Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:03 am no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse
At least in the English I am familiar with, "lousy" has very little relation to lice, and the condition of having lice is, well, having lice, not being "lousy". And I have never heard "louse" being used as an insult.TomHChappell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 3:28 pmWhen something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:03 am no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse
And if we want to insult someone we might say they are a louse, and be understood.
Though I think that’s a somewhat old-fashioned insult!
"Lousy" originally meant full of lice, however nowadays it most often refers to something being miserable and the historical connection to lice has largely been lost.Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 6:46 pmAt least in the English I am familiar with, "lousy" has very little relation to lice, and the condition of having lice is, well, having lice, not being "lousy". And I have never heard "louse" being used as an insult.TomHChappell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 3:28 pmWhen something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:03 am no, but I'm not surprised - it seems much more common for people to talk about lice than about a louse
And if we want to insult someone we might say they are a louse, and be understood.
Though I think that’s a somewhat old-fashioned insult!
But 'lousy' is normally a dead metaphor.TomHChappell wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 3:28 pm When something (or someone) is infested with lice, we say it is lousy; we don’t say it is licy.
People seem to be arguing about whether the singular or the plural is more commonly used in everyday speech.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 7:36 am I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something
The proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 7:36 am I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something
Well, yes. I rarely ever talk about lice and virtually never say the word "louse".Estav wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:43 amThe proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 7:36 am I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something
The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.
If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.
To me lice is more a plurale tantum than a collective noun, in that it still behaves mostly like a plural noun, just one whose singular is missing in action, considering how infrequently louse is actually used.Estav wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:43 amThe proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 7:36 am I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something
The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.
If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.
Would the noun "police" be a plurale tantrum? It takes plural agreement and it is never used in the singular. For the singular, "police officer", "policeman", or "cop" are used.Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 1:58 pmTo me lice is more a plurale tantum than a collective noun, in that it still behaves mostly like a plural noun, just one whose singular is missing in action, considering how infrequently louse is actually used.Estav wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 9:43 amThe proposal in the original post is that, despite being etymologically plural, the form "lice" might be reinterpreted as a grammatically singular mass/collective noun, similar to the evolution of certain other irregular plurals such as stamina, data, algae.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 7:36 am I don't get the point of this discussion! Isn't lice just the plural of louse? But I am not a native speaker of English and may have missed something
The use of "doesn't" in the overheard sentence "lice doesn't float" is put forth as evidence that some speakers have reinterpreted "lice" this way.
If this change exists at all for me, it certainly hasn't progressed far: I find it natural to use "lice" as a plural, unlike "stamina" or "data" where plural usage sounds marked. I don't use the words lice and louse much anyways, though.