Re: USAGE: irregular plurals (was: minimal pair ...)

Pardon the lateish reply.

Padraic Brown wrote:

>--- Tristan <kesuari@...> wrote:
>
>
>>Padraic Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Still sounds totally unnatural, "mouses".
>>>
>>Probably in the same way that 'books' would sound
>>unnatural to someone
>>for whom the normal plural of 'book' (or _boc_) was
>>'beech' (or _bec_).
>>
>>
>I can see what you mean, but it's not like there was a
>new something that _also_ had the name "book" in the
>14th century and took a wierd plural "books".
>
True. I didn't realise that was a consideration for you though. Indeed,
I thought you said a mouse was a mouse. Maybe I'm just confusing the
matter though. We could always just do what MS says and use 'one mouse
device' 'two mouse devices'. Though, interestingly enough, I want to say
'one mouse device', 'two mice devices'. Rhyming or unusual modifier
('mouse' is normally a normal, non-modifying noun and thus subject to
pluralisation) or something...

        Pretty much why "mouses" sounds so weird for computer
        mice. One mouse is very much like another whether it's
        got a tail or a PS/2 cable on.
 (Padraic Brown, 27.10.02, 9.45 a.m. (whose timezone---mine, yours, UTC---I
don't know))

>I still think "mouses" must be some kind of
>regionalism.
>
Sounds unlikely (but not impossible, of course) to me, given the nature
of computers and the Internet and whatnot. I understand that it used to
be more popular than it is now, when mouses/mice/mouse devices were in
the domain of geeky types who seem to like odd grammatical thingies.
Like having two Linux boxen. <random rant>(Or Lyenux boxen, if you
insist.)</rant>

>>>If more than one classical music lover has one, it
>>>makes perfect sense. One CML = one sweet-tooth;
>>>
>>many
>>
>>
>>>CMLs = many sweet-tooths.
>>>
>>I still have to disagree...
>>
>>
>
>Would you use "sweet-teeth"? Or as (I think) Nik said,
>"sweet-tooth".
>
Nup. Like Roger said, rephrase at any cost.

Tristan.

Replies