Language desk
< November 11	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 12[edit]

Math/Maths question[edit]

Does anyone know roughly what the geographic spread/percentages of people who use "math" versus "maths" for "mathematics" is? Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, it's only Americans and Canadians who say "math", and the rest of the anglophone world says "maths". You could easily work the percentage out from that. JackofOz 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea Canadians also used this mode of expression. It sounds oddly incorrect to English ears, a bit like saying 'statistic' when you mean statistics. Clio the Muse 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have unintentionally maligned all Canadians. My impression is that Canadian English has copied most of the non-British forms of American English, but in this case I may just have been guessing. Oh, alright then, I was just guessing. JackofOz 06:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Australians, given the mutation (in the completely inoffensive sense, of course =O) ) of some of their other vocabulary. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 08:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're weird. I certainly wasn't taking a stab at Canadians, just reporting what I thought (and has since been confirmed by Anonymous below) was a fact, in response to the question posed. JackofOz 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In US English, "math" is the plural of "math", just like "sheep" is the plural of "sheep". To us, hearing someone say "maths" sounds as bad as if they said "sheeps". StuRat 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Sheep are countable entities; can you say the same for a discipline such mathematics? Can you give an example of where you might use "math" in the plural? JackofOz 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

Mom:        "Have you done all 10 math problems yet ?"

Lying Kid:  "Yes, I've done all my math."

StuRat 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I parse it, the "math" in the Lying Kid's reply is not a plural noun. It is an adjective before an implied noun ("problems"). --71.244.101.6 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's an example of a plural. If they had used the full word, the exchange would have gone:

Mom: "Have you done all 10 mathematics problems yet?"
Lying Kid: "Yes, I've done all my mathematics."

You can talk of different algebras, or different geometries, but these all come under the overall heading of mathematics, of which AFAIK there is only one (despite the -s at the end). The fact that some people abbreviate this to "maths", and others to "math", doesn't mean there are many mathematicses. JackofOz 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a debate about this with someone in the U.K., and the fact that it's "mathematics", not "mathematic", got me to start using "maths". Perhaps I'm weak willed but it makes sense to me to use "maths". --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds logical, but language isn't logic. People in the US drive on parkways and park on driveways. ;) If I were from the US I'd probably be comfortable saying math. --Kjoonlee 10:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's shortened by truncation, so math... makes more sense than math...s.--Prosfilaes 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, Jack was right about "math" being the standard usage in Canada as well as the US. On the other hand, StuRat's claim that "math" is also a plural is silly; in the sense in his example, it's a mass noun. "Math" can be a count noun in an informal use where it refers to a specific course in math, or something like that, and then the plural is "maths". My grade 13 credits included three maths, and that's how I said it. --Anonymous, 10:42 UTC, November 12.

Or an easier example: science. I do my science homework, I'm enrolled in many science courses, and I'm interested in science OR I'm interested in the sciences. "Math" works the same in N/A English, though "math fields" is much preferred over "various maths", and I would probably say "three math credits" over "three maths", though both are acceptable. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "math" is a little different from "science" in that regard. "Science" is commonly used in the plural to refer to various branches of science ("social sciences", "mathematical sciences"). On the other hand, I don't recall seeing "maths" used to refer to the various sub-disciplines of math. --71.244.101.6 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That and who would say "I'm enrolled in many mathematic courses, and I'm interested in mathematic OR I'm interested in the mathematics." Analogy doesn't fit. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply to mathematics, it applies to "math". "I'm enrolled in many math courses, and I'm interesting in math OR I'm interested in the maths", is fine in N/A English, though like I said, something like "many fields of math" would be preferred usage. Mathematics, being a general name for a range of disciplines, would fit with the usage of "sciences". freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a mathematician and a speaker of American English, I have never heard anyone use "maths" or "the maths" to refer to various subdisciplines of mathematics. I've heard Brits use "maths" where I would use "math", but we both mean "mathematics", the general non-count noun. If you're trying to stretch a parallel to fit "math" (always a risky idea when trying to understand language), "science" is a pretty unlikely candidate. Try "physics", and note that "physics" never means "solid state physics and fluid dynamics and scattering theory" (except in the sense that it denotes one field which subsumes all those.) Tesseran 05:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is any more complex than a different way of forming an abbreviation. Some countries have a simple abbreviation and just use the first four letters of the word; others include the "s", presumably to be consistent with words like physics, statistics, arts, and humanities. But presumably the US and Canada don't abbreviate "statistics" to "stat" rather than "stats", so there is little bit of internal inconsistency. JackofOz 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can have a statistic (or a stat) and statistics (or stats). For some odd reason, however, you can only have mathematics, but never a mathematic. I'll have to ask a doctor of chiropractic about that. StuRat 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not odd. You can have a single statistic (a "stat"), or you can study the field of statistics ("stats"). You can also study the field of mathematics ("maths" or "math"), but there is no such thing as a "mathematic" - which probably explains why there's no word for this non-existent non-entity. Any chiropractor knows that. Don't waste your money, they'll just tell you for $50 what I just told you for free; wait till you've got a backache or something. JackofOz 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is An Argument By An Ancient Greek. Hmmm, Maybe Not Ancient Greek, Roman, Perhaps?[edit]

It goes somthing like:

If I had put a coin in a urn, why not put 2, or 3, or 4, or more. What is the philospher's name? Or whatever? What is the name of the article? Thanks.100110100 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not familiar to me. Is there some conclusion? It sounds vaguely like what might be the start of some paradox by Zeno of Elea, but does not resemble any of those given in the article Zeno's paradoxes. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're guessing, it sounds like something I once thought when I saw a street full of beggars. I though I should give some money to one beggar, but if I do that why not to the others? And why do I give money in the first place? Because I am so much richer? That doesn't change unless I give a substantial amount. And then I'd have to do the same for the next beggar. I'd have to sit down and hold my hand up before I reached the end of the street. So I gave nothing.... Sounds like something an old Greek could have come up with too. DirkvdM 08:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'I'd have to sit down and hold my hand up before I reached the end of the street. So I gave nothing....'???????? Yes, it goes somthing like that. My physc proff told us, but i coudln't remeber, he called it Someone's Argument. But I can't remeber the name, but the idea is the same, like DirkvdM's example. Like, if I learned, English, why not learn, German, & French, and etc.. but I couldn't, cause I would be impossible to learn all the languages in the world in my lifetime, let alone know they well enough, & even, not counting that languages change and speciate. Maybe this would help: he said somthing '...(Someone)'s Argument...' [I'm pretty sure] to demonstrate somthing in the lecture.100110100 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmm, maybe not ancient greek, just someone, but yea, i always thought it was an ancient greek, they all come up with those, maybe Roman?100110100 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that ancient Greeks are out the window, what about 'Dirk's Argument'? DirkvdM 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article for that. Unfortunatly. No I mean yes, there it could be by a Greek.100110100 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of OS[edit]

I've met so many people championing both 'OSes' and 'OSs' to be the prural of the acronym 'OS' (operating system). I argue that 'OSes' is correct since someone not knowing what the acronym means would simply read it as 'Oh-Ess', so 'Oh-Ess-es' (OSes) would sound better, and that from a phonetic point of view writing 'OSs' would make it sound like 'hiss'. I've found no conclusive proof for either, but after polling some friends 'OSes' appears to be in majority. I've also been passed a citation from Wikipedia saying 'OSes' is correct, but it didn't have a link so I couldn't check it. The arguments I've had against it are that if you replaced the acronym with its meaning, 'OSes' would actually read 'operating systemes', but this comes back to my first point about presuming people don't know what it means.

Which is the correct definition? RevenDS 12:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, though there's no official governing body of English and thus there can be no official spelling, acronyms are always supposed to be pluralized with a single lowercase "s". IBMs, DVDs, PCs, etc.

Note, however, that these would still be -s when written out in full: eye-bee-ems, dee-vee-dees, pee-sees. Compare these with oh-esses. --Ptcamn 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, OSs does look strange looking, and since OS is usually read as "oh ess" and not "operating system", the -es plural makes sense. In formal writing, you would probably expand it to operating systems, but in less-than-formal writing, feel free to spell it OSes. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 13:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (not a lot, I know), I googled "out SOSs" (as in sending out, putting out signals, etc.) and while "SOSs" and "SOS's" got around 100 returns, "SOSes" only got 11. I found sending SOS's (with apostrophe) as an example for forming the plural of abbreviations that would be ambiguous or confusing if the s alone were added on google answers.---Sluzzelin 14:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that method with 'OSs' and 'OSes', but Google is not case sensitive and so I naturally got a lot more results for the shorter form, and this was further marred by the fact that 'OSS' is also an acronym for 'open source software'. I wouldn't take Google too seriously for such searches until there is a way to alter the context of the search. RevenDS 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a universally agreed upon answer. Between "OSes" and "OSs", I prefer the former. However, I've seen at least one standards document whose convention is not to change the spelling of an acronym even when it is plural. --71.244.101.6 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pick OSes, because OS ends with a sibilant consonant sound. Would I do the same with ARH? That's a tricky question. Hmmm.. --Kjoonlee 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question is easy. Operating systems has no -es in it, so abbreviating it that way isn't technically correct. However, OSes sounds more natural. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that reasoning is correct. Sometimes acronyms and abbreviations are treated as (though they were?) separate words of their own. For example, we say "an unidentified flying object" but "a UFO". --71.244.101.6 20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because U is pronounced "yew" (both as a single letter, and in the pronunciation "yew-fo"). You wouldn't say "an yew" (the tree), so you wouldn't say "an UFO". Until SOSes (above), I'd never seen an abbreviation or acronym pluralised with -es. Not that OSes is wrong, per se, because there is no final arbiter - just extremely unusual. The usual approach with these things is simply to add -s, but sometimes -'s is justified. OS's seems a good solution to me. OSes does not. JackofOz 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To each his own, I guess. I find apostrophes used for plurals (80's, OS's) very awkward.. --Kjoonlee 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, and I generally eliminate them on sight. Despite this, I would still marginally prefer OS's to OSes. That's probably due to seeing many examples of the former type all over the internet, compared with the unfamiliarity of plurals with -es. Two forms of plural abbreviations is bad enough - let's not have three. But I expect I'll never have to use this word, so you take my opinion with a grain of salt if you like. :) JackofOz 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is a third plural form, it's 's, because "-es" has always been a plural suffix in modern English but 's has not. Maybe your preference of 's is similar to many people's preference of it's used as a possessive, which is a concequence of the frequency that it is written by people who haven't realized that it's not correct. By that I mean that (this applies to me too) it doesn't look so bad, because we've become accustomed to seeing it written that way for so long. I'd think SOSs is more popular than SOSes because it's such an old word, and wouldn't have had to survive a barrage of half-assed spellings. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 05:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of apostrophies to pluralise words was 'outlawed' around a decade ago. There's a part of the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves which explains this in greater detail, but the general message is that 'apostrophy-s' should not be used to pluralise anything since if it is interprited correctly, it would actually be indicating posession. RevenDS 12:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any outlawing, it happened a lot earlier than around a decade ago, more like early 19th century. But Eats, Shoots and Leaves is certainly a great book, recommended reading for all writers of English. I never thought I'd say this, but given the prevalance of apostrophes with plural abbreviations, I'd even go so far as to say that a new grammar is emerging: the plural of an abbreviation is either -s or 's, you choose which one you prefer. I know which one I'll be choosing. I don't pretend to like it, but that seems to be the latest manifestation of language change. After all, we cannot hope to ever compete with all the signwriters and web-authors in the world. I might even, one day in the far, far distant future, grumblingly accept "it's" as a possessive, but don't hold your breath. (How come the people who write "it's" when they mean "its", write "cant" when they mean "can't"?) Oh, and I still hate the look of OSes, sorry. JackofOz 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to best learn a language[edit]

I'm going to Italy for three months on my own this summer, and I havent learned any italian yet, and i wont be able to immerse myself until then. I am thinking about getting a rosetta stone program, but wanted to check if you guys had any better suggestions - books or programs. If i'm studying on my own, what resources would you suggest i get? 71.252.8.188 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Italian bed partner. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, no. They either talk too much or not at all. Clio the Muse 02:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of non-native English speakers who have found that joining an English internet forum dramatically increased their skill. I suppose you could find a general Italian forum to take part in alongside a more formal method of learning (such as classes, books, audio lessons, etc.). RevenDS 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've reached a certain level by studying books or programs, and before flying to Italy, you could rent DVDs of Italian films, and watch the original version with English subtitles. My personal recommendations would be films by Scola, Pasolini, Fellini and Moretti. But fortunately Italian cinema is very rich and has a lot more to offer as well (just make sure the movie is not spoken in one of the Southern dialects such as Sicilian, Calabrian, or Neapolitan). Good luck with exploring this beautiful language and culture! ---Sluzzelin 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could start reading some Italian comics, personally I like Dylan Dog and Romano Scarpa's stuff... 惑乱分からん 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start looking for an Italian bed partner in a minute, but until I find one, does anybody have any suggestions for books or computer programs that you find are particularly good? I do plan to watch Italian movies or maybe read Italian books I've already read in translation or English books I've read translated into Italian, so I have a better grasp on what's going on, but before I can do any of that, or even get myself an Italian girlfriend, I assume I'd need to learn some basics. 71.252.8.188 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if our answers were a bit tangential to your specific question. Unfortunately, I can't recommend anything, because the book I was forced to use is a) out of print, b) not for English speakers and c) bad. It also depends on which method suits you best personally (textbooks with lots of formal grammar, more emphasis on phrases, courses including tapes and taped exercises etc.). So my only suggestion is that you check out what your library has to offer and borrow whatever looks appealing to you. You will quickly find out whether the method suits you or not. If not, you can try something else, and you still picked up some Italian already, and, finally, at least you didn't waste any money.---Sluzzelin 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguaphone courses are reasonably comprehensive. Clio the Muse 03:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]