MasTURbate vs. MasTERbate...
- Thread starter absinthium
- Start date
Of course is doesn't sound right to you: you're American. It may not sound right to some British English speakers either, but popular usage is not necessarily what is grammatically correct. It is possible to define what a datum is. One fact or figure, a single unit, is a datum.
No; two Homo sapiens is not correct. Homo sapiens is the name of a species, so it is rarely used in the plural. (By the way, the genus name, in this case Homo, is always capitalised.) If you want to be really specific, the correct plural of Homo sapiens is Homines sapientes because the strict Latin plurals are used in taxonomic nomenclature.
This is a grey area. In American English, collective plural nouns normally take the singular verb, but British English collective plurals are treated as any other plurals. That is according to the grammar books. It's not unusual to hear things like, "The orchestra were playing," or, "The crowd are loving it," on the BBC, but it sounds strange to American ears. So to be more precise, data used collectively can take a singular verb in the United States. In The UK, a plural verb is always technically correct, even though some might not realise it's plural and may mistakenly assign a singular predicate.
Another singular/plural situation that bugs me: people thinking that that words like biceps and Homo sapiens are plural, and the singular forms must be bicep and Homo sapien. Aaaaagh!
[post=343251]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Um, okay then, "bicepses" and "Homo sapienses" mean more than one. Got it. :crazy: :smoke:
[post=343267]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]True, we don't often hear collective plurals being followed by plural verbs, but I was taught (many years ago) that the correct form depends on the way the speaker intends it. If he/she is speaking of each individual in the couple, use the plural verbal form, whereas if considering the pair as one calls for singular form, i.e., "the couple are" as opposed to "the couple is".
I see no mixup with biceps vs. bicep, however. "My biceps are humongous" vs. "My left bicep is larger than my right one".
BTW, I speak the United States tongue!
species classifications do not refer to individual creatures; they're essentially plural nouns in use, because the singular is no different from the plural in their case. the question would only arise if you had more than one species with the SAME classification, which is, of course, what the system was devised to avoid in the first place 
steve319
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,170
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2
- Points
- 183
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Congratulations on surmounting that obstacle so thoroughly! You know, J, you're a real success story on many, many levels. :hug:
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Sep 14 2005, 06:30 PM
Believe me, I'm the first one to recognise that poor spelling doesn't necessarily mean poor comprehension, but where would I be if no one pointed out my mistakes? Still making them, that's where.
[post=343269]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Fine line, though, between pointing out error in an effort to encourage growth and teach (as I do every day) and singling someone out in a public forum with a "perhaps you should use spellcheck, stupid."
OK, maybe that's NOT a fine line. I'm dropping this now. :hi:
I had an issue with the spelling of triceps last year. When I looked it up, I found triceps is singular and the plural is indeed tricepses. I presume the same is true for biceps (actually biceps or bicepses are both listed in Webter's as the plural form). The "ceps" refers to heads or bundles of muscle attached to whatever in the heck they hook on to. Therefore biceps is a bundle of two heads and triceps is a bundle of three.
Believe me, I'm the first one to recognise that poor spelling doesn't necessarily mean poor comprehension, but where would I be if no one pointed out my mistakes? Still making them, that's where. I no longer have need to be embarassed when I write, so I feel these things empower us all.
When I was teaching I always told my students to call me on any mistakes I made. I told them there would never be negative repercussions for pointing out my mistakes, but if they didn't and I found out about it later, there would be heck to pay. The only time I know of that they didn't nail me was last year I left a letter out of a word I wrote on the board. Several days later (yes I was quite dilatory about cleaning my board) when I noticed it, they laughed about how long it took me to see "my mistake." Great kids! And yes, I miss them.
[post=343269]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]When I was teaching I always told my students to call me on any mistakes I made. I told them there would never be negative repercussions for pointing out my mistakes, but if they didn't and I found out about it later, there would be heck to pay. The only time I know of that they didn't nail me was last year I left a letter out of a word I wrote on the board. Several days later (yes I was quite dilatory about cleaning my board) when I noticed it, they laughed about how long it took me to see "my mistake." Great kids! And yes, I miss them.
taven -- you would think I would consult the dictionary before posting erroneous ideas and I should have before my bicep/biceps declaration! Thanks for clarifying this, as my dictionary lists no "bicep" as a word. The two headed monster has its plural name.
Luke
I looked in my Oxford 2 volume dictionary first, but it didn't have the info. My Webster's did, and I still need to see what my full Oxford on CD says. I'm just addicted to dictionaries as my spelling is so pitiful I need lots of reassurance. Once I get into a dictionary, I start browsing and can waste a lot of time just jumping from word to thought to words, words, words.
Luke
[post=343538]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]I looked in my Oxford 2 volume dictionary first, but it didn't have the info. My Webster's did, and I still need to see what my full Oxford on CD says. I'm just addicted to dictionaries as my spelling is so pitiful I need lots of reassurance. Once I get into a dictionary, I start browsing and can waste a lot of time just jumping from word to thought to words, words, words.
B_Hickboy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Posts
- 10,059
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 61
- Points
- 183
- Location
- That twinge in your intestines
Amen, sister.
Unfortunately, it's probable that the only people who are reading this are the ones who were inclined to care in the first place.
English is in trouble. When I was a freshman in college in 1973 one of the first things my English professor said was that any paper with a misspelled word in it would be given an "F". That may seem harsh, and I don't know if he ever enforced the rule, but it damn sure got everybody's attention.
Nowadays anything goes. Here I sit, perched among the ruins, shouting "I told you so!" at passersby.
Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 14 2005, 10:09 PM
species classifications do not refer to individual creatures; they're essentially plural nouns in use, because the singular is no different from the plural in their case. the question would only arise if you had more than one species with the SAME classification, which is, of course, what the system was devised to avoid in the first place
[post=343364]Quoted post[/post]
Almost; not quite. This is getting into the murky reason that I had in mind when I said that the name of a species is rarely pluralised. Rarely doesn't mean never. Besides referring to the species itself, a term such as Homo sapiens (or any other species) can refer to an individual belonging to that species. For example, in a National Geographic article from the late eighties, a then recently explored cave was being discussed: "Evidence suggests that the cave served as a home to three different inhabitants, one Homo neanderthalensis and two Homines sapientes, during three distinct time periods." Such a use is quite rare, but it does happen occasionally. (By the way, while the article was interesting, the evidence presented to identify the species of man inhabiting the cave during the periods discussed didn't seem too convincing to me, but I'm no paleoanthropologist.)
I think the writer is basically cheating by leaving out the qualifier "specimen" (or whatever) after the first species, just to make the sentence scan more easily. not really a big deal, but I'd still consider it technically incorrect.
[post=343654]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Possibly, but I remember thinking that seeing the Latin plural was pretty cool!
madame_zora
Sexy Member
If you think things are bad now, future generations are doomed - in the UK at least:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../17/ixhome.html
Ah, a few more I forgot in a previous post: to lie, vs. to lay, and to sit, vs. to set. My freshman composition dared us to forget usage of the lie/lay pair in a paper. He said simply, "The verb, 'to lay', ALWAYS takes an object, even in the vulgar sense." Likewise, the verb "to set" always takes an object. Unfortunately, the tense conjugations of lie and lay can be confusing, as there are some spelling overlaps... "lie (present), lay (past), lain (participle)" compared to "lay (present), laid (past), laid (participle)." Confusing, lovely, expressive language we have, isn't it?