| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:30 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Weatherlawyer wrote:
| Quote: | Lars Eighner wrote:
First, English does not have dual nouns in the way that some other
languages (including Japanese if I am correctly informed) do.
If binoculars refer to bi occular telescopes where did the "n" come
from?
|
Latin distributive numeral, _bini_; but commonly used of pairs, e.g.
_boves bini_ for "a pair of oxen". Anyhow, "biary" would sound silly.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | Some nouns such as glasses. trousers, bellows are handled in English
language as if they were separated into two things though they are actually
single obejcts.
Does anyone know how and when these ideas were imported into English
language in its history or any reference about their history?
Thanks
iando
|
An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
trouser pocket
knicker elastic
But not all
glasses (*) case
(*) In the sense of spectacles.
A possible explanation of the last one is that "glass case" suggests
something quite different. However, if we extended the list, I expect
that we find that the usage varied without a clear logical pattern.
In this one, I can't decide which sounds better:
binocular(s) case
I would probably use "a case for binoculars" to avoid the problem.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:33 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Areff wrote:
| Quote: | BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual number"
and the "jewel number". Discuss!
|
My first reaction was: "I do" but after a while I had to admit that,
although I could make a distinction, it required deliberation. The
sort of thing that I may do in certain company but not in my natural
speech.
How about AmE? Many will omit the "y" in "dual" but among those that
do use it, is there a clear distinction between "dual" and "jewel"?
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:57 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair <jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote
An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
============
That's not an interesting feature of pair nouns. It's an interesting feature
of almost all plural nouns. Toy store. Shoe shop. Book dealer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:39 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
| Quote: | An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
[But] That's ... an interesting feature of almost all plural nouns.
|
But it's *more* interesting when the noun isn't otherwise used in the
singular.
--
Mark Brader | "If you have to go in, you go in.
Toronto | The choice was made the day you took your oath."
msb@vex.net | --Dan Duddy, New York Fire Department |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:05 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
| Quote: | Areff wrote:
BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual
number" and the "jewel number". Discuss!
My first reaction was: "I do" but after a while I had to admit that,
although I could make a distinction, it required deliberation. The
sort of thing that I may do in certain company but not in my natural
speech.
How about AmE? Many will omit the "y" in "dual" but among those that
do use it, is there a clear distinction between "dual" and "jewel"?
|
In my AmE, "dual" and "jewel" are clearly different words. (In neither
do I use the "y.")
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:31 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Seán O'Leathlóbhair <jwlawler@yahoo.com> wrote
An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
===========> That's not an interesting feature of pair nouns. It's an interesting feature
of almost all plural nouns. Toy store. Shoe shop. Book dealer.
|
You don't see a difference?
"Store", "shoe" and "book" all frequently appear in their singular as
well as their plural form. It is unlikely that a learner, whether
young native or second language, would encounter the plural long before
the singular.
On the other hand, a learner may encounter "trousers" long before they
encounter "trouser" and may come to the conclusion that there is no
word "trouser" at all. I have here the Oxford Advanced Learner's
dictionary. It has a head entry for "trousers" but not "trouser".
"trouser" is only mentioned within "trousers". This is quite different
from "book" which has a head entry of "book". "Books" only gets a
subsidiary entry due to its accounting sense.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:46 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
Areff wrote:
BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual
number" and the "jewel number". Discuss!
My first reaction was: "I do" but after a while I had to admit that,
although I could make a distinction, it required deliberation. The
sort of thing that I may do in certain company but not in my natural
speech.
How about AmE? Many will omit the "y" in "dual" but among those that
do use it, is there a clear distinction between "dual" and "jewel"?
In my AmE, "dual" and "jewel" are clearly different words. (In neither
do I use the "y.")
--
Maria Conlon
|
I can see that if you don't use the "y" then "dual" and "jewel" will be
quite different. But, I thought that some AmE speakers did use the
"y". I'll have a go at some ASCII IPA and try to be more precise.
Here are some pronunciations from the Oxford Advanced Learner's
dictionary.
First an aside: "do" and "due". For me, these are very different
words. Are they for you?
"do" /du:/ No US pronunciation given hence presumably the
same.
"due" /dju:/ US /du:/
Are there standard terms (along the lines of CIC / CINC) for this
variation? I will call it DID and DIND for the moment. I am DIND.
Back to "dual" and "jewel".
"dual" /'dju:@l/ US /du:@l/
"jewel" /'dZu:@l/ No US given.
Areff says that there is no distinction between the two BrE
pronunciations. I would agree that they are commonly not distinguished
and this is becoming more common. I won't speculate on proportions.
As I said before, I can distinguish them but I don't appear to do so in
my natural speech.
So my question was: Do any DIND AmE speakers regularly distinguish
"dual" and "jewel". How about Canada? I guess that Australia and
South Africa are similar to Britain, can anyone confirm or deny that?
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote in message
news:11mqk601qhpmf51@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
[But] That's ... an interesting feature of almost all plural nouns.
But it's *more* interesting when the noun isn't otherwise used in the
singular.
|
Not when you realize that it's not the "singular." It's just the bare,
unnumbered form. Note that with words that don't have bare unnumbered forms
(children, data, etc.), it doesn't happen. So there's still nothing special
about dual nouns in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linz
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:28 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual number"
and the "jewel number". Discuss!
|
Where /do/ you get your ideas from?
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:34 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Linz wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual number"
and the "jewel number". Discuss!
Where /do/ you get your ideas from?
|
Never mind that. What has become of Salvatore Volatile?
And anyway, we know where he gets his ideas from -- it's the FLCIA.
--
Bob Lieblich
In the FLMAIA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:48 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
| Quote: | An interesting feature of these pair nouns, that does not appear to
have been mentioned in this thread, is how they appear when used to
qualify another noun. In most cases, they revert to their singular
form.
[But] That's ... an interesting feature of almost all plural nouns.
But it's *more* interesting when the noun isn't otherwise used in the
singular.
Not when you realize that it's not the "singular." It's just the bare,
unnumbered form.
|
If true, that would be still more interesting.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any story that needs a critic to explain it,
msb@vex.net | needs rewriting." -- Larry Niven |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:40 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote, in part:
How about AmE? Many will omit the "y" in "dual" but among those
that do use it, is there a clear distinction between "dual" and
"jewel"?
In my AmE, "dual" and "jewel" are clearly different words. (In
neither do I use the "y.")
I can see that if you don't use the "y" then "dual" and "jewel" will
be quite different. But, I thought that some AmE speakers did use the
"y". I'll have a go at some ASCII IPA and try to be more precise.
Here are some pronunciations from the Oxford Advanced Learner's
dictionary.
First an aside: "do" and "due". For me, these are very different
words. Are they for you?
|
No, they are the same for me.
| Quote: | "do" /du:/ No US pronunciation given hence presumably the
same.
"due" /dju:/ US /du:/
Are there standard terms (along the lines of CIC / CINC) for this
variation? I will call it DID and DIND for the moment. I am DIND.
|
That makes me a DID, then.
| Quote: | Back to "dual" and "jewel".
"dual" /'dju:@l/ US /du:@l/
"jewel" /'dZu:@l/ No US given.
Areff says that there is no distinction between the two BrE
pronunciations. I would agree that they are commonly not
distinguished and this is becoming more common. I won't speculate on
proportions. As I said before, I can distinguish them but I don't
appear to do so in my natural speech.
So my question was: Do any DIND AmE speakers regularly distinguish
"dual" and "jewel". How about Canada? I guess that Australia and
South Africa are similar to Britain, can anyone confirm or deny that?
|
Mark? CDB? Rob? The Other Fran? Steve? Others from those countries?
--
Maria Conlon, USA CINC DID TAURUS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:34:44 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Linz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
BTW, there is no distinction in present-day BrE between the "dual number"
and the "jewel number". Discuss!
Where /do/ you get your ideas from?
Never mind that. What has become of Salvatore Volatile?
|
Hard to say, but if you want to view any number of paintings by that
most remarkable artist Salvador Dali in at least half their full
splendor, take a gander at
http://www.dali-gallery.com/html/paintings.htm
Spending a few minutes or hours there will relieve you for a time of
the tedium of reading AUE posts, as will a googolplex of other
activities, but art is as good place as any to loosen the noose, to
begin to break the bonds AUE has placed on some of us.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in