Zompist Bboard Again

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:38 pmWhy is english such a stupid language?

Because you're using the free version.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:26 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:38 pmWhy is english such a stupid language?

Because you're using the free version.

Is English one of those dual-licensed things where there's an ostensibly FLOSS version that's missing vocabulary and syntax and a proprietary version you have to buy to get the full usage out of the language?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:42 pm Is English one of those dual-licensed things where there's an ostensibly FLOSS version that's missing vocabulary and syntax and a proprietary version you have to buy to get the full usage out of the language?

Yeah, we call the fully paid version "a college education".

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:42 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:26 pm

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:38 pmWhy is english such a stupid language?

Because you're using the free version.

Is English one of those dual-licensed things where there's an ostensibly FLOSS version that's missing vocabulary and syntax and a proprietary version you have to buy to get the full usage out of the language?

You can get it free in California, but that's the FLAWSS version.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:42 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:26 pm
Because you're using the free version.

Is English one of those dual-licensed things where there's an ostensibly FLOSS version that's missing vocabulary and syntax and a proprietary version you have to buy to get the full usage out of the language?

You can get it free in California, but that's the FLAWSS version.

Wait - here in Wisconsin FLOSS and *FLAWSS are homophones (but FLOSS and *FLAHSS are not).

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:44 am Which natlang isn't kinda "stupid" if you think about it?

this gives me an idea for a conlang challange.

I'm a bit undecided about forming the possessive of nouns and names that end in "s". Which of the following short texts looks better to you?

1) "Now, money can't always buy everything. All of Steve Jobs' money couldn't save him from dying of cancer in the end, and apparently, all of Jeff Bezos' money can't make new hair grow on his pate. But despite that, money is extremely powerful in our world [...]"

or

2) "Now, money can't always buy everything. All of Steve Jobs's money couldn't save him from dying of cancer in the end, and apparently, all of Jeff Bezos's money can't make new hair grow on his pate. But despite that, money is extremely powerful in our world [...]"

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:31 am I'm a bit undecided about forming the possessive of nouns and names that end in "s". Which of the following short texts looks better to you?

1) "Now, money can't always buy everything. All of Steve Jobs' money couldn't save him from dying of cancer in the end, and apparently, all of Jeff Bezos' money can't make new hair grow on his pate. But despite that, money is extremely powerful in our world [...]"

or

2) "Now, money can't always buy everything. All of Steve Jobs's money couldn't save him from dying of cancer in the end, and apparently, all of Jeff Bezos's money can't make new hair grow on his pate. But despite that, money is extremely powerful in our world [...]"

"Now, money can't always buy everything. All of Steve Jobs' money couldn't save him from dying of cancer in the end, and apparently, all of Jeff Bezos's money can't make new hair grow on his pate. But despite that, money is extremely powerful in our world [...]"

You'll find both because there is no fixed rule.

Here's a comparison of two popular style guides. (Note: most of us never consult a style guide, but they are the rules that editors use, and when they conflict it's fair to say there is no agreement.)

In speech, I tend to add an extra syllable [bə zos əz], so I prefer Bezos's.

I write it Bezos' and pronounce it Bezos's. Fuck the police.

Part of this is that, in a way, I interpret Jobs for some reason as if it were plural for this purpose, but Bezos as if it were singular. Why I haven't a clue.

Thank you, interesting discussion!

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:15 pm Part of this is that, in a way, I interpret Jobs for some reason as if it were plural for this purpose, but Bezos as if it were singular. Why I haven't a clue.

But "Jobs" isn't a plural, so your version makes the least sense to me.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:15 pm Part of this is that, in a way, I interpret Jobs for some reason as if it were plural for this purpose, but Bezos as if it were singular. Why I haven't a clue.

I think it’s because Jobs ends in /z/, but Bezos ends in /s/. The former is a valid English plural, the latter isn’t (that would be /ˈbiːzɒz/, or more probably /ˈbiːzə͡uz/).

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 2:08 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:15 pm Part of this is that, in a way, I interpret Jobs for some reason as if it were plural for this purpose, but Bezos as if it were singular. Why I haven't a clue.

But "Jobs" isn't a plural, so your version makes the least sense to me.

Well, it is homophonous with a plural, meaning ‘more than one job’.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 2:08 am Thank you, interesting discussion!

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:15 pm Part of this is that, in a way, I interpret Jobs for some reason as if it were plural for this purpose, but Bezos as if it were singular. Why I haven't a clue.

But "Jobs" isn't a plural, so your version makes the least sense to me.

There's a long history in English of treating any word that ends in s as if it were a plural. See, for example, British people saying "maths."

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 6:46 am There's a long history in English of treating any word that ends in s as if it were a plural. See, for example, British people saying "maths."

You'd do better to stick to oats, eaves and riches. Simple or unitary maths is usually singular.

As for Jobs, it seems that etymologically it already contains the genitive singular ending, which is a thorough defence of not sounding it again.

Nice try.
The s is a derivational suffix. Preserving it on the abbreviation only makes sense if it has been reanalyzed as a grammatical suffix. Also, ask a Brit whether "math" or "maths" is correct, and they will say "Well, you don't study just one mathematic, do you?" every time. It's very obvious that Brits have convinced themselves that "mathematics" contains a plural suffix.

But your other examples are also good, especially eaves, which is a well known back-formation.

I had to look up "eaves".

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 10:13 am Nice try.
The s is a derivational suffix. Preserving it on the abbreviation only makes sense if it has been reanalyzed as a grammatical suffix. Also, ask a Brit whether "math" or "maths" is correct, and they will say "Well, you don't study just one mathematic, do you?" every time. It's very obvious that Brits have convinced themselves that "mathematics" contains a plural suffix.

Are you aware that we predominantly use the word as a singular? **What are maths? As for the joke, maths seems not to be countable at all - I'm even finding it difficult to prefix it with a number in a sentence where maths means 'types of maths'.

I am well aware of how "maths" is used. You cannot speak in an American accent within hearing distance of a Brit without accumulating unsolicited lectures about how wrong it is to treat "mathematics" as singular. With respect, that's not the point.

The entire issue is this: the suffix at the end of mathematics was reanalyzed as a plural suffix. There is no room to dispute that in a world where the word "maths" exists. Secondary attempts to use singular concord in phrase and clause syntax do not travel back in time and un-reanalyze the suffix.

Similarly, Swedish allows you to use han and hon to refer to masculine and feminine referents. This fact does not have the capacity to go back in time and make it so that the masculine and feminine didn't merge into the common gender sometime in the high middle ages. Even if Swedish speakers stopped using den and det, and exclusively refered to things as "he" or "she," it would not change history.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 8:02 pmThe entire issue is this: the suffix at the end of mathematics was reanalyzed as a plural suffix. There is no room to dispute that in a world where the word "maths" exists. Secondary attempts to use singular concord in phrase and clause syntax do not travel back in time and un-reanalyze the suffix.

Wait- so are you saying that "maths" used to have plural concord historically? I admit I don't really follow your argument. The "one mathematic" comment seems like a joke and also like the kind of thing naïve people say. Not least sly Brits talking to Americans. Richard's difficulty seems pretty relevant.

I don't quite know what to think of the -s at the end of linguistics, math(ematic)s, physics, acoustics, pediatrics, politics, mechatronics... It is obviously a derivational suffix, and I sure feel it is a "plural" in some vague undescribable way, but I have no good arguments in that direction.

As an aside, mathēmatica was a singular feminine 1st decl. noun in Latin, and I suspect that historically it is an adjective with ars/τέχνη (both feminine nouns) as the underlying modified noun... EDIT: I just checked the LSJ, and it says Greek μαθηματική has ἐπιστήμη 'knowledge, science' as the underlying noun. Hmm, well, that makes more sense...