong with 'birds'?
---
"Two good examples of collective nouns are "team" and "government," which are both words referring to groups of (usually) people."
In America, they use 'administration', too, as opposed to 'government'. Strictly, 'administration' and 'government' are ABSTRACT things. Surely it would be odd to say that 'the government were wearing a bow-tie' or 'white shoes'.
The wiki:
"Both "team" and "government" are count nouns. (Consider: "one team," "two teams," "most teams"; "one government," "two governments," "many governments")."
The bother is the one-member team. Some team-work.
This relates to Grice's idea of the 'conversational implicature' as concerted speech. He argues that one cannot conversationally implicate to oneself. But I often contradict him on that. I like to mislead myself by non-detaching an implicatum via disentailment, or something.
Wiki:
"However, confusion often stems from the fact that plural verb forms can often be used, at least in English as it is used in several countries,"
---- as in the Austrian country, where they speak Austrian".
"with the singular forms of these count nouns (for example: "The team have finished the project")."
Even if it's a one-member team. "The team, who was called Jim, have finished the conversation."
Wiki:
"Conversely, singular verb forms can often be used with nouns ending in "-s" that were once considered plural (for example: "Physics is my favorite academic subject")."
"But metaphysics was Grice's".
"This apparent "number mismatch" is actually a quite natural and logical feature of human language,"
Logical? Implicatural, rather!
"and its mechanism is a subtle metonymic shift in the thoughts underlying the words. In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example,
"the team is in the dressing room"
(formal agreement)"
--
"And her name is [are?] Susan".
"refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst
"the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement)
--- "and her name 'are' Susan?"
"refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example,
"Germany have won the competition,"
---- but not "We lost our lugagge in Germany. Their airports are a mess."
Wiki:
""Madrid have lost three consecutive matches,"
------ "they were numbered, 'match 1', 'match 2', and 'match 3', and they were all in the same match box. Madrid's last name is Phillips and her personality is split."
"etc. In American English, collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components."
--- as in "One troop was killed and his name was Francis."
Wiki:
"In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "the team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or "the team is fighting [full stop].")
----
"The team, whose name is Susan, is fighting" (?)
"See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement. A good example of such a metonymic shift in the singular-to-plural direction (designated by the Latin term
"plurale tantum") is the following sentence: "The team have finished the project." In that sentence, the underlying thought is of the individual members of the team working together to finish the project."
--
as in
"Philip implicated to Philip that by uttering 'you are the cream in my coffee' Philip was Philip's pride and joy.
Wiki:
"Their accomplishment is collective, and the emphasis is not on their individual identities, yet they are at the same time still discrete individuals;"
---
as in:
"It's the same old gang -- her name is Patricia."
Wiki:
"the word choice "team have" manages to convey both their collective and discrete identities simultaneously. A good example of such a metonymic shift in the plural-to-singular direction is the following sentence: "Mathematics is my favorite academic subject.""
--- and Metaphysics was Aristotle's.
Wiki:
"The word "mathematics" may have originally been plural in concept, referring to mathematic endeavors, but metonymic shift—that is, the shift in concept from "the endeavors" to "the whole set of endeavors"—produced the usage of "mathematics" as a singular entity taking singular verb forms."
----
It was different with 'metaphysics'. Since this originated as "ta meta ta physika". The stuff (or stuffs) coming after the physical stuff (or stuffs).
Wiki:
"(A true mass-noun sense of "mathematics" followed naturally.) Nominally singular pronouns can be collective nouns taking plural verbs, according to the same rules that apply to other collective nouns. For example, it is correct British English or American English usage to say."
"None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right."
-----
And her name is Susan?
"In this case, the plural verb is used because the context for "none" suggests more than one thing or person.[1]"
"There is often confusion about, and confounding of, the two different concepts of collective noun and mass noun."
I actually dislike the term 'mass' as in 'mass noun'. I think 'mass' belongs in physics, not grammar. Surely Newton would have objected to the use of "mass" noun in _grammar_.
Wiki:
"Generally, collective nouns are not mass (non-count) nouns, but rather are a special subset of count nouns. However, the term "collective noun" is often used to mean "mass noun" (even in some dictionaries), because users confound two different kinds of verb number invariability."
"(a) that seen with mass nouns such as "water" or "furniture," with which only singular verb forms are used because the constituent matter is grammatically nondiscrete (although it may ["water"] or may not ["furniture"] be etically nondiscrete)"
--- etically?
Surely, "she gave me a lot of waters" sounds rude.
"; and (b) that seen with collective nouns, which is the result of the metonymical shift, discussed earlier, between the group and its (both grammatically and etically) discrete constituents."
Strictly,
"She gave me a lot of DROPS (of water)."
"Some words, including "mathematics" and "physics," have developed true mass-noun senses despite having grown from count-noun roots."
"The tradition of using collective nouns that are specific to certain kinds of animals stems from an English Medieval hunting tradition, dating back to at least the fifteenth century."
Before the hunting tradition (the monks), the monks did not hunt, hence the lack of venery collective terms in England during the time of the monks.
Wiki:
"Terms of venery [2] were used by gentlemen to distinguish themselves from yeomen and others and formed part of their education. Only a few of the terms were for groups of animals; others, such as "singular" for boars, described their characteristics or habits of life."
Oddly, singular is plural.
Wiki:
""Singular" may also be a corruption of the French ("sanglier")."
But then most French (people) are corrupted, so they (the French, collectively) wouldn't know.
Wiki:
"Misunderstandings over the centuries led to all the terms being regarded as collective nouns and some became unrecognisable through changes to the language and transcription errors: "besynys" (for ferrets) became "fesynes" instead of "busy-ness." Sometimes a term of venery will apply to a group only in a certain context."
""Herd" can properly refer to a group of wild horses, but not to a group of domestic horses."
where 'domestic' is in the eye of ... ?
(Surely a horse can be wild to me and domestic to you -- or vice versa).
Wiki:
"A "paddling of ducks" only refers to ducks on water."
As 'prostitutes in a brothel' only refers to prostitutes in a brothel.
"A group of geese on the ground is referred to as a "gaggle of geese" while a "skein of geese" would refer to them in flight."
and what's the word for a skein of geese as cooked and served with potatoes on a table?
Wiki:
"Interest in constituent-object-specific collective nouns has always remained high, and the coining of candidate collective nouns has been a pastime (usually humorous) of many writers, including for non-animal nouns, such as professions, e.g., a "sequitur of logicians."
--- and a 'scruple' of Griceans as someone suggested. I prefer "a grouse of grice" (In British English, 'grouse' is pronounced 'grice').
"See also: Linguistics concepts, Grammatical number, Mass noun, Measure words, Plural
Plurale tantum, Synesis
List of collective nouns for mammals
List of collective nouns for birds
List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants
List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians
list of collective nouns for animals
Lexical categories and their features
Noun Abstract/Concrete · Adjectival · Agent · Animate/Inanimate · Attributive · Collective · Common/Proper · Countable · Deverbal · Initial-stress-derived · Mass · Relational · Strong · Verbal · Weak
Verb Verb forms Finite · Non-finite — Attributive · Converb · Gerund · Gerundive · Infinitive · Participle (adjectival · adverbial) · Supine · Verbal noun
Verb types Accusative · Ambitransitive · Andative/Venitive · Anticausative · Autocausative · Auxiliary · Captative · Catenative · Compound · Copular · Defective · Denominal · Deponent · Ditransitive · Dynamic · ECM · Ergative · Frequentative · Impersonal · Inchoative · Intransitive · Irregular · Lexical · Light · Modal · Monotransitive · Negative · Performative · Phrasal · Predicative · Preterite-present · Reflexive · Regular · Separable · Stative · Stretched · Strong · Transitive · Unaccusative · Unergative · Weak
Adjective Collateral · Demonstrative · Possessive · Post-positive
Adverb Genitive · Conjunctive · Flat · Prepositional · Pronomial
Pronoun Demonstrative · Disjunctive · Distributive · Donkey · Dummy · Formal/Informal · Gender-neutral · Gender-specific · Inclusive/Exclusive · Indefinite · Intensive · Interrogative · Objective · Personal · Possessive · Prepositional · Reciprocal · Reflexive · Relative · Resumptive · Subjective · Weak
Preposition Inflected · Casally modulated
Conjunction
Determiner Article · Demonstrative · Interrogative · Possessive · Quantifier
Classifier
Particle Discourse · Modal · Noun
Complementizer
Other Copula · Coverb · Expletive · Interjection (verbal) · Measure word · Preverb · Pro-form · Pro-sentence · Pro-verb · Procedure word
English language
Wiktionary appendix of Collective Nouns
Interdisciplinary
Social units
References
1.^ Strunk & White, The Elements of Style (4th ed., 2000), p. 10.
2.^ Lipton, James (1993). An Exaltation of Larks: The Ultimate Edition. USA: Penguin Books. pp. 5–7. ISBN 0 14 01.7096 0.
Hodgkin, John.
Proper Terms: An attempt at a rational explanation of the meanings of the Collection of Phrases in "The Book of St Albans," 1486, entitled
"The Compaynys of beestys and fowlys" and similar lists., Transactions of the Philological Society 1907-1910 Part III, pp 1 - 187, Kegan, Paul, Trench & Trübner & Co, Ltd, London, 1909.
Shulman, Alon. A Mess of Iguanas... A Whoop of Gorillas: An Amazement of Animal Facts. Penguin. (First published Penguin 2009.) ISBN 9781846142550.
Lipton, James. An Exaltation of Larks, or The "Veneral" Game. Penguin. (First published Grossman Publishers 1968.) (Penguin first reprint 1977 ISBN 0140045368); in 1993 it was republished in Penguin with The Ultimate Edition as part of the title with the ISBN 0140170960 Hardcover Paperback
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun"
Categories: Grammar | Rhetoric | Grammatical number | Lists of collective nouns
"In linguistics, a collective noun is a word used to define a group of objects, where objects can be people, animals, emotions, inanimate things, concepts, or other things."
"where objects can be objects", I'd prefer to say. But then I'm no linguist. Don't you get slightly irritated by the phrase: "in linguistics". Surely we don't need to specify, in WHAT. Cfr. "In zoology, an elephant has a trunk."
---
The wiki continues:
"For example, in the phrase "a pride of lions," pride is a collective noun."
i.e. a collection of lions.
"Most collective nouns encountered in everyday speech, such as "group," are mundane and are not specific to one kind of constituent object."
Or 'menge' in German -- or 'set' in English. There is a symbolism for this:
A =E [a, b, ... n] where A is a 'set' and a,b,...n its members. If we can provide such a symbolism for a claim, then the denotans for 'A' is a collective
The wiki:
""For example, the terms "group of people," "group of dogs," and "group of ideas" are all correct uses. Others, especially words belonging to the large subset of collective nouns known as terms of venery (words for groups of animals), are specific to one kind of constituent object. For example, "pride" as a term of venery refers to lions— but not to dogs or llamas."
---- It's odd that a linguist should use 'correct' and 'incorrect' like that. I wouldn't think that "a pride of mice" is INCORRECT, per se. After all, 'pride' as in 'pride of lions' is a metaphor, i.e. a conversational implicature. It's nothing about what is being _said_.
The wiki:
"Collective nouns should not be confused with mass nouns, or with the collective grammatical number."
Just because they say I shouldn't confuse them, I do. I find this the 'counter-suggestion' type of style. "The WWI should not be confused with the WII". Who said we should?
Wiki:
"Derivation accounts for many collective words. Because derivation is a slower and less productive word formation process than the more overtly syntactical morphological methods, there are fewer collectives formed this way. As with all derived words, derivational collectives often differ semantically from the original words, acquiring new connotations and even new denotations. The English endings
"-age"
and
"-ade"
often signify a collective. Sometimes the relationship is easily recognizable:
baggage
drainage
blockade.
"However, even though the etymology is plain to see, the derived words take on quite a special meaning. German uses the prefix
"Ge-"
to create collectives. The root word often undergoes umlaut and suffixation as well as receiving the Ge- prefix. Nearly all nouns created in this way are of neuter gender. Examples include:
"das Gebirge"
"group of mountains," from der Berg, "mountain"
"das Gepäck",
"luggage, baggage" from der Pack, "pack, bundle, pile"
"das Geflügel",
"poultry, fowl (birds)" from late MHG gevlügel(e), under the influence of der Flügel, "wing," from MHG gevügel, from OHG gifugili = collective formation, from fogal, "bird"
"das Gefieder", "plumage" from die Feder, "feather"
----
Personally, I wouldn't think it is NECESSARY to have created a word for 'group of birds'. What's wrong with 'birds'?
---
"Two good examples of collective nouns are "team" and "government," which are both words referring to groups of (usually) people."
In America, they use 'administration', too, as opposed to 'government'. Strictly, 'administration' and 'government' are ABSTRACT things. Surely it would be odd to say that 'the government were wearing a bow-tie' or 'white shoes'.
The wiki:
"Both "team" and "government" are count nouns. (Consider: "one team," "two teams," "most teams"; "one government," "two governments," "many governments")."
The bother is the one-member team. Some team-work.
This relates to Grice's idea of the 'conversational implicature' as concerted speech. He argues that one cannot conversationally implicate to oneself. But I often contradict him on that. I like to mislead myself by non-detaching an implicatum via disentailment, or something.
Wiki:
"However, confusion often stems from the fact that plural verb forms can often be used, at least in English as it is used in several countries,"
---- as in the Austrian country, where they speak Austrian".
"with the singular forms of these count nouns (for example: "The team have finished the project")."
Even if it's a one-member team. "The team, who was called Jim, have finished the conversation."
Wiki:
"Conversely, singular verb forms can often be used with nouns ending in "-s" that were once considered plural (for example: "Physics is my favorite academic subject")."
"But metaphysics was Grice's".
"This apparent "number mismatch" is actually a quite natural and logical feature of human language,"
Logical? Implicatural, rather!
"and its mechanism is a subtle metonymic shift in the thoughts underlying the words. In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example,
"the team is in the dressing room"
(formal agreement)"
--
"And her name is [are?] Susan".
"refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst
"the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement)
--- "and her name 'are' Susan?"
"refers to the team as individuals. This is also British English practice with names of countries and cities in sports contexts; for example,
"Germany have won the competition,"
---- but not "We lost our lugagge in Germany. Their airports are a mess."
Wiki:
""Madrid have lost three consecutive matches,"
------ "they were numbered, 'match 1', 'match 2', and 'match 3', and they were all in the same match box. Madrid's last name is Phillips and her personality is split."
"etc. In American English, collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components."
--- as in "One troop was killed and his name was Francis."
Wiki:
"In cases where a metonymic shift would be otherwise revealed nearby, the whole sentence may be recast to avoid the metonymy. (For example, "the team are fighting among themselves" may become "the team members are fighting among themselves" or "the team is fighting [full stop].")
----
"The team, whose name is Susan, is fighting" (?)
"See American and British English differences - Formal and notional agreement. A good example of such a metonymic shift in the singular-to-plural direction (designated by the Latin term
"plurale tantum") is the following sentence: "The team have finished the project." In that sentence, the underlying thought is of the individual members of the team working together to finish the project."
--
as in
"Philip implicated to Philip that by uttering 'you are the cream in my coffee' Philip was Philip's pride and joy.
Wiki:
"Their accomplishment is collective, and the emphasis is not on their individual identities, yet they are at the same time still discrete individuals;"
---
as in:
"It's the same old gang -- her name is Patricia."
Wiki:
"the word choice "team have" manages to convey both their collective and discrete identities simultaneously. A good example of such a metonymic shift in the plural-to-singular direction is the following sentence: "Mathematics is my favorite academic subject.""
--- and Metaphysics was Aristotle's.
Wiki:
"The word "mathematics" may have originally been plural in concept, referring to mathematic endeavors, but metonymic shift—that is, the shift in concept from "the endeavors" to "the whole set of endeavors"—produced the usage of "mathematics" as a singular entity taking singular verb forms."
----
It was different with 'metaphysics'. Since this originated as "ta meta ta physika". The stuff (or stuffs) coming after the physical stuff (or stuffs).
Wiki:
"(A true mass-noun sense of "mathematics" followed naturally.) Nominally singular pronouns can be collective nouns taking plural verbs, according to the same rules that apply to other collective nouns. For example, it is correct British English or American English usage to say."
"None are so fallible as those who are sure they're right."
-----
And her name is Susan?
"In this case, the plural verb is used because the context for "none" suggests more than one thing or person.[1]"
"There is often confusion about, and confounding of, the two different concepts of collective noun and mass noun."
I actually dislike the term 'mass' as in 'mass noun'. I think 'mass' belongs in physics, not grammar. Surely Newton would have objected to the use of "mass" noun in _grammar_.
Wiki:
"Generally, collective nouns are not mass (non-count) nouns, but rather are a special subset of count nouns. However, the term "collective noun" is often used to mean "mass noun" (even in some dictionaries), because users confound two different kinds of verb number invariability."
"(a) that seen with mass nouns such as "water" or "furniture," with which only singular verb forms are used because the constituent matter is grammatically nondiscrete (although it may ["water"] or may not ["furniture"] be etically nondiscrete)"
--- etically?
Surely, "she gave me a lot of waters" sounds rude.
"; and (b) that seen with collective nouns, which is the result of the metonymical shift, discussed earlier, between the group and its (both grammatically and etically) discrete constituents."
Strictly,
"She gave me a lot of DROPS (of water)."
"Some words, including "mathematics" and "physics," have developed true mass-noun senses despite having grown from count-noun roots."
"The tradition of using collective nouns that are specific to certain kinds of animals stems from an English Medieval hunting tradition, dating back to at least the fifteenth century."
Before the hunting tradition (the monks), the monks did not hunt, hence the lack of venery collective terms in England during the time of the monks.
Wiki:
"Terms of venery [2] were used by gentlemen to distinguish themselves from yeomen and others and formed part of their education. Only a few of the terms were for groups of animals; others, such as "singular" for boars, described their characteristics or habits of life."
Oddly, singular is plural.
Wiki:
""Singular" may also be a corruption of the French ("sanglier")."
But then most French (people) are corrupted, so they (the French, collectively) wouldn't know.
Wiki:
"Misunderstandings over the centuries led to all the terms being regarded as collective nouns and some became unrecognisable through changes to the language and transcription errors: "besynys" (for ferrets) became "fesynes" instead of "busy-ness." Sometimes a term of venery will apply to a group only in a certain context."
""Herd" can properly refer to a group of wild horses, but not to a group of domestic horses."
where 'domestic' is in the eye of ... ?
(Surely a horse can be wild to me and domestic to you -- or vice versa).
Wiki:
"A "paddling of ducks" only refers to ducks on water."
As 'prostitutes in a brothel' only refers to prostitutes in a brothel.
"A group of geese on the ground is referred to as a "gaggle of geese" while a "skein of geese" would refer to them in flight."
and what's the word for a skein of geese as cooked and served with potatoes on a table?
Wiki:
"Interest in constituent-object-specific collective nouns has always remained high, and the coining of candidate collective nouns has been a pastime (usually humorous) of many writers, including for non-animal nouns, such as professions, e.g., a "sequitur of logicians."
--- and a 'scruple' of Griceans as someone suggested. I prefer "a grouse of grice" (In British English, 'grouse' is pronounced 'grice').
"See also: Linguistics concepts, Grammatical number, Mass noun, Measure words, Plural
Plurale tantum, Synesis
List of collective nouns for mammals
List of collective nouns for birds
List of collective nouns for fish, invertebrates, and plants
List of collective nouns for reptiles and amphibians
list of collective nouns for animals
Lexical categories and their features
Noun Abstract/Concrete · Adjectival · Agent · Animate/Inanimate · Attributive · Collective · Common/Proper · Countable · Deverbal · Initial-stress-derived · Mass · Relational · Strong · Verbal · Weak
Verb Verb forms Finite · Non-finite — Attributive · Converb · Gerund · Gerundive · Infinitive · Participle (adjectival · adverbial) · Supine · Verbal noun
Verb types Accusative · Ambitransitive · Andative/Venitive · Anticausative · Autocausative · Auxiliary · Captative · Catenative · Compound · Copular · Defective · Denominal · Deponent · Ditransitive · Dynamic · ECM · Ergative · Frequentative · Impersonal · Inchoative · Intransitive · Irregular · Lexical · Light · Modal · Monotransitive · Negative · Performative · Phrasal · Predicative · Preterite-present · Reflexive · Regular · Separable · Stative · Stretched · Strong · Transitive · Unaccusative · Unergative · Weak
Adjective Collateral · Demonstrative · Possessive · Post-positive
Adverb Genitive · Conjunctive · Flat · Prepositional · Pronomial
Pronoun Demonstrative · Disjunctive · Distributive · Donkey · Dummy · Formal/Informal · Gender-neutral · Gender-specific · Inclusive/Exclusive · Indefinite · Intensive · Interrogative · Objective · Personal · Possessive · Prepositional · Reciprocal · Reflexive · Relative · Resumptive · Subjective · Weak
Preposition Inflected · Casally modulated
Conjunction
Determiner Article · Demonstrative · Interrogative · Possessive · Quantifier
Classifier
Particle Discourse · Modal · Noun
Complementizer
Other Copula · Coverb · Expletive · Interjection (verbal) · Measure word · Preverb · Pro-form · Pro-sentence · Pro-verb · Procedure word
English language
Wiktionary appendix of Collective Nouns
Interdisciplinary
Social units
References
1.^ Strunk & White, The Elements of Style (4th ed., 2000), p. 10.
2.^ Lipton, James (1993). An Exaltation of Larks: The Ultimate Edition. USA: Penguin Books. pp. 5–7. ISBN 0 14 01.7096 0.
Hodgkin, John.
Proper Terms: An attempt at a rational explanation of the meanings of the Collection of Phrases in "The Book of St Albans," 1486, entitled
"The Compaynys of beestys and fowlys" and similar lists., Transactions of the Philological Society 1907-1910 Part III, pp 1 - 187, Kegan, Paul, Trench & Trübner & Co, Ltd, London, 1909.
Shulman, Alon. A Mess of Iguanas... A Whoop of Gorillas: An Amazement of Animal Facts. Penguin. (First published Penguin 2009.) ISBN 9781846142550.
Lipton, James. An Exaltation of Larks, or The "Veneral" Game. Penguin. (First published Grossman Publishers 1968.) (Penguin first reprint 1977 ISBN 0140045368); in 1993 it was republished in Penguin with The Ultimate Edition as part of the title with the ISBN 0140170960 Hardcover Paperback
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun"
Categories: Grammar | Rhetoric | Grammatical number | Lists of collective nouns
The pragmatics of collectives
Chapman retells that when Grice did try to follow Austin and go 'through the dictionary' he stopped at "feeling Byzantine" (he covered the "A" to "B"). Ditto for me on the collective under wiki. Collectives for "A" include as per the below and it's enough to give you a headake.
Surely it would be misleading to refer to ONE 'ant' as forming an 'army'. But then people DO say 'the troop's name was Jim". So there.
---
Subject Collective Term
ants An army of ants[2]
ants A bike of ants[2]
ants A colony of ants[2]
ants A swarm of ants[2]
antelope A cluster of antelope[2]
antelope A herd of antelope[2]
antelope A tribe of antelope[2]
apes A shrewdness of apes[1]
apes A troop of apes[2]
asses (roped) A coffle of asses[2]
asses (driven) A drove of asses[2]
asses A herd of asses[2]
asses A pace of asses[1]
auks (on land) A colony of auks[2]
auks (at sea) A flock of auks[2]
auks (on water) A raft of auks[2]
Surely it would be misleading to refer to ONE 'ant' as forming an 'army'. But then people DO say 'the troop's name was Jim". So there.
---
Subject Collective Term
ants An army of ants[2]
ants A bike of ants[2]
ants A colony of ants[2]
ants A swarm of ants[2]
antelope A cluster of antelope[2]
antelope A herd of antelope[2]
antelope A tribe of antelope[2]
apes A shrewdness of apes[1]
apes A troop of apes[2]
asses (roped) A coffle of asses[2]
asses (driven) A drove of asses[2]
asses A herd of asses[2]
asses A pace of asses[1]
auks (on land) A colony of auks[2]
auks (at sea) A flock of auks[2]
auks (on water) A raft of auks[2]
The Grice Club And Its Members (Was: "The pragmatics of collectives": Was: "one troop too few"
J:
"in terms of language use your own descriptivist view would seem to imply accepting "gang" as a collective, not a single person, which is indicated by gangster (a member of a gang, like included...hey set theory, in brief!)."
---- Yes. There is a detail as to verb form (cfr. Davidson, "The logic of action sentences"). Strictly, "the gang WERE dangerous", rather than "was" dangerous ("The gang are dangerous").
---
J:
""gang" is germanic/deutsch---as in walk, ie Gangplank, related to v. "gehen", to go ( "gegangen" gone). So yr correct that it's sort of awkward as well, and the use in English for "mob", or "group of criminals" fairly recent,"
I wonder if that originated -- where? It is odd that because some people are GOING (somewhere) they are a "gang"). Incidentally, when I walk my dog, I'm in a gang, too.
(and so is my dog).
"but...English, ie anglo-saxonish has always been a mishmash, if not a mess (as one old philosophaster told me...). But at least in Anglo, it seems coherent to show a difference between the group, and the individual (as type theory would imply as well). Gang, gangster; troop, trooper; mob, mobster. Even if it sounds like piratenzunge to a native German."
Well, but what about "Grice Club". Surely that's a collective. "The Grice Club were dangerous". Surely, if we all die (etc.) the phrase "The Grice Club" does NOT become vacuous. So, the SEMANTICS of "Grice Club" (or 'flock of criminals') is stuffy enough (full of stuff -- vide Jones on "Vacuous Names", his pdf in his site). Never mind the PRAGMATICS.
It's odd that while you, J, me, and Jones -- and Grice, etc. -- understand the lambda operations and the type-theories, most people who use words like 'mob', 'gang', or 'club' do NOT (necessarily). And so, they treat 'troop' (qua collective) at the same level of 'troop' as a MEMBER of a collective. A one-'troop' troop is still a troop. And literally, a troop EXISTS, qua type, beyond its (or her?, "troupe" is feminine in French) members.
J:
"As far as practical editing/journalist I think the preferred usage is service people, men/women serving in the military, or in uniform, perhaps soldiers. The use of "troops" is colloquial (tho' often used....but really "support our troops" seems to suggest, like support our groups of soldiers, or our teams, our gangs, etc)."
Yes. I'll check with wiki what they have about collectives. It would be interesting to check if they are necessary -- collectives -- and if they translate to ALL languages.
Etc.
"in terms of language use your own descriptivist view would seem to imply accepting "gang" as a collective, not a single person, which is indicated by gangster (a member of a gang, like included...hey set theory, in brief!)."
---- Yes. There is a detail as to verb form (cfr. Davidson, "The logic of action sentences"). Strictly, "the gang WERE dangerous", rather than "was" dangerous ("The gang are dangerous").
---
J:
""gang" is germanic/deutsch---as in walk, ie Gangplank, related to v. "gehen", to go ( "gegangen" gone). So yr correct that it's sort of awkward as well, and the use in English for "mob", or "group of criminals" fairly recent,"
I wonder if that originated -- where? It is odd that because some people are GOING (somewhere) they are a "gang"). Incidentally, when I walk my dog, I'm in a gang, too.
(and so is my dog).
"but...English, ie anglo-saxonish has always been a mishmash, if not a mess (as one old philosophaster told me...). But at least in Anglo, it seems coherent to show a difference between the group, and the individual (as type theory would imply as well). Gang, gangster; troop, trooper; mob, mobster. Even if it sounds like piratenzunge to a native German."
Well, but what about "Grice Club". Surely that's a collective. "The Grice Club were dangerous". Surely, if we all die (etc.) the phrase "The Grice Club" does NOT become vacuous. So, the SEMANTICS of "Grice Club" (or 'flock of criminals') is stuffy enough (full of stuff -- vide Jones on "Vacuous Names", his pdf in his site). Never mind the PRAGMATICS.
It's odd that while you, J, me, and Jones -- and Grice, etc. -- understand the lambda operations and the type-theories, most people who use words like 'mob', 'gang', or 'club' do NOT (necessarily). And so, they treat 'troop' (qua collective) at the same level of 'troop' as a MEMBER of a collective. A one-'troop' troop is still a troop. And literally, a troop EXISTS, qua type, beyond its (or her?, "troupe" is feminine in French) members.
J:
"As far as practical editing/journalist I think the preferred usage is service people, men/women serving in the military, or in uniform, perhaps soldiers. The use of "troops" is colloquial (tho' often used....but really "support our troops" seems to suggest, like support our groups of soldiers, or our teams, our gangs, etc)."
Yes. I'll check with wiki what they have about collectives. It would be interesting to check if they are necessary -- collectives -- and if they translate to ALL languages.
Etc.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The pragmatics of collectives (Was: "one troop too few")
J:
"As far as the slightly logical point, would you consider one person a ...gang itself? So...Lil G. shows up on yr street, representing for the....Q street boys. Just by hisself. You and yr homies see him out there: yo Lil G, are you in a gang? He say's yeah. So where are yr homies, Lil G? He says" I don't have any.Im the gang, Lil G of Q Street boys." Yd probably call the mental health authorities as well as cops. A Gang implies a collective group, plurality. Same for ...troop, I believe."
Well, 'gang', since you are into etymythology and like to focus that 'troup' is Germanic, in origin, so is 'gang'.
"Gang" is German, and I think it means 'go' in German-A 'go go' girl' is a gang-gang girl.
Surely there's nothing contradictory about ONE girl 'going'. A 'gang', literally.
My point is Griceian and Hornian, or something.
It concerns 'numerals', and the idea that it's very irritating to have the semantics of one's language depend on imprecisions like that.
Consider '1'.
Apparently, '1' was not a number for the Greeks (number = 'arithmos'). McLarty -- a mathematician -- explained that to me. "1" was the UNITY. We wouldn't say that an elephant has "a number of trunks" -- he has just one.
Still, I would think that it can be argued that '1' IS possibly a number.
McLarty irritated me further by pointing out to me that '2' was NEITHER a 'number' for the Greeks. It was the 'pair'. "3" was the FIRST number.
(Of course this was before the Arabs, who confused things further by saying that "0" is a number -- "There are a number of eggs in the basket." "What number?" "Zero eggs".
Cfr. zero-tolerance.
----
So, my point is about numerals. Surely it would be odd to say that a 'gang' has to have at least TWO members.
It's better to deal with 'collectives' as 'abstractions' or logical constructions, alla Russell. It's a different "Type" (as Russell's theory of types indicates).
----
So, we have a 'gang' which means, 'going' out. For some reason, when this word was first used, it was indicated that "a number" of people were going out, but that is neither here nor there.
---
Most collectives are like that.
--- although I haven't surveyed them ALL. It may be that in SOME expressions of a 'collective', the thing IS entailed (rather than conversationally implicated, as I prefer).
So if you say,
"I saw a gang in the corner".
"Lucy?"
"Yes --"
"But she is on her own".
"So? That's what 'gang' means, etymologically."
---
From online source:
gang--
O.E. gong "a going, journey, way, passage," and O.N. gangr "a group of men, a set," both from P.Gmc. *gangaz (noun of action related to *gangan "to go"), from PIE base *ghengh- "to step" (cf. Skt. jangha "shank," Avestan zanga- "ankle," Lith. zengiu "I stride"). The sense evolution is probably via meaning "a set of articles that are usually taken together in going," especially a set of tools used on the same job. By 1620s this had been extended in nautical speech to mean "a company of workmen," and by 1630s the word was being used, with disapproving overtones, for "any band of persons traveling together." Gangway preserves the original sense of the word, as does gangplank. To gang up (on) is first attested 1925. To come on like gangbusters (c.1940) is from radio drama "Gangbusters" (1937-57) which always opened with a cacophony of sirens, screams, shots, and jarring music. Gang of Four (1976) translates Chinese sirenbang, the nickname given to the four leaders of the Cultural Revolution who took the fall in Communist China after the death of Mao.
"As far as the slightly logical point, would you consider one person a ...gang itself? So...Lil G. shows up on yr street, representing for the....Q street boys. Just by hisself. You and yr homies see him out there: yo Lil G, are you in a gang? He say's yeah. So where are yr homies, Lil G? He says" I don't have any.Im the gang, Lil G of Q Street boys." Yd probably call the mental health authorities as well as cops. A Gang implies a collective group, plurality. Same for ...troop, I believe."
Well, 'gang', since you are into etymythology and like to focus that 'troup' is Germanic, in origin, so is 'gang'.
"Gang" is German, and I think it means 'go' in German-A 'go go' girl' is a gang-gang girl.
Surely there's nothing contradictory about ONE girl 'going'. A 'gang', literally.
My point is Griceian and Hornian, or something.
It concerns 'numerals', and the idea that it's very irritating to have the semantics of one's language depend on imprecisions like that.
Consider '1'.
Apparently, '1' was not a number for the Greeks (number = 'arithmos'). McLarty -- a mathematician -- explained that to me. "1" was the UNITY. We wouldn't say that an elephant has "a number of trunks" -- he has just one.
Still, I would think that it can be argued that '1' IS possibly a number.
McLarty irritated me further by pointing out to me that '2' was NEITHER a 'number' for the Greeks. It was the 'pair'. "3" was the FIRST number.
(Of course this was before the Arabs, who confused things further by saying that "0" is a number -- "There are a number of eggs in the basket." "What number?" "Zero eggs".
Cfr. zero-tolerance.
----
So, my point is about numerals. Surely it would be odd to say that a 'gang' has to have at least TWO members.
It's better to deal with 'collectives' as 'abstractions' or logical constructions, alla Russell. It's a different "Type" (as Russell's theory of types indicates).
----
So, we have a 'gang' which means, 'going' out. For some reason, when this word was first used, it was indicated that "a number" of people were going out, but that is neither here nor there.
---
Most collectives are like that.
--- although I haven't surveyed them ALL. It may be that in SOME expressions of a 'collective', the thing IS entailed (rather than conversationally implicated, as I prefer).
So if you say,
"I saw a gang in the corner".
"Lucy?"
"Yes --"
"But she is on her own".
"So? That's what 'gang' means, etymologically."
---
From online source:
gang--
O.E. gong "a going, journey, way, passage," and O.N. gangr "a group of men, a set," both from P.Gmc. *gangaz (noun of action related to *gangan "to go"), from PIE base *ghengh- "to step" (cf. Skt. jangha "shank," Avestan zanga- "ankle," Lith. zengiu "I stride"). The sense evolution is probably via meaning "a set of articles that are usually taken together in going," especially a set of tools used on the same job. By 1620s this had been extended in nautical speech to mean "a company of workmen," and by 1630s the word was being used, with disapproving overtones, for "any band of persons traveling together." Gangway preserves the original sense of the word, as does gangplank. To gang up (on) is first attested 1925. To come on like gangbusters (c.1940) is from radio drama "Gangbusters" (1937-57) which always opened with a cacophony of sirens, screams, shots, and jarring music. Gang of Four (1976) translates Chinese sirenbang, the nickname given to the four leaders of the Cultural Revolution who took the fall in Communist China after the death of Mao.
One troop too few?
J:
"syntactically speaking, it should be trooper, or even troopster, instead of "troop" (as "gangster" comes from "gang")."
----
I wonder if Syntax exists. I think "Syntax" is feminine, qua noun. As when in Italian they say "Virtu" (Virtue), another feminine.
It's US (utterers) who create syntax. So, when people say "troop" rather than 'trooper', one wonders who is following who.
I claim that if people use "troop" when 'syntactically' they should be using 'trooper', then it's 'syntax' that has to adapt to that. Not the other way round?
J goes on:
""Troop" is just the usual American slang... per Bierce..."the grunt of the human hog." Dubya should have said, "I shall not put troopsters in harm's way.""
------
Yes. One troopster too few.
I'm using 'too few' on purpose. I find that the idiom is, in general, for some reason, "one --- too many" -- but surely there is no logical reason why
"one --- too FEW"
should not make sense too.
---- If the 'troop' (collective) includes only one troopster ('troop' in this other sense), then McWhorther is claiming that a one-troop troop (a troop with just one troopster) has 'one troop too few'. With TWO TROOPS (two people) the troop (qua collective) is ok.
But the Griceian point is that this is implicatural. Surely a one-troopster troop is still a troop:
"The troop ARE coming".
---
J:
""Grunt" as noun also works for infantrymen, but some might take offense. I still think McWhorter was mostly correct that professional writers should use "soldiers" (or servicepeople, perhaps) over the slang "troops"."
------ and corpseman? (:)).
J:
"Moreoever I think the OED snobs are mistaken re etymology of "troop." While it did become frenchified, and used for like "troupe of thespians" it's quite clearly germanic-goth, ala dorf, thorp, thrup (with the theta). The GMC entered the frankish often. The quasi-latinate "troppus" followed the GMC pretty evidently --but the OED have a latinate presumption (with some reason)."
----
Yes, but surely there is some charm about a theatrical troup which only includes a troupster.
"We used to be a double-act," reminisced Costello (of Abbot and Costello fame), but when Abbott left, I was the troupe."
J:
"There are cognates with the goth in sanskrit I believe--as with many GMC words."
---- I'll check them out.
Let's reconsider the original query to Michael Quinion, from Rosemary Delnavine:
"For at least as long as Western troops have been occupying
Afghanistan and Iraq, news reports have routinely misused the word
"troops""
'misuse' is being misused here!
"when talking about soldiers. Am I right in thinking that
"three troops were wounded" not only sounds daft but is incorrect
when what is meant is "three soldiers"?"
Not according to the OED. Although a scare quote would not harm: "Three 'troops' were wounded".
Now, if they were killed, 'wounded' would be underinformative, mind.
Rosemary goes on:
""Three troopers", yes, if
they were part of a regiment that is or was mounted."
Exactly. There's the regiment and there's the 'troop'. Technically, in theory, the number of SOLDIERS per troop should be fixed. I read a lot about the Roman army and the numbers were quite great, I mean high, I mean big.
---- Surely a one-soldier troop would be VERY GRICEAIANLY still called a 'troop', but not FALSELY.
Quinion answers:
"This usage has been bugging Americans in recent years,"
and not Brits? Surely they consume the same newspapers!
"with a
lot of comment appearing on language-related sites.
The traditional position that you are likely to find in reference
books is that "troop" is a collective term for a group of people of
unspecified number (it's from medieval Latin "troppus", a flock,
and is the same word as "troupe" for a theatrical group)."
------
Surely it would be misleading to say that you saw a flock of ostriches flying around -- for one, they don't fly, for another, what if it was just ONE?
--
"You can
refer to more than one troop in the sense of a set of such
collections ("the jamboree was attended by several dozen scout
troops")"
---- Or, the crops were attended by several flocks.
"and use "troops" as a generalised collective term for the
forces ("the occasion was full of emotion and flag-waving as the
crowds lined the streets of Morpeth to give the troops a rousing
Northumbrian welcome.")."
Only it turned out that the only survivor in the troops was "Tommy -- troopster -- Atkins", who lacked a leg. (Bad humour, but this is fiction).
"The usage of "troops" that [Rosemary] refer[s] to is actually not that new.
For more than two centuries writers have used it for a countable
number of individuals, provided the number is large and not closely
specified."
---- Surely something as VAGUE as that cannot be given a 'meaning postulate' alla Carnap. "Large enough". Consider, "His nose is big". "Big meaning 'large enough and not closely specified'?
Quinion:
"An early example:
This Attack is to be commanded by General Alvinzy; and
the Army which he will lead to it will consist of Fifty
Thousand Troops in the highest order and spirits, and
confident of success.
[The True Briton (London), 1 Feb. 1797.]"
-----
5,000 troops -- meaning 5,000 soldiers.
The problem is if by diminution you get
1-member troop -- meaning 1 soldier (or 'troop').
Quinion adds:
"It's easy to find many similar instances throughout the nineteenth
century, so it's notable that the Oxford English Dictionary's entry
for "troop", written in the early years of the twentieth century,
doesn't include this plural countable use. Despite this long history, many people continue to be unhappy about it. The linguist John McWhorter objected to it on National Public Radio in March 2007: "Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
He noted in particular that "This usage of troops is only possible
in the plural."
But here is where he goes wrong, because the OED has a 1832 quote where 'troop' IS used in the singular.
"One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. ..."
But one CAN. What McWhorter means, as per Grice ('avoid ambiguity'?) is that one SHOULDN'T.
McWhorter:
"This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg."
Quinion comments:
"It's becoming ever clearer that this
objection won't survive the pressure of current usage, at least by
the US media. "Troop" is increasingly being employed in reports for
an individual member of the armed forces:
The international force in Afghanistan says three
American troops have been killed by a roadside bomb in
the violence-wracked south. A NATO statement says two
troops died immediately after the blast Tuesday.
[AP News, 7 Jul. 2010.]
It came particularly to public notice in early November 2006, when
Senator John Kerry made an unfortunate joke and had to apologise:
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform
and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not
about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
I'm told that singular "troop" for an individual has been recorded
in US military slang from World War Two. People who were in the
services during the 1950s and 1960s say it was then common in the
Army."
And here is the crucial quote of 1832 that refutes McWhorter's point about 'troop' not being used in the singular.
Quinion:
"The Oxford English Dictionary added the sense to the entry
for "troop" in 1993 (despite continuing to omit the countable
plural form), with one isolated case from 1832 (
"As the wounded 'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed."),
but
noted it was then chiefly military."
---- As if some words could only be used by, say, prostitutes. Surely we need to be liberal, Griceainly, at this point.
Quinion:
"That's no longer true. "Troop" has developed into a singular and small plural count noun for several reasons. There are now many more women in the various
US armed forces and this presents gender-related difficulties in
finding suitable terms for individuals ("serviceman" doesn't work
any longer). More significantly, it's been difficult to find an
inclusive term for a single member of the combined services -
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and so on. "Serviceperson" or
"member of the armed forces" hardly trip off the tongue. The US
Department of Defense likes "servicemember" but that works only in
bureaucratese, not in news headlines or everyday speech. Though
"trooper" is available in theory, it's restricted in American usage
mainly to a member of the state police, and otherwise to a mounted
soldier in a cavalry regiment. "Warrior" has been popular, within
and outside the military, but has connotations that have rendered
it unpopular or unsuitable for some. "Combatant" is almost always
pejorative ("enemy combatant"). Not least, "troop" is usefully
short for fitting into headlines.
Despite wide unhappiness about it, there's no doubt that singular
"troop" has become a settled part of the language of the US media.
But I agree with John McWhorter that it will be some while, if
ever, before a member of the armed forces describes himself or
herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as soldier or airman
will continue to take precedence."
----
Yes, 'soldier' is too long of a word. "Tom" as in "tommy" (Atkins) may be better, but perhaps it's too masculine. (Although Tomasa is an Italian name).
And so on.
In general, I am with J in preferring monosyllabic words unless I find something specifically too supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to be true (or false, for that matter).
"syntactically speaking, it should be trooper, or even troopster, instead of "troop" (as "gangster" comes from "gang")."
----
I wonder if Syntax exists. I think "Syntax" is feminine, qua noun. As when in Italian they say "Virtu" (Virtue), another feminine.
It's US (utterers) who create syntax. So, when people say "troop" rather than 'trooper', one wonders who is following who.
I claim that if people use "troop" when 'syntactically' they should be using 'trooper', then it's 'syntax' that has to adapt to that. Not the other way round?
J goes on:
""Troop" is just the usual American slang... per Bierce..."the grunt of the human hog." Dubya should have said, "I shall not put troopsters in harm's way.""
------
Yes. One troopster too few.
I'm using 'too few' on purpose. I find that the idiom is, in general, for some reason, "one --- too many" -- but surely there is no logical reason why
"one --- too FEW"
should not make sense too.
---- If the 'troop' (collective) includes only one troopster ('troop' in this other sense), then McWhorther is claiming that a one-troop troop (a troop with just one troopster) has 'one troop too few'. With TWO TROOPS (two people) the troop (qua collective) is ok.
But the Griceian point is that this is implicatural. Surely a one-troopster troop is still a troop:
"The troop ARE coming".
---
J:
""Grunt" as noun also works for infantrymen, but some might take offense. I still think McWhorter was mostly correct that professional writers should use "soldiers" (or servicepeople, perhaps) over the slang "troops"."
------ and corpseman? (:)).
J:
"Moreoever I think the OED snobs are mistaken re etymology of "troop." While it did become frenchified, and used for like "troupe of thespians" it's quite clearly germanic-goth, ala dorf, thorp, thrup (with the theta). The GMC entered the frankish often. The quasi-latinate "troppus" followed the GMC pretty evidently --but the OED have a latinate presumption (with some reason)."
----
Yes, but surely there is some charm about a theatrical troup which only includes a troupster.
"We used to be a double-act," reminisced Costello (of Abbot and Costello fame), but when Abbott left, I was the troupe."
J:
"There are cognates with the goth in sanskrit I believe--as with many GMC words."
---- I'll check them out.
Let's reconsider the original query to Michael Quinion, from Rosemary Delnavine:
"For at least as long as Western troops have been occupying
Afghanistan and Iraq, news reports have routinely misused the word
"troops""
'misuse' is being misused here!
"when talking about soldiers. Am I right in thinking that
"three troops were wounded" not only sounds daft but is incorrect
when what is meant is "three soldiers"?"
Not according to the OED. Although a scare quote would not harm: "Three 'troops' were wounded".
Now, if they were killed, 'wounded' would be underinformative, mind.
Rosemary goes on:
""Three troopers", yes, if
they were part of a regiment that is or was mounted."
Exactly. There's the regiment and there's the 'troop'. Technically, in theory, the number of SOLDIERS per troop should be fixed. I read a lot about the Roman army and the numbers were quite great, I mean high, I mean big.
---- Surely a one-soldier troop would be VERY GRICEAIANLY still called a 'troop', but not FALSELY.
Quinion answers:
"This usage has been bugging Americans in recent years,"
and not Brits? Surely they consume the same newspapers!
"with a
lot of comment appearing on language-related sites.
The traditional position that you are likely to find in reference
books is that "troop" is a collective term for a group of people of
unspecified number (it's from medieval Latin "troppus", a flock,
and is the same word as "troupe" for a theatrical group)."
------
Surely it would be misleading to say that you saw a flock of ostriches flying around -- for one, they don't fly, for another, what if it was just ONE?
--
"You can
refer to more than one troop in the sense of a set of such
collections ("the jamboree was attended by several dozen scout
troops")"
---- Or, the crops were attended by several flocks.
"and use "troops" as a generalised collective term for the
forces ("the occasion was full of emotion and flag-waving as the
crowds lined the streets of Morpeth to give the troops a rousing
Northumbrian welcome.")."
Only it turned out that the only survivor in the troops was "Tommy -- troopster -- Atkins", who lacked a leg. (Bad humour, but this is fiction).
"The usage of "troops" that [Rosemary] refer[s] to is actually not that new.
For more than two centuries writers have used it for a countable
number of individuals, provided the number is large and not closely
specified."
---- Surely something as VAGUE as that cannot be given a 'meaning postulate' alla Carnap. "Large enough". Consider, "His nose is big". "Big meaning 'large enough and not closely specified'?
Quinion:
"An early example:
This Attack is to be commanded by General Alvinzy; and
the Army which he will lead to it will consist of Fifty
Thousand Troops in the highest order and spirits, and
confident of success.
[The True Briton (London), 1 Feb. 1797.]"
-----
5,000 troops -- meaning 5,000 soldiers.
The problem is if by diminution you get
1-member troop -- meaning 1 soldier (or 'troop').
Quinion adds:
"It's easy to find many similar instances throughout the nineteenth
century, so it's notable that the Oxford English Dictionary's entry
for "troop", written in the early years of the twentieth century,
doesn't include this plural countable use. Despite this long history, many people continue to be unhappy about it. The linguist John McWhorter objected to it on National Public Radio in March 2007: "Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
He noted in particular that "This usage of troops is only possible
in the plural."
But here is where he goes wrong, because the OED has a 1832 quote where 'troop' IS used in the singular.
"One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. ..."
But one CAN. What McWhorter means, as per Grice ('avoid ambiguity'?) is that one SHOULDN'T.
McWhorter:
"This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg."
Quinion comments:
"It's becoming ever clearer that this
objection won't survive the pressure of current usage, at least by
the US media. "Troop" is increasingly being employed in reports for
an individual member of the armed forces:
The international force in Afghanistan says three
American troops have been killed by a roadside bomb in
the violence-wracked south. A NATO statement says two
troops died immediately after the blast Tuesday.
[AP News, 7 Jul. 2010.]
It came particularly to public notice in early November 2006, when
Senator John Kerry made an unfortunate joke and had to apologise:
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform
and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not
about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
I'm told that singular "troop" for an individual has been recorded
in US military slang from World War Two. People who were in the
services during the 1950s and 1960s say it was then common in the
Army."
And here is the crucial quote of 1832 that refutes McWhorter's point about 'troop' not being used in the singular.
Quinion:
"The Oxford English Dictionary added the sense to the entry
for "troop" in 1993 (despite continuing to omit the countable
plural form), with one isolated case from 1832 (
"As the wounded 'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed."),
but
noted it was then chiefly military."
---- As if some words could only be used by, say, prostitutes. Surely we need to be liberal, Griceainly, at this point.
Quinion:
"That's no longer true. "Troop" has developed into a singular and small plural count noun for several reasons. There are now many more women in the various
US armed forces and this presents gender-related difficulties in
finding suitable terms for individuals ("serviceman" doesn't work
any longer). More significantly, it's been difficult to find an
inclusive term for a single member of the combined services -
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and so on. "Serviceperson" or
"member of the armed forces" hardly trip off the tongue. The US
Department of Defense likes "servicemember" but that works only in
bureaucratese, not in news headlines or everyday speech. Though
"trooper" is available in theory, it's restricted in American usage
mainly to a member of the state police, and otherwise to a mounted
soldier in a cavalry regiment. "Warrior" has been popular, within
and outside the military, but has connotations that have rendered
it unpopular or unsuitable for some. "Combatant" is almost always
pejorative ("enemy combatant"). Not least, "troop" is usefully
short for fitting into headlines.
Despite wide unhappiness about it, there's no doubt that singular
"troop" has become a settled part of the language of the US media.
But I agree with John McWhorter that it will be some while, if
ever, before a member of the armed forces describes himself or
herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as soldier or airman
will continue to take precedence."
----
Yes, 'soldier' is too long of a word. "Tom" as in "tommy" (Atkins) may be better, but perhaps it's too masculine. (Although Tomasa is an Italian name).
And so on.
In general, I am with J in preferring monosyllabic words unless I find something specifically too supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to be true (or false, for that matter).
One troop too few?
This below excerpted from the World Wide Words -- I should commented it, so that it makes more sense rather than just copying from online source.
But note that in my note, "One troop to many", I did reorder the material, and focused on the OED quote, as contradicting McWhorter's statement.
Of course I'm only interested in Grice-Club bloggers -- like J and me -- and what we think about this!
---
---
Begin cited text:
Q. For at least as long as Western troops have been occupying
Afghanistan and Iraq, news reports have routinely misused the word
"troops" when talking about soldiers. Am I right in thinking that
"three troops were wounded" not only sounds daft but is incorrect
when what is meant is "three soldiers"? "Three troopers", yes, if
they were part of a regiment that is or was mounted. [Rosemary
Delnavine]
A. This usage has been bugging Americans in recent years, with a
lot of comment appearing on language-related sites.
The traditional position that you are likely to find in reference
books is that "troop" is a collective term for a group of people of
unspecified number (it's from medieval Latin "troppus", a flock,
and is the same word as "troupe" for a theatrical group). You can
refer to more than one troop in the sense of a set of such
collections ("the jamboree was attended by several dozen scout
troops") and use "troops" as a generalised collective term for the
forces ("the occasion was full of emotion and flag-waving as the
crowds lined the streets of Morpeth to give the troops a rousing
Northumbrian welcome.").
The usage of "troops" that you refer to is actually not that new.
For more than two centuries writers have used it for a countable
number of individuals, provided the number is large and not closely
specified. An early example:
This Attack is to be commanded by General Alvinzy; and
the Army which he will lead to it will consist of Fifty
Thousand Troops in the highest order and spirits, and
confident of success.
[The True Briton (London), 1 Feb. 1797.]
It's easy to find many similar instances throughout the nineteenth
century, so it's notable that the Oxford English Dictionary's entry
for "troop", written in the early years of the twentieth century,
doesn't include this plural countable use.
Despite this long history, many people continue to be unhappy about
it. The linguist John McWhorter objected to it on National Public
Radio in March 2007: "Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
He noted in particular that "This usage of troops is only possible
in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. ...
This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg." It's becoming ever clearer that this
objection won't survive the pressure of current usage, at least by
the US media. "Troop" is increasingly being employed in reports for
an individual member of the armed forces:
The international force in Afghanistan says three
American troops have been killed by a roadside bomb in
the violence-wracked south. A NATO statement says two
troops died immediately after the blast Tuesday.
[AP News, 7 Jul. 2010.]
It came particularly to public notice in early November 2006, when
Senator John Kerry made an unfortunate joke and had to apologise:
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform
and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not
about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
I'm told that singular "troop" for an individual has been recorded
in US military slang from World War Two. People who were in the
services during the 1950s and 1960s say it was then common in the
Army. The Oxford English Dictionary added the sense to the entry
for "troop" in 1993 (despite continuing to omit the countable
plural form), with one isolated case from 1832 ("As the wounded
'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed."), but
noted it was then chiefly military. That's no longer true.
"Troop" has developed into a singular and small plural count noun
for several reasons. There are now many more women in the various
US armed forces and this presents gender-related difficulties in
finding suitable terms for individuals ("serviceman" doesn't work
any longer). More significantly, it's been difficult to find an
inclusive term for a single member of the combined services -
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and so on. "Serviceperson" or
"member of the armed forces" hardly trip off the tongue. The US
Department of Defense likes "servicemember" but that works only in
bureaucratese, not in news headlines or everyday speech. Though
"trooper" is available in theory, it's restricted in American usage
mainly to a member of the state police, and otherwise to a mounted
soldier in a cavalry regiment. "Warrior" has been popular, within
and outside the military, but has connotations that have rendered
it unpopular or unsuitable for some. "Combatant" is almost always
pejorative ("enemy combatant"). Not least, "troop" is usefully
short for fitting into headlines.
Despite wide unhappiness about it, there's no doubt that singular
"troop" has become a settled part of the language of the US media.
But I agree with John McWhorter that it will be some while, if
ever, before a member of the armed forces describes himself or
herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as soldier or airman
will continue to take precedence.
But note that in my note, "One troop to many", I did reorder the material, and focused on the OED quote, as contradicting McWhorter's statement.
Of course I'm only interested in Grice-Club bloggers -- like J and me -- and what we think about this!
---
---
Begin cited text:
Q. For at least as long as Western troops have been occupying
Afghanistan and Iraq, news reports have routinely misused the word
"troops" when talking about soldiers. Am I right in thinking that
"three troops were wounded" not only sounds daft but is incorrect
when what is meant is "three soldiers"? "Three troopers", yes, if
they were part of a regiment that is or was mounted. [Rosemary
Delnavine]
A. This usage has been bugging Americans in recent years, with a
lot of comment appearing on language-related sites.
The traditional position that you are likely to find in reference
books is that "troop" is a collective term for a group of people of
unspecified number (it's from medieval Latin "troppus", a flock,
and is the same word as "troupe" for a theatrical group). You can
refer to more than one troop in the sense of a set of such
collections ("the jamboree was attended by several dozen scout
troops") and use "troops" as a generalised collective term for the
forces ("the occasion was full of emotion and flag-waving as the
crowds lined the streets of Morpeth to give the troops a rousing
Northumbrian welcome.").
The usage of "troops" that you refer to is actually not that new.
For more than two centuries writers have used it for a countable
number of individuals, provided the number is large and not closely
specified. An early example:
This Attack is to be commanded by General Alvinzy; and
the Army which he will lead to it will consist of Fifty
Thousand Troops in the highest order and spirits, and
confident of success.
[The True Briton (London), 1 Feb. 1797.]
It's easy to find many similar instances throughout the nineteenth
century, so it's notable that the Oxford English Dictionary's entry
for "troop", written in the early years of the twentieth century,
doesn't include this plural countable use.
Despite this long history, many people continue to be unhappy about
it. The linguist John McWhorter objected to it on National Public
Radio in March 2007: "Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
He noted in particular that "This usage of troops is only possible
in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop. ...
This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg." It's becoming ever clearer that this
objection won't survive the pressure of current usage, at least by
the US media. "Troop" is increasingly being employed in reports for
an individual member of the armed forces:
The international force in Afghanistan says three
American troops have been killed by a roadside bomb in
the violence-wracked south. A NATO statement says two
troops died immediately after the blast Tuesday.
[AP News, 7 Jul. 2010.]
It came particularly to public notice in early November 2006, when
Senator John Kerry made an unfortunate joke and had to apologise:
"As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform
and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not
about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
I'm told that singular "troop" for an individual has been recorded
in US military slang from World War Two. People who were in the
services during the 1950s and 1960s say it was then common in the
Army. The Oxford English Dictionary added the sense to the entry
for "troop" in 1993 (despite continuing to omit the countable
plural form), with one isolated case from 1832 ("As the wounded
'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed."), but
noted it was then chiefly military. That's no longer true.
"Troop" has developed into a singular and small plural count noun
for several reasons. There are now many more women in the various
US armed forces and this presents gender-related difficulties in
finding suitable terms for individuals ("serviceman" doesn't work
any longer). More significantly, it's been difficult to find an
inclusive term for a single member of the combined services -
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and so on. "Serviceperson" or
"member of the armed forces" hardly trip off the tongue. The US
Department of Defense likes "servicemember" but that works only in
bureaucratese, not in news headlines or everyday speech. Though
"trooper" is available in theory, it's restricted in American usage
mainly to a member of the state police, and otherwise to a mounted
soldier in a cavalry regiment. "Warrior" has been popular, within
and outside the military, but has connotations that have rendered
it unpopular or unsuitable for some. "Combatant" is almost always
pejorative ("enemy combatant"). Not least, "troop" is usefully
short for fitting into headlines.
Despite wide unhappiness about it, there's no doubt that singular
"troop" has become a settled part of the language of the US media.
But I agree with John McWhorter that it will be some while, if
ever, before a member of the armed forces describes himself or
herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as soldier or airman
will continue to take precedence.
One troop too few?
disentailment and disimplicature
---
J: "But McWhorter was sort of correct that "troop" was not singular, except via colloquialization."
I don't think so.
For one, he was being a bit of a prescriptivist presumptuous one: "People don't use 'troop' in the singular". But they do! The OED records one use in 1832. Granted, it's scare-quoted. "The 'troop' was wounded. His name was Jim."
But surely scare quotes can be ignored.
Plus, it's like when with Kramer we discuss (slightly against Horn) about nand and nall. "These things don't exist in natural language", some claim. Except we use them, and we are not Martians.
So, it's like this karaoke CD I have. It's called "The One-Hand Clapping Company".
Surely, you may argue that if a troop, call it T, comprises just ONE person, called Jim. We can still say that Jim is a troop.
"Trooper" yes, but then, J uses -er for most things, or nster-, so J might just as well justify troopster.
----
No. The point is about troop.
It's like my friend Murphy. He thought he had discovered a refutation of Grice. For Grice, "some if not all" is totally good.
But Murphy provided the example:
"Some, if not all, of the cows were culled from the herd".
"What kind of a herd is that with no cows in it?", he asked.
Similarly, one may argue that if a troop comprises ONE TROOP (called Jim) and Jim gets killed, the troop ceases to exist.
The problem with collectives is colloquialisation, as J notes. "Police". Some people say, "Police are", some prefer "Police is".
I have NOT been collecting 'countable' usages of 'troop' as per headlines: "13 troops killed in [insert name of dangerous town]".
For Russell, who set the paradox of the class that belongs to no class, if we take, 'troop', seriously, as the name of a colletive ("Troop" with capital T, as it were), we may symbolise it as:
T = {t1, t2, t3, ... tn}
I.e. a 'troop' (Troop) is like a universal. The 'troops' that comprise them are also called 'troops', or 'troop'.
But Grice has,
"avoid ambiguity".
And the critics of usage were saying that:
"16 troops killed in [insert name of dangerous place]"
is ambiguous in that
a) a collective is NEVER killed. It's like when you say, "The Reppublica di San Marino went to a party".
b) MEMBERS of sets get killed.
Confront with "Batallion".
--- 16 battalions killed.
meaning??
If each batallion comprises, say, 10 human-beings, then 160 human beings were killed.
Note that in order to say, "16 battalions" were killed the WHOLE number of the members of EACH battalion should be killed, which seems quite a disgrace, as report of an event.
----- (You cannot say, strictly, that a "troop" (qua collective) was 'killed' unless its whole members -- the 'troops' with lower-case 't' -- are killed).
It's like that film with Esther Williams, "School of sirens".
"School" is a collective for 'fish' (cognate with 'shoal', not with Latin scuola).
Surely if you say, "he killed a school of sirens", it means he must have KILLED ALL of the individual sirens forming the school.
-----
But I would argue that if the school just comprises ONE siren (Esther Williams), one COULD, strictly (although perhaps misleading) say that "The school is showing her derriere", or something.
----
Collectives are on the whole a bother and should be avoided. "A pride of lions" is one of the most stupid constructions I've heard -- except I like it.
And recall what the Gricean collective for "Griceans" is because I haven't!
---
J: "But McWhorter was sort of correct that "troop" was not singular, except via colloquialization."
I don't think so.
For one, he was being a bit of a prescriptivist presumptuous one: "People don't use 'troop' in the singular". But they do! The OED records one use in 1832. Granted, it's scare-quoted. "The 'troop' was wounded. His name was Jim."
But surely scare quotes can be ignored.
Plus, it's like when with Kramer we discuss (slightly against Horn) about nand and nall. "These things don't exist in natural language", some claim. Except we use them, and we are not Martians.
So, it's like this karaoke CD I have. It's called "The One-Hand Clapping Company".
Surely, you may argue that if a troop, call it T, comprises just ONE person, called Jim. We can still say that Jim is a troop.
"Trooper" yes, but then, J uses -er for most things, or nster-, so J might just as well justify troopster.
----
No. The point is about troop.
It's like my friend Murphy. He thought he had discovered a refutation of Grice. For Grice, "some if not all" is totally good.
But Murphy provided the example:
"Some, if not all, of the cows were culled from the herd".
"What kind of a herd is that with no cows in it?", he asked.
Similarly, one may argue that if a troop comprises ONE TROOP (called Jim) and Jim gets killed, the troop ceases to exist.
The problem with collectives is colloquialisation, as J notes. "Police". Some people say, "Police are", some prefer "Police is".
I have NOT been collecting 'countable' usages of 'troop' as per headlines: "13 troops killed in [insert name of dangerous town]".
For Russell, who set the paradox of the class that belongs to no class, if we take, 'troop', seriously, as the name of a colletive ("Troop" with capital T, as it were), we may symbolise it as:
T = {t1, t2, t3, ... tn}
I.e. a 'troop' (Troop) is like a universal. The 'troops' that comprise them are also called 'troops', or 'troop'.
But Grice has,
"avoid ambiguity".
And the critics of usage were saying that:
"16 troops killed in [insert name of dangerous place]"
is ambiguous in that
a) a collective is NEVER killed. It's like when you say, "The Reppublica di San Marino went to a party".
b) MEMBERS of sets get killed.
Confront with "Batallion".
--- 16 battalions killed.
meaning??
If each batallion comprises, say, 10 human-beings, then 160 human beings were killed.
Note that in order to say, "16 battalions" were killed the WHOLE number of the members of EACH battalion should be killed, which seems quite a disgrace, as report of an event.
----- (You cannot say, strictly, that a "troop" (qua collective) was 'killed' unless its whole members -- the 'troops' with lower-case 't' -- are killed).
It's like that film with Esther Williams, "School of sirens".
"School" is a collective for 'fish' (cognate with 'shoal', not with Latin scuola).
Surely if you say, "he killed a school of sirens", it means he must have KILLED ALL of the individual sirens forming the school.
-----
But I would argue that if the school just comprises ONE siren (Esther Williams), one COULD, strictly (although perhaps misleading) say that "The school is showing her derriere", or something.
----
Collectives are on the whole a bother and should be avoided. "A pride of lions" is one of the most stupid constructions I've heard -- except I like it.
And recall what the Gricean collective for "Griceans" is because I haven't!
One troop too few? the disentailment
I've been considering:
"Two troops killed yesterday"
as a solecism, according to McWhorter.
I disagree!
--
If Grice spoke of disimplicature, we also may need to speak of disentailment, as it applies.
"Two troops killed yesterday"
as a solecism, according to McWhorter.
I disagree!
--
If Grice spoke of disimplicature, we also may need to speak of disentailment, as it applies.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
bug names -- or the fly that's not a fly: a griceian re-analysis
From World Wide Words,
"As a professional entomologist, I enjoyed your bit about insect common names."
"As an aid to my students over the last 35 years, I have informed them of
the rule you explain."
"Your piece also illustrates the hazards of common names divorced from the relevant scientific names."
"In my experience, a 'June bug' and 'tumblebug' are beetles and 'greenfly'
is a 'bug'."
"'Blackfly' is more interesting, since it can be used
for a true fly and also for an aphid/'bug' - its usage would be
clarified if the rule were followed in this case - 'black fly' for
the true biting fly, and 'blackfly' for the aphid."
But it's not.
-- Speranza, Bordighera
"As a professional entomologist, I enjoyed your bit about insect common names."
"As an aid to my students over the last 35 years, I have informed them of
the rule you explain."
"Your piece also illustrates the hazards of common names divorced from the relevant scientific names."
"In my experience, a 'June bug' and 'tumblebug' are beetles and 'greenfly'
is a 'bug'."
"'Blackfly' is more interesting, since it can be used
for a true fly and also for an aphid/'bug' - its usage would be
clarified if the rule were followed in this case - 'black fly' for
the true biting fly, and 'blackfly' for the aphid."
But it's not.
-- Speranza, Bordighera
Congress is there
World Wide Words:
An AOL home-page link in its business section on 7 September, Jim
Tang noted, read
"Most Dangerous Places to Drive"
and was followed by this blurb:
"Residents of Washington D.C. are more likely to have a collusion than any other U.S. city."
That's unsurprising, Congress is there, after all.
An AOL home-page link in its business section on 7 September, Jim
Tang noted, read
"Most Dangerous Places to Drive"
and was followed by this blurb:
"Residents of Washington D.C. are more likely to have a collusion than any other U.S. city."
That's unsurprising, Congress is there, after all.
One troop too many? the disimplicature
Back in 1832, the OED and M. Quinion report, 'troop' could be used singularly:
"As the wounded 'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed".
But John McWhorter ignored this when objecting to what he felt was a 'misuse' of "troop" -- on National Public Radio:
McWhorter said:
"Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
McWhorter noted in particular that
"this usage of troops is only possible
in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop."
---- But one CAN, as per 1832 OED quote above.
McWhorter, ignoring that, adds:
"This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg."
As Quinion notes, though, it will possibly be some while, if ever, "before a member of the armed forces describes himself or herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as "soldier" will continue to take precedence.
Plus, in French, they speak of a "troup" of actors, which is still a different (French) usage.
Speranza---Bordighera
"As the wounded 'troop' was not much hurt, a sort of truce was proclaimed".
But John McWhorter ignored this when objecting to what he felt was a 'misuse' of "troop" -- on National Public Radio:
McWhorter said:
"Calling 20,000 soldiers '20,000 troops'
depersonalizes the soldiers as individuals, and makes a massive
number of living, breathing individuals sound like some kind of
mass or substance, like water or Jell-O, or some kind of freight."
McWhorter noted in particular that
"this usage of troops is only possible
in the plural. One cannot refer to a single soldier as a troop."
---- But one CAN, as per 1832 OED quote above.
McWhorter, ignoring that, adds:
"This means that mothers do not kiss their troop goodbye as he takes
off for Anbar Province. One will never encounter a troop learning
to use her prosthetic leg."
As Quinion notes, though, it will possibly be some while, if ever, "before a member of the armed forces describes himself or herself as a troop, not least because mutual pride and loyalties
within a service mean that specific terms such as "soldier" will continue to take precedence.
Plus, in French, they speak of a "troup" of actors, which is still a different (French) usage.
Speranza---Bordighera
bridges that span miles of river, travel to the moon, and predict patterns of population change.
World Wide Words: Harry Lake found a questionable sentence in a full-page advert in
the New Scientist of 28 August: "Calculus has made it possible to
build bridges that span miles of river, travel to the moon, and
predict patterns of population change." It had never occurred to
him that bridges were so versatile.
the New Scientist of 28 August: "Calculus has made it possible to
build bridges that span miles of river, travel to the moon, and
predict patterns of population change." It had never occurred to
him that bridges were so versatile.
Beheadings in the Dessert
From World Wide Words:
The restaurant business," complained Darren Zanon, "is hard enough
without this kind of press." A report in a CNN blog on 2 September
quoted Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General: "What is hurting
us right now economically are statements ... about how Arizona has
become so violent, that we are a place of fear, and we have
beheadings in the dessert."
The restaurant business," complained Darren Zanon, "is hard enough
without this kind of press." A report in a CNN blog on 2 September
quoted Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General: "What is hurting
us right now economically are statements ... about how Arizona has
become so violent, that we are a place of fear, and we have
beheadings in the dessert."
Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and one of Britain's top imams also joined the condemnation.
From World Wide Words
On Friday 3 September, Rodney Kennett tells us, the Daily Mail had
this in a news item: "Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, the leader of the
Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and one of Britain's top
imams also joined the condemnation." Versatile clergyman ...
On Friday 3 September, Rodney Kennett tells us, the Daily Mail had
this in a news item: "Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, the leader of the
Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and one of Britain's top
imams also joined the condemnation." Versatile clergyman ...
Officers were driving the car away - against force policy - when it crashed through two gardens. One was injured.
From World Wide Words:
On 3 September, Victor Dewsbery came across a news item on the BBC
website about the police seizing a high-performance car from a
suspected drunken driver. The story noted: "Officers were driving
the car away - against force policy - when it crashed through two
gardens. One was injured." Poor garden.
On 3 September, Victor Dewsbery came across a news item on the BBC
website about the police seizing a high-performance car from a
suspected drunken driver. The story noted: "Officers were driving
the car away - against force policy - when it crashed through two
gardens. One was injured." Poor garden.
Monday, August 30, 2010
interoscular: mutual kissing
They interosculated: they kissed each other (in the mouth).
Bowler, Superior Person's Guide to English.
Bowler, Superior Person's Guide to English.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Police are trying to reunite precious World War I documents and jewellery found in a bin with their owner
From
Quinion:
"Maureen Whitaker mentioned a report from BBC News for Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight on 25 August: "Police are trying to reunite
precious World War I documents and jewellery found in a bin with
their owner.""
Quinion:
"Maureen Whitaker mentioned a report from BBC News for Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight on 25 August: "Police are trying to reunite
precious World War I documents and jewellery found in a bin with
their owner.""
A cyclist rode past the historic Chatham house repainted fluorescent lime green and yellow, and has the town talking
A caption to a photograph in the Boston Globe last Thursday was
submitted by Walter Sheppard: "A cyclist rode past the historic
Chatham house repainted fluorescent lime green and yellow, and has
the town talking." For the avoidance of doubt, it is the colour
scheme of the repainted house that has the town talking, not the
cyclist.
submitted by Walter Sheppard: "A cyclist rode past the historic
Chatham house repainted fluorescent lime green and yellow, and has
the town talking." For the avoidance of doubt, it is the colour
scheme of the repainted house that has the town talking, not the
cyclist.
A Montgomery County police officer has been charged with assault for hitting a suspect on the head with a baton after the suspect had fled
From Quinion:
"The long arm of the law? Leo Boivin tells us about a story from the
Washington Post last Saturday: "A Montgomery County police officer
has been charged with assault for hitting a suspect on the head
with a baton after the suspect had fled, officials said Friday.""
"The long arm of the law? Leo Boivin tells us about a story from the
Washington Post last Saturday: "A Montgomery County police officer
has been charged with assault for hitting a suspect on the head
with a baton after the suspect had fled, officials said Friday.""
Is this word really necessary?
jumentous: "that smells like that of the urine of a horse".
--- by J. L. Speranza
--
M. Quinion reports in today's World Wide Words: "Is this word really necessary?"
"The word 'jumentous' is usually explained as meaning a smell like that of the
urine of a horse."
In 1992, in "The Superior Person's Second Book of Weird and Wondrous Words," Peter Bowler asked of it: "Is this word really necessary?"
----
Perhaps not obligatory, though?
---
Quinion adds: "'jumentous' comes from Latin "jumentum", which the Oxford
English Dictionary explains means a yoke-beast, from "jugum", a
yoke."
"Though this might reasonably include oxen, the Oxford Latin
Dictionary helpfully notes - somewhat surprisingly in view of its
origin - that in Roman times it usually meant horses or mules, not
cattle."
"Similarly, the obsolete English word "jument", from the
same source, could mean any beast of burden, but was most often
applied to a horse or donkey."
It was first used is a report of the symptoms of
a sick person, in 1801:
"No motion of the bowels; urine very scanty, red with a
jumentous and lateritious sediment."
The British Journal of Homoeopathy.
The word was deemed to be unfamiliar enough that it was defined in a footnote as relating to a working horse."
"By the end of the century", Quinion notes, "the word had become extremely rare."
--- by J. L. Speranza
--
M. Quinion reports in today's World Wide Words: "Is this word really necessary?"
"The word 'jumentous' is usually explained as meaning a smell like that of the
urine of a horse."
In 1992, in "The Superior Person's Second Book of Weird and Wondrous Words," Peter Bowler asked of it: "Is this word really necessary?"
----
Perhaps not obligatory, though?
---
Quinion adds: "'jumentous' comes from Latin "jumentum", which the Oxford
English Dictionary explains means a yoke-beast, from "jugum", a
yoke."
"Though this might reasonably include oxen, the Oxford Latin
Dictionary helpfully notes - somewhat surprisingly in view of its
origin - that in Roman times it usually meant horses or mules, not
cattle."
"Similarly, the obsolete English word "jument", from the
same source, could mean any beast of burden, but was most often
applied to a horse or donkey."
It was first used is a report of the symptoms of
a sick person, in 1801:
"No motion of the bowels; urine very scanty, red with a
jumentous and lateritious sediment."
The British Journal of Homoeopathy.
The word was deemed to be unfamiliar enough that it was defined in a footnote as relating to a working horse."
"By the end of the century", Quinion notes, "the word had become extremely rare."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Se quel guerrier io fossi
Conditionals and volitions: A griceian outlook
(Sorry I have been late in replying things and things -- I've been very busy -- with opera! Sort of ... --) Anyway, I am reading the libretto of "Aida" and this is wiki on it:
"Radames dreams both of gaining victory on the battle field and of Aida, the Ethiopian slave, with whom he is secretly in love (Radames: Se quel guerrier io fossi!...Celeste Aida - "Heavenly Aïda")".
---
Now, that sentence,
Se quel guerrier io fossi.
Translates as
If that warrior I were.
or in more idiomatic English
Were I that warrior!
----- Nonsense!
Consider the logical form:
if p, q
p ) q
-- where ) is the horseshoe.
Possibilities. When you find a protasis (or antecedent) without apodosis (or consequent), assume the apodosis, "I would be the happiest (UTTERER --male, woman, etc) in the world".
Why?
Conditionals and volition.
Radames says,
"If I were that warrior!"
----- This is the opening of the opera. But from the context, it is obvious that he WOULD enjoy being the warrior.
Surely, there is some AMBIGUITY. As things happen, just because he WILL eventually BE that warrior, he will be buried alive. So there is some sort of tragic irony involved.
Anyway.
Later!
(Sorry I have been late in replying things and things -- I've been very busy -- with opera! Sort of ... --) Anyway, I am reading the libretto of "Aida" and this is wiki on it:
"Radames dreams both of gaining victory on the battle field and of Aida, the Ethiopian slave, with whom he is secretly in love (Radames: Se quel guerrier io fossi!...Celeste Aida - "Heavenly Aïda")".
---
Now, that sentence,
Se quel guerrier io fossi.
Translates as
If that warrior I were.
or in more idiomatic English
Were I that warrior!
----- Nonsense!
Consider the logical form:
if p, q
p ) q
-- where ) is the horseshoe.
Possibilities. When you find a protasis (or antecedent) without apodosis (or consequent), assume the apodosis, "I would be the happiest (UTTERER --male, woman, etc) in the world".
Why?
Conditionals and volition.
Radames says,
"If I were that warrior!"
----- This is the opening of the opera. But from the context, it is obvious that he WOULD enjoy being the warrior.
Surely, there is some AMBIGUITY. As things happen, just because he WILL eventually BE that warrior, he will be buried alive. So there is some sort of tragic irony involved.
Anyway.
Later!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
A Griceian bagel
J. Goard: "cream cheese"/"cheese": "technically endocentric compounds but without full projection of the semantics of the head."
A Griceian bagel
Ben: "A bagel without cream cheese is a "dry" one. I don't know if it works at Starbucks, though. And I can't imagine what would happen if you asked for your bagel "wet.""
A Griceian bagel
R: A multigrain bagel, please.
B: Butter or cream cheese?
R: You are an arsehole.
Ellie:
"Am I the only one who finds the "Butter or Cheese?" question to be extremely bizarre in an entirely different way? I've never heard of anyone referring to "Cream Cheese" as just "Cheese," especially in the context of a bagel spread. If someone asks me if I want cheese on my bagel, then they'd better have some Cheddar on hand."
B: Butter or cream cheese?
R: You are an arsehole.
Ellie:
"Am I the only one who finds the "Butter or Cheese?" question to be extremely bizarre in an entirely different way? I've never heard of anyone referring to "Cream Cheese" as just "Cheese," especially in the context of a bagel spread. If someone asks me if I want cheese on my bagel, then they'd better have some Cheddar on hand."
A Griceian bagel
Nathan Myers:
"Andy Bumatai, a comedian in Hawai'i, performed excellent skit involving a hotel guest and room service, containing the question,
"And would you like that cheeseburger with or without cheese?"".
"Andy Bumatai, a comedian in Hawai'i, performed excellent skit involving a hotel guest and room service, containing the question,
"And would you like that cheeseburger with or without cheese?"".
A Griceian bagel
Ran Ari-Gur:
"I've frequently run into this sort of problem at Burger King. A few different interactions are possible. The one that works out well is:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
Person behind counter (PBC): Would you like cheese on that?
Me: No, thank you.
PBC: O.K., your total is . . .
Another common interaction is:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
PBC: Would you like a medium, or a large?
Me: A medium, please.
PBC: O.K., your total is . . .
which I don't like so much, because "medium" is bigger and more expensive than what they give me when they don't ask. Eventually I decided that the question must be intended as "Would you like to upgrade that from the default size to either 'medium' or 'large'?", but the last time I went, the interaction I had was this:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
PBC: Would you like a medium, or a large?
Me: No, thanks.
PBC: Wait, so you don't want a combo? You just want the sandwich?
Me: Oh, um, I'll have a medium, please.
Not all of us have graduate degrees in the pragmatics of fast-food ordering."
"I've frequently run into this sort of problem at Burger King. A few different interactions are possible. The one that works out well is:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
Person behind counter (PBC): Would you like cheese on that?
Me: No, thank you.
PBC: O.K., your total is . . .
Another common interaction is:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
PBC: Would you like a medium, or a large?
Me: A medium, please.
PBC: O.K., your total is . . .
which I don't like so much, because "medium" is bigger and more expensive than what they give me when they don't ask. Eventually I decided that the question must be intended as "Would you like to upgrade that from the default size to either 'medium' or 'large'?", but the last time I went, the interaction I had was this:
Me: I'd like a veggie burger combo.
PBC: Would you like a medium, or a large?
Me: No, thanks.
PBC: Wait, so you don't want a combo? You just want the sandwich?
Me: Oh, um, I'll have a medium, please.
Not all of us have graduate degrees in the pragmatics of fast-food ordering."
A Griceian bagel
Cliff Crawford: "In college one semester I worked at the deli counter in one of the dining halls. After making a sandwich for someone, I was always supposed to ask,
"Do you want chips, or a pickle?"
(with intonation indicating an either-or choice, though of course "neither" was a valid answer too)
"You would not believe the number of people who would answer, "Yes.""
"Do you want chips, or a pickle?"
(with intonation indicating an either-or choice, though of course "neither" was a valid answer too)
"You would not believe the number of people who would answer, "Yes.""
A Griceian bagel
R: A multigrain bagel, please
B: Do you want butter or cheese?
Uly:
"What really irks me is that as far as I know, "plain" when talking about bagels has nothing to do with whether or not you have butter or cream cheese. It has to do with whether or not the bagel itself is covered with onions, or poppyseeds, or everything."
B: Do you want butter or cheese?
Uly:
"What really irks me is that as far as I know, "plain" when talking about bagels has nothing to do with whether or not you have butter or cream cheese. It has to do with whether or not the bagel itself is covered with onions, or poppyseeds, or everything."
A Griceian bagel
Levi Montgomery: "I refuse to say "jo-jos." I say "…and some of those potatoes, too." They usually give them to me. Sometimes they say "You mean the jo-jos?" and I say "Whatever." One memorable time, however, the clerk attempted to make me actually name them, and I send "Yeah, never mind. Just the chicken." She knew perfectly well what I meant."
A Griceian bagel
Levi Montgomery: "I refuse to say "jo-jos." I say "…and some of those potatoes, too." They usually give them to me. Sometimes they say "You mean the jo-jos?" and I say "Whatever." One memorable time, however, the clerk attempted to make me actually name them, and I send "Yeah, never mind. Just the chicken." She knew perfectly well what I meant."
A Griceain bagel
-- A plain multigrain bagel, please.
-- Butter or cheese?
--
Theodore:
"the polite answer is: "I'm sorry, but you've presented me with a false dichotomy.""
-- Butter or cheese?
--
Theodore:
"the polite answer is: "I'm sorry, but you've presented me with a false dichotomy.""
A Griceian bagel
4andyman:
"The definition of "plain" is not universal in all restaurant situations. It's better that the barista aim for clarification of an order instead of risking getting the order wrong."
"Right. In New England, at least when I was growing up, a "regular" coffee came with cream in it."
"The definition of "plain" is not universal in all restaurant situations. It's better that the barista aim for clarification of an order instead of risking getting the order wrong."
"Right. In New England, at least when I was growing up, a "regular" coffee came with cream in it."
A Griceain bagel
TM:
"I assumed that the question was
"Do you want BUTTER or CHEESE?" (rise-fall rise-fall)
"with the presupposition that one or the other is wanted."
"I don't think she would have flipped her lid at the innocuous "Do you want butter or cheese?" (straight rise, no presupposition)."
"I assumed that the question was
"Do you want BUTTER or CHEESE?" (rise-fall rise-fall)
"with the presupposition that one or the other is wanted."
"I don't think she would have flipped her lid at the innocuous "Do you want butter or cheese?" (straight rise, no presupposition)."
A Griceian bagel
P. Byrne: "I witnessed a similar incident while waiting to be served at the railway station cafe in Cambridge, England. The gentleman in front of me, whom I guessed to be an academic type, asked for a coffee and received the reply."
Normal or decaf?
"He refused to make a choice and insisted for several minutes that he just wanted "coffee".
Normal or decaf?
"He refused to make a choice and insisted for several minutes that he just wanted "coffee".
A Griceian bagel
MJ: "Maybe she felt as though she was being confronted with a "Are you still beating your wife?"-type question."
A Griceian bagel
MJ: "Maybe she felt as though she was being confronted with a "Are you still beating your wife?"-type question."
A Griceian bagel
Richard: "If [Dr. Rosenthal] [were] such a stickler for correct English, "I want my multigrain bagel" would have been incorrect as she was at that time (and is likely still) not in possession of any multigrain bagels."
A Griceian bagel
Ginger Yellow: "This woman [Dr. Rosenthal, if you must] is clearly being obnoxious. They do "understand what a plain multigrain bagel" is. By your own words, you did not ask for a "plain multigrain bagel". You asked for a "multigrain bagel"."
A Griceian bagel
Mark P: "I can think of a lot of reasons to get mad about customer service these days, but I'm having a hard time with this one. Isn't in your best interest to make sure the person behind the counter knows exactly what you want? I suspect something else was going on. Or perhaps both customer and server are (metaphorically) arseholes."
A Griceian bagel
J. Byer: "Wow. Grice's maxims are excellent, but there's a debater's principle of charity that says we owe it to our fellows to strive to understand what they mean in light of their interests not our own."
A Griceian bagel
R: A plain multigrain bagel.
B: Do you want cheese or butter on that?
---
"Dr. Rosenthal refused on Gricean grounds to answer."
B: Do you want cheese or butter on that?
---
"Dr. Rosenthal refused on Gricean grounds to answer."
A Griceian bagel
From Liberman's blog post:
Me: And a cinnamon raisin bagel, please.
Barista: Do you want butter or cream cheese on that?
Me: No thanks.
Barista: You want it toasted?
Me: Nope.
Me: And a cinnamon raisin bagel, please.
Barista: Do you want butter or cream cheese on that?
Me: No thanks.
Barista: You want it toasted?
Me: Nope.
A Griceian bagel
Gricean bagel rage
Rosenthal, at Starbucks, NYC:
-- A toasted multigrain bagel, please
-- Do you want butter or cheese?
--- (silence). You are an arsehole.
-------- Cops intervene
Rosenthal's point: "it would be otiose to have to specify what you do NOT want".
--
Comments on Liberman's blog --
Liberman writes (adapted)
"When Grice drafted his maxims for cooperative conversation, he didn't have in mind that we should get upset when people violate them."
Didn't he?
"On the contrary, the whole idea was to use apparent violations as the basis for reasoning about conversational implicatures, the things that people obviously mean but don't literally say. Still, people do get upset about all aspects of other people's language use, and it's common to object to redundancy, as in "ATM machine""
---
Well, it's more object to 'overinformativeness', right? The category of Quantity (which Grice retrieved humoristically from Kant --. No 'avoid redundacy', really.
Lieberman:
"— though members of what William Safire used to call the Squad Squad rarely get as upset as the anonymous "pilotless drone" man did ("Is it sinking into your thick skull, you high school drop-out?", 2/7/2007)."
"It's even rarer for usage disputes to escalate to the point where police intervention is required. But I've now gotten a dozen emails drawing my attention to a recent linguistic fracas where the cops were asked to rule on a matter involving conversational implicature. According to J. Doyle, R. Rosenberg and A. Karni, "Grammar stickler: Starbucks booted me", N.Y. Post 8/16/2010: "Starbucks' strange vernacular finally drove a customer nuts. L. Rosenthal, a college English prof from Manhattan, said 3 cops forcibly ejected her from an Upper West Side Starbucks yesterday morning after she got into a dispute with a counterperson — make that barista — for refusing to place her order by the coffee chain's rules. Rosenthal, who is in her early 60s, asked for
A toasted multigrain bagel, please.
— and she became enraged when the barista at the franchise, on Columbus Avenue at 86th Street, followed up by inquiring,
Do you want butter or cheese?
"I just wanted a multigrain bagel," she told The Post. "I refused to say 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King,
You don't have to list the six things you do NOT want.
"Linguistically, it's stupid. And I'm a stickler for correct English."
Let's stipulate that the question of when and how customers should have to specify what they don't want is not a matter of grammar, as such, and go on to learn more about what happened on that fateful West Side morning. Yesterday's breakfast-bagel tussle heated up when the barista told the prickly prof that he wouldn't serve her unless she specified whether she wanted a schmear of butter or cheese — or neither.
"I yelled, 'I want my multigrain bagel!' " Rosenthal said.
"The barista said, 'You're not going to get anything unless you say butter or cheese!' " But Rosenthal, on principle, refused to back down. "I didn't even want the bagel anymore," she said.
The bagel brouhaha escalated until the manager called cops, and responding officers ordered her to leave, threatening to arrest her if she went back inside, she said.
"It was very humiliating to be thrown out, and all I did was ask for a bagel," recalled Rosenthal, who said she holds a Ph.D. from Columbia.
"If you don't use their language, they refuse to serve you. They don't understand what a plain multigrain bagel is."
"There's some evidence in the story that possible violations of the maxims of quantity and manner were not the only points at issue."
A Starbucks employee who witnessed the incident blamed Rosenthal.
"She would not answer. It was a reasonable question," the worker said.
"She called [the barista] an a- -hole."
Most of those who have sent me links to this story have been disappointed that the dispute was not over the nomenclature of different coffee serving sizes, as featured in Paul Rudd's "Venti is twenty" rant from the movie Role Models:
Or Dave Barry's classic Ask Mister Language Person column ("Latte lingo: Raising a pint at Starbucks", 11/30/2004):
"We begin today with a disturbing escalation in the trend of coffee retailers giving stupid names to cup sizes."
"As you know, this trend began several years ago when Starbucks (motto: "There's one opening right now in your basement") decided to call its cup sizes "Tall" (meaning "not tall," or ''small"), "Grande" (meaning "medium") and "Venti" (meaning, for all we know, "weasel snot").
"Unfortunately, we consumers, like moron sheep, started actually USING these names. Why? If Starbucks decided to call its toilets "AquaSwooshies," would we go along with THAT? Yes! Baaa!"
"Recently, at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and Death March, Mister Language Person noticed that a Starbuck's competitor, Seattle's Best Coffee (which also uses "Tall" for small and "Grande" for medium) is calling ITS large cup size — get ready — "Grande Supremo."
"Yes. And as Mister Language Person watched in horror, many customers — seemingly intelligent, briefcase-toting adults — actually used this term, as in, "I'll take a Grande Supremo.""
"Listen, people: You should never, ever have to utter the words "Grande Supremo" unless you are addressing a tribal warlord who is holding you captive and threatening to burn you at the stake."
"JUST SAY YOU WANT A LARGE COFFEE, PEOPLE."
"Because if we let the coffee people get away with this, they're not going to stop, and some day, just to get a lousy cup of coffee, you'll hear yourself saying""
"I'll have a Mega Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong decaf."
"And then you will ask for the key to the AquaSwooshie. And when THAT happens, people, the terrorists will have won.
"In a comment on that 2004 post, Stefano Taschini expressed the opinion that the whole thing is really beside the point, because, 'I believe there must have been a small mistype: technically, a warm liquid that you ingest in quantities exceeding half a liter is "stock" not "coffee". In English, I think, the word infusion would also be appropriate (though I have to say that I myself am fond of the American-style coffee-bean-derived liquid, whatever you choose to call the substance and its various sizes). [Update — more discussion at the Economist's Johnson blog, and LOTS more discussion at Metafilter. Current counts on Google News suggest that the Starbucks v. Rosenthal story is getting more uptake than (say) the Marc Hauser story.]
Rosenthal, at Starbucks, NYC:
-- A toasted multigrain bagel, please
-- Do you want butter or cheese?
--- (silence). You are an arsehole.
-------- Cops intervene
Rosenthal's point: "it would be otiose to have to specify what you do NOT want".
--
Comments on Liberman's blog --
Liberman writes (adapted)
"When Grice drafted his maxims for cooperative conversation, he didn't have in mind that we should get upset when people violate them."
Didn't he?
"On the contrary, the whole idea was to use apparent violations as the basis for reasoning about conversational implicatures, the things that people obviously mean but don't literally say. Still, people do get upset about all aspects of other people's language use, and it's common to object to redundancy, as in "ATM machine""
---
Well, it's more object to 'overinformativeness', right? The category of Quantity (which Grice retrieved humoristically from Kant --. No 'avoid redundacy', really.
Lieberman:
"— though members of what William Safire used to call the Squad Squad rarely get as upset as the anonymous "pilotless drone" man did ("Is it sinking into your thick skull, you high school drop-out?", 2/7/2007)."
"It's even rarer for usage disputes to escalate to the point where police intervention is required. But I've now gotten a dozen emails drawing my attention to a recent linguistic fracas where the cops were asked to rule on a matter involving conversational implicature. According to J. Doyle, R. Rosenberg and A. Karni, "Grammar stickler: Starbucks booted me", N.Y. Post 8/16/2010: "Starbucks' strange vernacular finally drove a customer nuts. L. Rosenthal, a college English prof from Manhattan, said 3 cops forcibly ejected her from an Upper West Side Starbucks yesterday morning after she got into a dispute with a counterperson — make that barista — for refusing to place her order by the coffee chain's rules. Rosenthal, who is in her early 60s, asked for
A toasted multigrain bagel, please.
— and she became enraged when the barista at the franchise, on Columbus Avenue at 86th Street, followed up by inquiring,
Do you want butter or cheese?
"I just wanted a multigrain bagel," she told The Post. "I refused to say 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King,
You don't have to list the six things you do NOT want.
"Linguistically, it's stupid. And I'm a stickler for correct English."
Let's stipulate that the question of when and how customers should have to specify what they don't want is not a matter of grammar, as such, and go on to learn more about what happened on that fateful West Side morning. Yesterday's breakfast-bagel tussle heated up when the barista told the prickly prof that he wouldn't serve her unless she specified whether she wanted a schmear of butter or cheese — or neither.
"I yelled, 'I want my multigrain bagel!' " Rosenthal said.
"The barista said, 'You're not going to get anything unless you say butter or cheese!' " But Rosenthal, on principle, refused to back down. "I didn't even want the bagel anymore," she said.
The bagel brouhaha escalated until the manager called cops, and responding officers ordered her to leave, threatening to arrest her if she went back inside, she said.
"It was very humiliating to be thrown out, and all I did was ask for a bagel," recalled Rosenthal, who said she holds a Ph.D. from Columbia.
"If you don't use their language, they refuse to serve you. They don't understand what a plain multigrain bagel is."
"There's some evidence in the story that possible violations of the maxims of quantity and manner were not the only points at issue."
A Starbucks employee who witnessed the incident blamed Rosenthal.
"She would not answer. It was a reasonable question," the worker said.
"She called [the barista] an a- -hole."
Most of those who have sent me links to this story have been disappointed that the dispute was not over the nomenclature of different coffee serving sizes, as featured in Paul Rudd's "Venti is twenty" rant from the movie Role Models:
Or Dave Barry's classic Ask Mister Language Person column ("Latte lingo: Raising a pint at Starbucks", 11/30/2004):
"We begin today with a disturbing escalation in the trend of coffee retailers giving stupid names to cup sizes."
"As you know, this trend began several years ago when Starbucks (motto: "There's one opening right now in your basement") decided to call its cup sizes "Tall" (meaning "not tall," or ''small"), "Grande" (meaning "medium") and "Venti" (meaning, for all we know, "weasel snot").
"Unfortunately, we consumers, like moron sheep, started actually USING these names. Why? If Starbucks decided to call its toilets "AquaSwooshies," would we go along with THAT? Yes! Baaa!"
"Recently, at the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and Death March, Mister Language Person noticed that a Starbuck's competitor, Seattle's Best Coffee (which also uses "Tall" for small and "Grande" for medium) is calling ITS large cup size — get ready — "Grande Supremo."
"Yes. And as Mister Language Person watched in horror, many customers — seemingly intelligent, briefcase-toting adults — actually used this term, as in, "I'll take a Grande Supremo.""
"Listen, people: You should never, ever have to utter the words "Grande Supremo" unless you are addressing a tribal warlord who is holding you captive and threatening to burn you at the stake."
"JUST SAY YOU WANT A LARGE COFFEE, PEOPLE."
"Because if we let the coffee people get away with this, they're not going to stop, and some day, just to get a lousy cup of coffee, you'll hear yourself saying""
"I'll have a Mega Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong decaf."
"And then you will ask for the key to the AquaSwooshie. And when THAT happens, people, the terrorists will have won.
"In a comment on that 2004 post, Stefano Taschini expressed the opinion that the whole thing is really beside the point, because, 'I believe there must have been a small mistype: technically, a warm liquid that you ingest in quantities exceeding half a liter is "stock" not "coffee". In English, I think, the word infusion would also be appropriate (though I have to say that I myself am fond of the American-style coffee-bean-derived liquid, whatever you choose to call the substance and its various sizes). [Update — more discussion at the Economist's Johnson blog, and LOTS more discussion at Metafilter. Current counts on Google News suggest that the Starbucks v. Rosenthal story is getting more uptake than (say) the Marc Hauser story.]
Camp helps burn survivors
From Quinion's World Wide Words: "a headline, in the Cincinnati Enquirer of Ohio last Sunday (sent in by Brian Halsall), could be taken two ways: "Camp helps burn survivors"".
Cfr. Chomsky,
"Flying planes can be dangerous."
"Sue is eager to please"
Cfr. Chomsky,
"Flying planes can be dangerous."
"Sue is eager to please"
Thursday, August 19, 2010
ERP-waveforms starting at the presentation of the disambiguating adverb for dialogues containing violations (grey)
The caption for fig. 2 in that horrific study on Gricean brainwaves:
"ERP-waveforms starting at the presentation of the disambiguating adverb for dialogues containing violations (grey) and neutral dialogues (black) on a frontal (Fz) and a posterior electrode (Pz)."
Enough to have Grice's brain ...
It IS understood: they were Groeningen (in the Netherlands) undergrads, who did it for some course credit AND money.
"ERP-waveforms starting at the presentation of the disambiguating adverb for dialogues containing violations (grey) and neutral dialogues (black) on a frontal (Fz) and a posterior electrode (Pz)."
Enough to have Grice's brain ...
It IS understood: they were Groeningen (in the Netherlands) undergrads, who did it for some course credit AND money.
Electrode placement (triangle indicates nose of participant)
This is the caption for fig. 1 of "Gricean brainwaves" study. Grice would be horrified! It is understood: they were Groeningen undergrads -- hence the nose. And if you believe this: they took course credit AND money!
Grice's Brain
http://palm.mindmodeling.org/cogsci2010/papers/0368/paper0368.pdf
A study of what happens in your brain -- and Grice's, we expect -- when you witness a violation to one of his maxims. It was written by Dutch scholars. Enjoy!
A study of what happens in your brain -- and Grice's, we expect -- when you witness a violation to one of his maxims. It was written by Dutch scholars. Enjoy!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Formal Grice
By Roger Bishop Jones for The Grice Club.
I now have a chapter on Grice in my projected tome of formal analysis, which is populated at present only by material on vacuous names and a reference to the material on Aristotle which connects with Grice and Code.
These are not particularly outstanding examples of Grice's work, and it would be nice to have a formal treatment of some more important part of Grice's work, of which perhaps the most important if it could be done, would be something from the William James lectures.
Does JL or anyone else know of any other attempts to give a formal treatment to material from the James lectures, or to any other important part of Grice's philosophy?
RBJ
I now have a chapter on Grice in my projected tome of formal analysis, which is populated at present only by material on vacuous names and a reference to the material on Aristotle which connects with Grice and Code.
These are not particularly outstanding examples of Grice's work, and it would be nice to have a formal treatment of some more important part of Grice's work, of which perhaps the most important if it could be done, would be something from the William James lectures.
Does JL or anyone else know of any other attempts to give a formal treatment to material from the James lectures, or to any other important part of Grice's philosophy?
RBJ
Grice on Propositions
By Roger Bishop Jones for The Grice Club
I'm interested to know more about what Grice has said on "propositions" (in connection with "the eternal city").
I think of propositions as the meanings of sentences, and Grice certainly was interested in meanings, and in something he called "central meaning", by way of distinguishing what is "said" from what is "implicated".
He seems to have been reluctant to call these central meanings propositions, and I wonder why that was, and whether there are other parts of Grice's writings which cast light on his attitude towards use of the word "proposition", or indeed on his views about propositions.
In relation to "central meanings" if I may take that for a moment to be a Griceian surrogate for propositions, is it safe to say that was seeking to elucidate a single distinction, rather than to explore what might possible be multiple related distinctions?
There do seem to be multiple ways in which one might approach the analysis of what sentences mean. The one I have seen in Grice might be said to approach "central meaning" by way of implicature. If we can identify the implicatures and put them aside (for this purpose), then what we are left with is "central meaning".
Two other approaches are:
1. by consideration of when reported speech is accurate or misleading.
(for reported speech does not replicate how something is said or what it implicates, but must convey what is said and hence depends upon the claim as reported have the same content, conveying the same proposition, as the original)
2. by considering the content of explicit discussions about meanings.
We have there three (and there will probably be more) approaches to pinning down the notion of proposition which are not too far removed from Grice's method of philosophising, (though not so close to how Carnap might think about this), and its not obvious that these three approaches will yield the same answers. A pluralistic Carnap* might embrace this situation readily, and might start by saying that propositions as a part of the semantics of a language, are a technical device the details of which might vary from one language to another.
Is there anything in Grice to suggest that either his notion of "central meaning" or his notion of proposition (if he had one), might not be absolute, and might be best analysed as more than once related concept?
RBJ
I'm interested to know more about what Grice has said on "propositions" (in connection with "the eternal city").
I think of propositions as the meanings of sentences, and Grice certainly was interested in meanings, and in something he called "central meaning", by way of distinguishing what is "said" from what is "implicated".
He seems to have been reluctant to call these central meanings propositions, and I wonder why that was, and whether there are other parts of Grice's writings which cast light on his attitude towards use of the word "proposition", or indeed on his views about propositions.
In relation to "central meanings" if I may take that for a moment to be a Griceian surrogate for propositions, is it safe to say that was seeking to elucidate a single distinction, rather than to explore what might possible be multiple related distinctions?
There do seem to be multiple ways in which one might approach the analysis of what sentences mean. The one I have seen in Grice might be said to approach "central meaning" by way of implicature. If we can identify the implicatures and put them aside (for this purpose), then what we are left with is "central meaning".
Two other approaches are:
1. by consideration of when reported speech is accurate or misleading.
(for reported speech does not replicate how something is said or what it implicates, but must convey what is said and hence depends upon the claim as reported have the same content, conveying the same proposition, as the original)
2. by considering the content of explicit discussions about meanings.
We have there three (and there will probably be more) approaches to pinning down the notion of proposition which are not too far removed from Grice's method of philosophising, (though not so close to how Carnap might think about this), and its not obvious that these three approaches will yield the same answers. A pluralistic Carnap* might embrace this situation readily, and might start by saying that propositions as a part of the semantics of a language, are a technical device the details of which might vary from one language to another.
Is there anything in Grice to suggest that either his notion of "central meaning" or his notion of proposition (if he had one), might not be absolute, and might be best analysed as more than once related concept?
RBJ
Monday, August 16, 2010
What is this thing called, love?
Bimbo actress: "What's that in the road? A head?"
Director: "No! The line is, 'what's that in the road ahead?' Get it right!"
Bimbo actress: "What is this thing called, love?"
Director: "No, no, no! The line is, 'what is this thing called love?' Honestly, Phillip! I can't go on with this."
(c) Benny Hill
Director: "No! The line is, 'what's that in the road ahead?' Get it right!"
Bimbo actress: "What is this thing called, love?"
Director: "No, no, no! The line is, 'what is this thing called love?' Honestly, Phillip! I can't go on with this."
(c) Benny Hill
A Miami man is behind bars after he tried to steal a woman's baby that he didn't even know and ended up punching the infant in the face
Apparently, nbcmiami has an issue needing an editor. From another article on the same site with Todd Wright's byline:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Man-Punched-Infant-While-Trying-to-Stea l -It-98275349.html
"A Miami man is behind bars after he tried to steal a woman's baby that he didn't even know and ended up punching the infant in the face."
I think I could do Todd's job with one arm tied behind my back of writing news stories.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Man-Punched-Infant-While-Trying-to-Stea l -It-98275349.html
"A Miami man is behind bars after he tried to steal a woman's baby that he didn't even know and ended up punching the infant in the face."
I think I could do Todd's job with one arm tied behind my back of writing news stories.
Boy chases away man who shot his dead with kitchen knife
Boy with kitchen knife chases away the man who shot the boy's father.
Boy with knife repels his father's gun-wielding assailant.
Assailant shoots man, is chased away by the victim's son who was armed with a knife.
This is trickier than at first one imagines.
Boy with knife repels his father's gun-wielding assailant.
Assailant shoots man, is chased away by the victim's son who was armed with a knife.
This is trickier than at first one imagines.
Boy chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife
I'm glad Kramer taught me how to add illustrations to this blog.
Boy chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife.
Boy chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife
"A Broward dad is lucky to be alive after he was shot"
----- but not "to death". There is 'shoot' and 'shoot to death'. I wonder how Chomsky would analyse the phrase, 'to death'. It bored me "to tears". "I'm bored to death". "It bores me to death". He was shot 'to death' seems to be a different use of 'to death'. But surely, perhaps, by following, "be as informative as is required", one need to have added, 'not to death' in the headline:
Boy chases away who shot his dad not to death with kitchen knife.
---- The implicature of 'dad' is that he is alive. It would be TOO frivolous, even for a journalist, to refer to a dead father as a 'dad', I expect.
Plus, it's a 'kid' who can call a 'dad' dad -- not a grown up, we expect, journalist.
"during a botched robbery attempt."
As opposed to a non-botched success.
"And he has his 9-year-old son to thank for it. Police are searching for a suspect who shot Rodney Shepard in front of his three sons"
Is 'three' necessary? I feel I need to know their ages. It seems we have a little hero here -- but what if the other sons were 16 and 21? I would feel that the OLDER sons should have done something, rather. Plus, perhaps it was clumsy of the 9-year older to 'chase away' the shooter rather than, dunno, knocked him down?
"Monday evening in Plantation."
Shouldn't this be "a" plantation? Strawson notes that sometimes, common nouns ('congress') grow capitals ("the Congress") only to drop the 'definite iota operator' ('the'): "Congress". How named this plantation Plantation? Is that lack of imagination or what?
"The shooting happened shortly before 5 p.m. Monday at the home on the 4500 block of Northwest 3rd Court. According to police,Shepard and his three boys, 8-year-old twins and a 9-year-old son, were confronted by a family acquaintance outside the house."
I'm relieved the hero was the eldest.
"As they talked to the acquaintance, known as "Dred" or "Dred O," a Mercedes pulled into the driveway and a man with a handgun jumped out of the car and approached them.
The gunman ordered Shepard into his house and began to search his pockets for valuables."
-- money basically.
"Shepard and the gunman began to struggle, and Shepard wound up shot in the leg."
-- wound up with a wound, literally.
"The 9-year-old got a kitchen knife in attempt to ward off the gunman, who fled the scene. Dred also fled the scene." But dread FILLED the scene.
----- but not "to death". There is 'shoot' and 'shoot to death'. I wonder how Chomsky would analyse the phrase, 'to death'. It bored me "to tears". "I'm bored to death". "It bores me to death". He was shot 'to death' seems to be a different use of 'to death'. But surely, perhaps, by following, "be as informative as is required", one need to have added, 'not to death' in the headline:
Boy chases away who shot his dad not to death with kitchen knife.
---- The implicature of 'dad' is that he is alive. It would be TOO frivolous, even for a journalist, to refer to a dead father as a 'dad', I expect.
Plus, it's a 'kid' who can call a 'dad' dad -- not a grown up, we expect, journalist.
"during a botched robbery attempt."
As opposed to a non-botched success.
"And he has his 9-year-old son to thank for it. Police are searching for a suspect who shot Rodney Shepard in front of his three sons"
Is 'three' necessary? I feel I need to know their ages. It seems we have a little hero here -- but what if the other sons were 16 and 21? I would feel that the OLDER sons should have done something, rather. Plus, perhaps it was clumsy of the 9-year older to 'chase away' the shooter rather than, dunno, knocked him down?
"Monday evening in Plantation."
Shouldn't this be "a" plantation? Strawson notes that sometimes, common nouns ('congress') grow capitals ("the Congress") only to drop the 'definite iota operator' ('the'): "Congress". How named this plantation Plantation? Is that lack of imagination or what?
"The shooting happened shortly before 5 p.m. Monday at the home on the 4500 block of Northwest 3rd Court. According to police,Shepard and his three boys, 8-year-old twins and a 9-year-old son, were confronted by a family acquaintance outside the house."
I'm relieved the hero was the eldest.
"As they talked to the acquaintance, known as "Dred" or "Dred O," a Mercedes pulled into the driveway and a man with a handgun jumped out of the car and approached them.
The gunman ordered Shepard into his house and began to search his pockets for valuables."
-- money basically.
"Shepard and the gunman began to struggle, and Shepard wound up shot in the leg."
-- wound up with a wound, literally.
"The 9-year-old got a kitchen knife in attempt to ward off the gunman, who fled the scene. Dred also fled the scene." But dread FILLED the scene.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Disjunctions and Desires
--- I'm elaborating on this but a few things connect (with J's excellent remark that 'desires' are not discrete, while disjunctions are).
---
"indeterminacy" of conversational implicata (online "Logic and Conversation). You gotta love Grice for stating that, 'by uttering 'He hasn't been to prison yet', he meant that he is potentially dishonest, or that his colleagues are trecherous or that his aunt is a criminal and he should be him a visit before too long or ...'.
"and"-reduction. It has been claimed (by Harnish) that the 'oddity' of:
"He likes peaches-and-cream"
-- Therefore, he likes peaches"
--- (or 'desires') is to be explained as a breach of 'informativeness' (rather than truthiness -- cfr. The invention of truthiness).
---
This may have some odd consequences -- but perhaps explained implicatural. "Smith is bisexual; ergo he is heterosexual and homosexual". "I desire a green shirt" "Therefore, I desire a yellow/blue shirt". Or something.
---
"indeterminacy" of conversational implicata (online "Logic and Conversation). You gotta love Grice for stating that, 'by uttering 'He hasn't been to prison yet', he meant that he is potentially dishonest, or that his colleagues are trecherous or that his aunt is a criminal and he should be him a visit before too long or ...'.
"and"-reduction. It has been claimed (by Harnish) that the 'oddity' of:
"He likes peaches-and-cream"
-- Therefore, he likes peaches"
--- (or 'desires') is to be explained as a breach of 'informativeness' (rather than truthiness -- cfr. The invention of truthiness).
---
This may have some odd consequences -- but perhaps explained implicatural. "Smith is bisexual; ergo he is heterosexual and homosexual". "I desire a green shirt" "Therefore, I desire a yellow/blue shirt". Or something.
Grouse (Pronounced 'Grice')
Good Morning One, Good Morning All
FXstreet.com The Forex Market
If you didn't bag the odd grouse ( pronounced 'grice' by the gentry dontcha know), then tomorrow is the second day of the season.... Failing that you might ...
See all stories on this topic »
FXstreet.com The Forex Market
If you didn't bag the odd grouse ( pronounced 'grice' by the gentry dontcha know), then tomorrow is the second day of the season.... Failing that you might ...
See all stories on this topic »
Implicature and "Implicature"
From online source:
-----
"unintended implications". Rather: 'unintended 'implicatures''. As I like to say, a good thing about an implicature, unlike a child, is that an unwanted implicature is NOT one, but an unwanted child is STILL a child.
---
You've seen them on billboards, church marquees, and bathroom stalls: a pair of renegade quotation marks that ultimately results in an unfortunate, unintentional innuendo. You might think that a book comprised solely of photos of publicly displayed punctuation gaffes, accompanied by witty commentary, might get old after awhile. Well, you would be wrong.
The Book of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, based on the popular blog created by Bethany Keeley, features reader-contributed photos of these superfluous punctuation faux pas. The book's organized into categories like "At Work," "Social Graces," and "In the Bathroom," and Keeley provides funny commentary without being overly snarky. Even though the book repeats a different shade of the same joke over and over, the variations manage to seem wholly original when applied to different contexts. What self-respecting consumer of words could help from giggling after seeing a billboard that reads:
"Jesus" is Coming
Or, what about a customer feedback box from a national restaurant chain (I'm looking at you, Taco Bell) with a sign proclaiming:
"We Care." Please Let Us Know How You Feel
English is complex -- so what's the big deal if these avant-garde painters of language take the laws of grammar into their own hands and use the world's billboards, Post-it Notes, and sandwich boards as their canvases?
This is the big deal: Rules are rules, folks. Just like stop signs, speed limits, and laws that prohibit you from marrying your cousins, the regulations placed on the use of punctuation were created to benefit society as a whole. They exist so you don't unwittingly make fun of your own products, accidentally give the impression you're not being honest, or unintentionally dispute the existence of "the Lord." (See what I did there?)
Some might argue that only privileged people with soft hands have the time or energy to poke fun at the misuse of punctuation. Perhaps these bold folks going hog-wild with the quotation marks simply have more pressing things to worry about. Maybe so. They're trying to get people to buy their "soup," attend their "church," or simply just "flush" the toilet. They want emphasis and don't care how they go about achieving it.
Sorry, you syntax rebels, I'm taking the hardliner approach. We've got punctuation for a reason, and it's to fine-tune the sentiment behind our communication. Anyone with the wherewithal to own a business, buy billboard space, or design a product label should know better. Or use a proofreader. Google it. Something! If you break the rules, prepare to pay the price. (Which is being publicly shamed in this book.)
With that said, Keeley is fairly gentle. She focuses more energy poking fun at the absurdity of the unintended implications and less calling out the language skills of the perpetrators. Read it and chuckle with a good conscience, and think: Oh, that zany language of ours. Always up to "something. "
-----
"unintended implications". Rather: 'unintended 'implicatures''. As I like to say, a good thing about an implicature, unlike a child, is that an unwanted implicature is NOT one, but an unwanted child is STILL a child.
---
You've seen them on billboards, church marquees, and bathroom stalls: a pair of renegade quotation marks that ultimately results in an unfortunate, unintentional innuendo. You might think that a book comprised solely of photos of publicly displayed punctuation gaffes, accompanied by witty commentary, might get old after awhile. Well, you would be wrong.
The Book of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, based on the popular blog created by Bethany Keeley, features reader-contributed photos of these superfluous punctuation faux pas. The book's organized into categories like "At Work," "Social Graces," and "In the Bathroom," and Keeley provides funny commentary without being overly snarky. Even though the book repeats a different shade of the same joke over and over, the variations manage to seem wholly original when applied to different contexts. What self-respecting consumer of words could help from giggling after seeing a billboard that reads:
"Jesus" is Coming
Or, what about a customer feedback box from a national restaurant chain (I'm looking at you, Taco Bell) with a sign proclaiming:
"We Care." Please Let Us Know How You Feel
English is complex -- so what's the big deal if these avant-garde painters of language take the laws of grammar into their own hands and use the world's billboards, Post-it Notes, and sandwich boards as their canvases?
This is the big deal: Rules are rules, folks. Just like stop signs, speed limits, and laws that prohibit you from marrying your cousins, the regulations placed on the use of punctuation were created to benefit society as a whole. They exist so you don't unwittingly make fun of your own products, accidentally give the impression you're not being honest, or unintentionally dispute the existence of "the Lord." (See what I did there?)
Some might argue that only privileged people with soft hands have the time or energy to poke fun at the misuse of punctuation. Perhaps these bold folks going hog-wild with the quotation marks simply have more pressing things to worry about. Maybe so. They're trying to get people to buy their "soup," attend their "church," or simply just "flush" the toilet. They want emphasis and don't care how they go about achieving it.
Sorry, you syntax rebels, I'm taking the hardliner approach. We've got punctuation for a reason, and it's to fine-tune the sentiment behind our communication. Anyone with the wherewithal to own a business, buy billboard space, or design a product label should know better. Or use a proofreader. Google it. Something! If you break the rules, prepare to pay the price. (Which is being publicly shamed in this book.)
With that said, Keeley is fairly gentle. She focuses more energy poking fun at the absurdity of the unintended implications and less calling out the language skills of the perpetrators. Read it and chuckle with a good conscience, and think: Oh, that zany language of ours. Always up to "something. "
Boy chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife
From Quinion:
"The headline on the website of The Daily Caller of Miami - noted by
Susie Elins on Monday - seems to imply a multifunction weapon: "Boy
chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife.""
"The headline on the website of The Daily Caller of Miami - noted by
Susie Elins on Monday - seems to imply a multifunction weapon: "Boy
chases away man who shot his dad with kitchen knife.""
Embedded implicature: "Archeologist shoots dead rampaging polar bear"
Quinion, today:
"A similar confusion surrounds a headline that Don Wilkes found on
the website of the Vancouver Province on 5 August: "Archeologist
shoots dead rampaging polar bear"".
"A similar confusion surrounds a headline that Don Wilkes found on
the website of the Vancouver Province on 5 August: "Archeologist
shoots dead rampaging polar bear"".
Embedded Implicature: "Police chase man killed by train" (BBC)
From Quinion's World Wide Words, today:
"The news ticker on the BBC site on Tuesday read "Police chase man
killed by train". This was not a report of post-mortem athleticism:
the first three words make up a noun phrase - the police chased a
man, who was then killed by a train. Thanks to everyone who sent
that in."
"The news ticker on the BBC site on Tuesday read "Police chase man
killed by train". This was not a report of post-mortem athleticism:
the first three words make up a noun phrase - the police chased a
man, who was then killed by a train. Thanks to everyone who sent
that in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
