| Author |
Message |
iando
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:39 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
| Quote: | iando wrote:
According to R..Quirk et al: A comprehnesive grammar of the English
language, nouns which are handled as plural uncountable such as
glasses, trousers, binoculars, bellows are called "summation plurals".
To be honest, I think these nouns - to be strict, objects indicated by
nouns - belonging to summation plurals are singular objects in fact.
But I am curious about whether English-natives recognize really these
objects plural objects actually or just observe English linguistic
customs - grammar- though they recognize these objects singular ones.
Could anyone explain this?
|
The above question may be a bit ambiguous.
So I would like to modify the above into the following question.
When you count a countable noun - to be strict, objects indicated by a
noun - , for example, apples,
of course you count one apple, two apples, .....
The reason why you can count apples, is that apples are isolated things.One
apple is one single isolated thing.
But when you count trousers, you don't count one trousers, two trousers,...
You must count a pair of trousers, two pairs of trousers,......
This indicates that thing which is counted is "pair", not "trousers" and
English-natives think even single "trousers" is plural.This suggests that a
minimum unit of "trousers" consists of two or more isolated things.
But the actual "trousers" consists of one isolated thing, not plural
isolated things
According to English grammar, one isolated thing is singular..
..The question is:
Do English-natives consider "trousers" to be
one isolated thing or
two isolated thing
in mind?
If English-native think "trousers" is one isolated thing, it means that they
just observe linguistic customs -exceptions in grammar though they recognize
"trousers" is one isolated thing..
If they think "trousers" is two isolated things - it is not so easy for
non-natives to understand the English-native's cognition process-,
the grammar complies with cognition.
Another question is why "brassier" which is similar in shape to the
summation plurals is counted as one brassier, two brassiers,.not one pair of
brassiers, two pairs of brassiers,...... Doesn't "brassier" look like
things such as "troursers" to English-natives?
Does anyone answer these questions?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iando
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:35 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
"Wayne Brown" wrote:
| Quote: | iando wrote:
According to R..Quirk et al: A comprehnesive grammar of the English
language, nouns which are handled as plural uncountable such as
glasses, trousers, binoculars, bellows are called "summation plurals".
To be honest, I think these nouns - to be strict, objects indicated by
nouns - belonging to summation plurals are singular objects in fact.
But I am curious about whether English-natives recognize really these
objects plural objects actually or just observe English linguistic
customs - grammar- though they recognize these objects singular ones.
Could anyone explain this?
A word that qualifies as a summation plural, in my opinion, is seen by a
native as a single object. When a person is looking for his glasses, he's
not thinking he needs to find two lenses; he sees the two lenses, the
rims,
the bridge and sides as coming together to form a single object. But more
than "linguistic customs" are at work here. When the same person needs new
glasses, he does not say: "I need *a* new glasses." Without even thinking
about it, he feels "a" sounds wrong. He says instinctively, "I need new
glasses" or "I need a new pair of glasses." The same goes for the word
spectacles.
"Glasses" is an easy word to break down into something a native speaker
can
understand in the singular. But what about other summation plurals? Like
"trousers", on your list. A native speaker won't say "*a* trousers." But
native speakers, in my opinion, wouldn't normally have any information on
the historical singular "trouser." Interesting are the summation plurals
that have made or are making their way into the singular. The word
bellows,
on your list, is already used with "a" (a bellows), although a pair of
bellows still refers to the two-handled bellows. Another summation plural
that's treated like a normal singular noun is "gallows," with the plural
form gallowses. Native speakers today normally won't think about the
component parts of a gallows with its two upright posts and crosspiece,
but
not so very long ago people still said "a pair of gallows."
This topic is the kind of phenomenon linguists investigate. Does the
development of other words indicate that native speakers will eventually
call a pair of glasses "*a* glasses"? We'll have to watch and see what the
linguists come up with in their research.
Regards, ----- WB.
|
Thank you very much for your answers. They are very informative, especially
about the way for English-native to see
things belonging to summation plurals and "gallows". I guess summation
plurals could disappear if they were used rarely.
iando |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:35 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
Wayne Brown wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | the plural form gallowses. Native speakers today normally won't
think
about the component parts of a gallows with its two upright posts
and
crosspiece, but not so very long ago people still said "a pair of
gallows."
|
OED's latest example seems to be from 1627; but, as the subject was
Edward VI, I wonder if the author may perhaps have been using a
conscious archaism.
Dickens used "pair of stairs"; I don't know if anybody uses that now,
but Brit builders still speak of a stepladder as "a pair of steps".
| Quote: | This topic is the kind of phenomenon linguists investigate. Does
the
development of other words indicate that native speakers will
eventually call a pair of glasses "*a* glasses"? We'll have to
watch
and see what the linguists come up with in their research.
|
I wonder if the traffic is, if it's moving at all, in the opposite
direction. "A scissors" is obsolete in most places now. But, on the
other hand, what I do feel -- very vaguely -- that I've noticed is a
tendency to dodge the problem by framing sentences in such a way as
to make "the" possible. For one entirely inconclusive example among
several, when I took my youngest to the nurse for an ingrown toenail,
the nurse told her not to cut out the corner with "the little
scissors": she didn't know if we had a little pair of scissors, so
strictly speaking it was a case for the indefinite article. This may
support your idea.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:47 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2005 17:10:30 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net
wrought:
Adrian Bailey filted:
No-one is "observing customs" - the use of the plural is 100%
unthinking. No-one would talk about (eye)glasses as "a glass"
(it's clear that there is more than one glass involved), and
referring to trousers as "a trouser" is an affectation.
One odd exception from the world of silent cinema: after Harold
Lloyd gave up on his earlier "Lonesome Luke" persona, he developed
the boater-hatted, bespectacled character he's best known for,
identified in the literature by the term Lloyd himself used: "the
glass character"....r
That sort of makes sense, since plural nouns do tend to turn singular
when used as pre-modifiers -- ever read *Trousers Press*?
|
But if you wanted, you could use the press to press just one single
trouser, leaving the other creased.
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | The question is:
Do English-natives consider "trousers" to be
one isolated thing or
two isolated thing
in mind?
If English-native think "trousers" is one isolated thing, it means
that they just observe linguistic customs -exceptions in grammar
though they recognize "trousers" is one isolated thing..
|
[...]
With that, I believe, you've isolated the discrepancy between what a native
feels and non-native might perceive. I'll take a shot at trying to clarify
my thinking on the subject. Your term "linguistic custom" might not be
helpful here for better understanding of the issue, but more about that just
a bit farther down.
English, like a number of other languages in its Indo-European family, a
long time ago took a singular noun, say, *trouser* and used it in the plural
to designate an object for which native speakers felt *trouser* alone didn't
do the trick. Meanwhile the meaning of the singular form *trouser* has
slipped into oblivion over the centuries, and many a native speaker now
needs an etymological explanation to understand the word. But here comes the
funny part... A native speaker still _feels_ the word trousers is plural
although in his mind it's quite clear to him that the word designates one
single object. Because of that pervasively strong feeling, a native speaker
needs to find a way, say, to count the object in the plural. Therefore, he
says things like, "I have two pairs of trousers." Fortunately for learners,
as far as I know, this is what is known as an "unproductive category"; I
cannot recall a single summation plural of the "trousers type" formed in the
20th century. Perhaps someone else can and is willing to help on this.
Now what about linguistic customs? One might argue that plurals in general
are nonsense, especially if one speaks a language in which there's no such
distinction in nouns. One might say it's ridiculous to put "pencil" in the
plural after a word like "several" that already signals a plural is coming.
"What would be lost by saying "five *pencil*?" one might ask, arguing that
the plural, "pencils" in this example, is just the result of a linguistic
custom and is useless as far the meaning goes when "five" has already taken
care of the plural connotation.
The argument is not without merit. I only say singular and plural goes to
the very heart of Indo-European languages and is an essential element of a
native's feeling for his language. A native refuses to say *a trousers* not
because of some grammatical convention or linguistic custom. No, he refuses
because every fiber of his English-speaking being rebels against it.
Understanding of that feeling will give insight into the workings of the
mind of a person speaking his native English.
Regards, ----- WB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
Mike Lyle:
| Quote: | "A scissors" is obsolete in most places now.
|
It works for me, no matter whether it refers to the cutting tool or
the railway track configuration.
On the other hand, my way to work I pass a poster ad for a certain
brand of cellphone, with the slogan:
3 years, 8 jeans, 1 phone.
I don't know which bothers me more, the use of "jeans" for what
I would call a a pair of jeans, or the notion that 3 years is a
remarkably long time for a phone to last.
--
Mark Brader | "I can direct dial today a man my parents warred with.
Toronto | They wanted to kill him, I want to sell software to him."
msb@vex.net | -- Brad Templeton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:54 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | If English-native think "trousers" is one isolated thing, it means that they
just observe linguistic customs -exceptions in grammar though they recognize
"trousers" is one isolated thing..
If they think "trousers" is two isolated things - it is not so easy for
non-natives to understand the English-native's cognition process-,
the grammar complies with cognition.
Another question is why "brassier" which is similar in shape to the
summation plurals is counted as one brassier, two brassiers,.not one pair of
brassiers, two pairs of brassiers,...... Doesn't "brassier" look like
things such as "troursers" to English-natives?
Does anyone answer these questions?
|
I'm sure we think of these items as singular in fact, but not in
grammar, although I did find that some of the Australian schoolgirls I
taught talked about a "pair of bras", which was odd. Is it any different
from the grammatical gender that is common in other languages? I know
that in those languages where "girl" is neuter, people do not think that
girls are neuter - it's simply the grammatical behaviour of the word. We
all learn to speak before we are introduced to any grammar (if we are at
all), so I'm sure most of people don't even think about these things.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in