| Author |
Message |
iando
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:03 pm
Post subject: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
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?
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jim Lawton
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:32 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:03:18 +0900, "iando" <iando@abox.so-net.ne.jp> wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
Explain no, but I certainly recognise these things as singular objects, not
pairs of things - although, of course I say "a pair of ...".
--
Jim
the Yorkshire polymoth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
Not really. It's confusing. I could say: "I bought a pair of trousers"
or "I bought some trousers" or "I bought trousers" and expect to convey
the same meaning (although the second and third statements could be
taken to mean I bought more than one pair of trousers.)
Similarly I could say "I am wearing a pair of old jeans", "I am wearing
some old jeans" and "I am wearing old jeans" and, in this context, the
statements would be taken to mean the same thing.
"I am wearing glasses" equals "I am wearing a pair of glasses" but "I
have two pairs of glasses" is not the same as "I have two glasses". It's
all a bit of a bollocks.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:29 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando <iando@abox.so-net.ne.jp> wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
It's probably the second, "observing linguistic customs," although I
can't think what you mean by "recognize really these objects plural
objects actually."
If I say, "Can I have the scissors?" I expect a single pair of scissors
-- one X-like object -- to be presented to me. "Two pairs of scissors"
would be two X-like objects. I believe I'd be more likely to say
There used to be two pairs of scissors around here.
than
There used to be two scissors around here.
But I'm not certain, I *might* say the second. They would mean the same.
I don't know what you think it means to believe that something "really
is plural." We don't look at an object and see it double, like blurred
vision!
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:49 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:32:55 GMT, Jim Lawton
<usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
Oy!
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue Hornet
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:19 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
John Dean 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?
Not really. It's confusing. I could say: "I bought a pair of trousers"
or "I bought some trousers" or "I bought trousers" and expect to convey
the same meaning (although the second and third statements could be
taken to mean I bought more than one pair of trousers.)
Similarly I could say "I am wearing a pair of old jeans", "I am wearing
some old jeans" and "I am wearing old jeans" and, in this context, the
statements would be taken to mean the same thing.
"I am wearing glasses" equals "I am wearing a pair of glasses" but "I
have two pairs of glasses" is not the same as "I have two glasses". It's
all a bit of a bollocks.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
It gets worse. An old nautical usage of "glass" is either "spyglass"
(so the captain could "glass a ship" by looking at it that way) and
"barometer" (the glass is falling). Both of these are singular.
Of course, another common usage for glass is as a drinking vessel, so
"a glass" and "a pair of glasses" refers to one or two such vessels.
But another common drinking vessel is a cup. And a drinker who is "in
his cups" may actually be drunk on a glass (singular, but probably
repetitive) or in a bottle of his liquor.
One quibble with an earlier post ... "bellows" is a singular item, not
"a pair of bellows", unless you use a much different type than I am
used to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Lawton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:27 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:49:52 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
Thank you, I insert the required comma.
--
Jim
the Yorkshire polymoth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:21 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
Thank you.
|
Certainly day to day grammar treats these as plurals:
'Your trousers *are* in the drawer' (not *'your trousers is').
But there's a fairly nauseating tendency in the fashion industry at the
moment to make these quaint "summation plurals" (nice on Randy Q) into
singulars. Go into Gap, Next etc and you'll see 'Trouser 59.99'.
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | But there's a fairly nauseating tendency in the fashion industry at
the moment to make these quaint "summation plurals" (nice on Randy
Q)
into singulars. Go into Gap, Next etc and you'll see 'Trouser
59.99'. |
Doesn't suit me, sir. And the clods _still_ do it after having had
the pissed ripped by the Fast Show.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:47 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
"iando" <iando@abox.so-net.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:newscache$s43npi$kb2$1@news01d.so-net.ne.jp...
| Quote: | 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?
|
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.
We find it quite natural to say e.g. "I'm going to buy some trousers" (=a
pair of trousers) or "Those trousers are too tight." To a native speaker
trousers are essentially (if not actually) plural. If this were not the
case, we'd have stopped using the plural many moons ago.
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:10 am
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
Adrian Bailey filted:
| Quote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:59 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:27:48 GMT, Jim Lawton
<usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:49:52 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:32:55 GMT, Jim Lawton
usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
Explain no...
Oy!
Thank you, I insert the required comma.
|
Good I'm glad.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Lawton
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:30 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 08:59:52 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:27:48 GMT, Jim Lawton
usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:49:52 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:32:55 GMT, Jim Lawton
usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> wrote:
Explain no...
Oy!
Thank you, I insert the required comma.
Good I'm glad.
|
Do you want to borrow one?
--
Jim
the Yorkshire polymoth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:02 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 17:10:30 -0800, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrought:
| Quote: | 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*?
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:38 pm
Post subject: Re: "dual" number - another question |
|
|
iando wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in