View previous topic | View next topic

2nd BoGI - typos?

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

versionoriginale
770973.  Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:37 pm Reply with quote

p.133, 4th para, 1st line - "forty-two is also the number of a dots on a single dice"

A single die contains 21 dots, a pair of dice contain (naturally enough) 42 dots.

p.177, last para, 1st line - "A good example of this is lactose tolerance (inability (sic.) to digest milk)..."

I presume that the authors really mean 'ability' rather than 'inability'.

In the same paragraph, the authors indicate that lactose tolerance developed "as the result of a single genetic mutation." However, I believe that lactose tolerance (lactase persistence) developed independently in different populations around the world.


Last edited by versionoriginale on Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:08 am; edited 1 time in total

 
soup
770981.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:46 am Reply with quote

versionoriginale wrote:
p.133, 4th para, 1st line - "forty-two is also the number of a dots on a single dice"

A single die contains 21 dots, a pair of dice contain (naturally enough) 42 dots.


So a diCE (do they mean a pair of diE as opposed to some other multiple) will contain 42 dots.

 
soup
770982.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:50 am Reply with quote

versionoriginale wrote:

In the same paragraph, the authors indicate that lactose tolerance developed "as the result of a single genetic mutation." However, I believe that lactose tolerance (lactase persistance) developed independently in different populations around the world.


Why is that a problem?

Assuming they mean one gene "mutated" in lots of different locations rather than there was one event

 
versionoriginale
770984.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:56 am Reply with quote

Interesting point... but I believe that it is a pair of dice as we generally use the plural of the noun when referring to a pair as in a pair of eyes.

Of course, there are many pairs for which we use the apparently plural form of the noun, but there is no singular as in a pair of pants, a pair of trousers, a pair of shorts, a pair of scissors, etc. Side note : why is a brassiere singular and not a pair?

I'm not able to think of any case where the noun would not be pluralised - other than nouns where the plural form is the same as the singular : a pair of fish, a pair of sheep.

I note belatedly that the issue of dice has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. (Note to self and others - the 'search' function will not always reveal relevant information).

 
versionoriginale
770986.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:08 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
versionoriginale wrote:

lactose tolerance developed "as the result of a single genetic mutation." However, I believe that lactose tolerance (lactase persistence) developed independently in different populations around the world.


Why is that a problem?

Assuming they mean one gene "mutated" in lots of different locations rather than there was one event


Fair point, but the statement is ambiguous. It was not one genetic mutation, but multiple mutations resulting in multiple alleles offering lactose tolerance - see Enattah et al if interested : http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2900018-3

 
suze
771050.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:07 am Reply with quote

On the matter of dice, we have indeed been there before. Some may not like it, but the OED does by now sanction the use of a dice as the singular.


The technical term for a noun which has no singular (e.g. pants) is plurale tantum. English is not unique in having these; in particular, the Baltic and Slavic languages have them. (For instance, the Russian word for money, деньги den'gi is of this kind. Strangely, so is skrzypce, the Polish word for violin.)

Note, though, that some of the words which are usually considered as pluralia tantum actually aren't always so. Tailors do sometimes refer to "a trouser" ("Yes modom, that is a very fine trouser"), Sherlock Holmes once notes that something had been "cut with a scissors", and I'm aware that I've been known to refer to a geometrical tool for drawing circles as "a compasses". And I'm sure I'm not alone in having - albeit jocularly - used "a clothe".

Brassiere, incidentally, is a bit of an odd one. In French, une brassière means a lifebelt; a bra is called un soutien-gorge (a support-bust). If we go back to Old French, une braciere was an arm guard; its modern English meaning is a euphemism to avoid mentioning breasts.

To guard both the arms you'd have needed a pair of bracieres. So as versionoriginale suggests, a woman ought really to wear a pair of brassieres. But she doesn't.

The shortened form bra is first noted in the 1930s. Before that, there are some citations for bras (singular, and pronounced "brazz") as the short form.

Incidentally, and while in that region of the body, isn't bust fast becoming a noun with no plural? My mother would have spoken of her busts, but these days we speak of a woman's bust or of her breasts.

 
Posital
771159.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:51 am Reply with quote

versionoriginale wrote:
p.133, 4th para, 1st line - "forty-two is also the number of a dots on a single dice"
In which case - a single "dice" will have 21, not 42 dots.

 
tchrist
771271.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:02 pm Reply with quote

versionoriginale wrote:
I'm not able to think of any case where the noun would not be pluralised - other than nouns where the plural form is the same as the singular : a pair of fish, a pair of sheep.

Relatedly, pair itself is sometimes its own plural: three pair of shoes, etc. I believe this to be either relatively recent German influence, or else long-time lingering Germanic influence; perhaps both.
The OED wrote:
Pair is now followed by of, as in ‘a pair of gloves’; but of was formerly omitted, as ‘a pair gloves’: cf. Ger. ein paar handschuhe. After a numeral pair was formerly used in the sing. form; ‘three pair (of) shoes’ = Ger. drei paar schuhe; this is still retained colloquially, and in certain connexions; but the tendency is now to say ‘three pairs’.

I still occasionally use N pair of something without the <s>. There was a lot of German settlement where I grew up, though, so this may have lasted longer there.

--tom

 
tchrist
771272.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:11 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
On the matter of dice, we have indeed been there before. Some may not like it, but the OED does by now sanction the use of a dice as the singular.

Imponderables:
  • describe prescribe
  • sanction prescribe
  • sanction proscribe
Aren’t sanctions proscriptions against something, not prescriptions in favor of them? So how come a sanctioned tournament is one that’s been blessed or approved?

And doesn’t the OED at least strive towards decriptive rather than prescriptive?

Just some things that make you go hmmm.

--tom

 
'yorz
771276.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:42 pm Reply with quote

tchrist wrote:
‘three pair (of) shoes’ = Ger. drei paar schuhe

I'm sure Paar and Schuhe both begin with a capital letter (German nouns).

Bust is an interesting one. In Dutch we have a woman's buste (meaning both breasts), which word - as is in English - is also used for the miniature Bachs and Von Beethovens one tended to find on top of pianos. So, bust(e) does not only refer to a woman's phwoarsicles, but also the part of a human torso from the midrif up.
Dutch for bra is bustehouder (Ger= Büstenhalter).

 
tchrist
771281.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:01 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
tchrist wrote:
‘three pair (of) shoes’ = Ger. drei paar schuhe

I'm sure Paar and Schuhe both begin with a capital letter (German nouns).

Sure, *I* know that, but I was citing the OED verbatim, so it didn’t feel quite cricket to make my own emendations.

'yorz wrote:
Dutch for bra is bustehouder (Ger= Büstenhalter).

What, not Keepemfromfloppin?

--tom

 
tchrist
771282.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:14 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
Bust is an interesting one. In Dutch we have a woman's buste (meaning both breasts), which word - as is in English - is also used for the miniature Bachs and Von Beethovens one tended to find on top of pianos.

You shouldn’t propagate Ludvig’s own propaganda about his pretensions to nobility. He had a Dutch van in his name, not a German von. From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:
Beethoven was the grandson of a musician of Flemish origin named Lodewijk van Beethoven (1712–1773). Beethoven was named after his grandfather, as Lodewijk is the Dutch cognate of Ludwig.

The Austrian court system had one court for the nobility, The R&I Landrechte, and another for commoners, The Civil Court of the Magistrate. Beethoven disguised the fact that the Dutch "van" in his name did not denote nobility as does the German "von", and his case was tried in the Landrechte. Owing to his influence with the court, Beethoven felt assured of a favorable outcome. Beethoven was awarded sole guardianship. While giving evidence to the Landrechte, however, Beethoven inadvertently admitted that he was not nobly born. The case was transferred to the Magistracy on 18 December 1818, where he lost sole guardianship.

He’s Ludvig van Beethoven, or just Beethoven for short. He surely wasn’t German nobility as he tried to hoodwink the Oyster Kingdom into believing of him.

--tom

 
suze
771283.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:16 pm Reply with quote

tchrist wrote:
[/list]Aren’t sanctions proscriptions against something, not prescriptions in favor of them? So how come a sanctioned tournament is one that’s been blessed or approved?


Sanction is an auto-antonym - it has two opposite meanings. The sense of "to permit" is by far the older; its use to mean "to penalize" is first noted in Versailles-era diplomacy.

tchrist wrote:
And doesn’t the OED at least strive towards descriptive rather than prescriptive?


Not entirely - there are still definitions which use expressions like "poor form" or "silly error". Yes, these are probably older entries which are due for revision on the next pass - it's unlikely that such value judgments would be made in new entries.

'yorz wrote:
Dutch for bra is bustehouder


Quite a few languages just couldn't be bothered to think up their own name for this particular item. For instance the Turkish is sutyen - a clear borrowing from French, while the Russian is бюстгальтер biustgal'ter - an equally clear borrowing from German.

The Esperanto is mamzono, although given the prosaic nature of Esperanto word formation, shouldn't it really be mamzujo (a container for the mamzoj)?

 
tchrist
771288.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:56 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
tchrist wrote:
And doesn’t the OED at least strive towards descriptive rather than prescriptive?

Not entirely - there are still definitions which use expressions like "poor form" or "silly error". Yes, these are probably older entries which are due for revision on the next pass - it's unlikely that such value judgments would be made in new entries.


There are entries marked with a or which have the catachr. label applied to them. These are fewer than those marked erron. I always thought this was their way of hiding their prescriptivism, but if you look at some of the examples, some really are a touch silly.

For example, sense 4 of pontific is a humorous nonce-use relating to bridges, marked with a . I can see myself using it that way. Similarly for sense 2 of truculent.

The 63 entries in the OED2 with either an explicit pilcrow sigil at any point or which contain “catachr” in them somewhere are the following:
    aboard abuse abusion abusive abusively aghast alligant anagogical another aptitudinally arrest ascribe athwart avert bank be beatifically beautify betide brock calcariferous calcariform catachresis catachrestic catachrestical catachrestically catapresbyter cinereous concentric decamp divest divination elimination enjoy ensue envelop ephemeris establish esurient expecting hest immorigerous inhabitable inhesive lief likely mellow metaphrasis observant observe ornithological outbuild out of out-of-fashion overplus paregal parturitive pontific preside so-called synecdochism truculent
There are 262 entries containing erron. That’s too many to list here, but a random sampling of 63 such entries follows:
    bleach-ferm callidity coelebacy communistical copse coute damn detainer fream gravaminous haemostatic heliotropian heterogeneal hexaped hippodame holely homonymy immersion incipience joom kneck levigate longanimity lyam-hound maquis marina Marriotte morhwell olecranon ostraciont pallad Paramecium passent patesi -penia Peziza portature poulaine precognizance preventative prosciutto psicho- purpresture pynacle ris scupper servator shepherdess somn- statiscope stey subligation sympathisch tor toxin transfrete triglyph tumefy tuza Uzi vemon waling wrath
If you have an OED2, you can look up those up to see what I mean. Most of those are labelled errors in spelling, such as cœlebacy for celibacy, tumify for tumefy, or ‑penia for ‑pœnia (!!). But some are dubious, like a singular cop corresponding to a copse construed to be plural.

All these seem a lesser category of blunder and/or judgement than those awarded the dreaded  catachrestic label, a word which it defines as “Of the nature of catachresis; wrongly used, misapplied, wrested from its proper meaning.” See what I mean by it seems like they’re hiding? After all, when you can hide your disapproval in a private glphy like or an exotic import like καταχρηστικός, this doesn’t seem at all as naughty as WRONG. Still means the same thing, though.

--tom

 
samivel
771303.  Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:04 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
So, bust(e) does not only refer to a woman's phwoarsicles, but also the part of a human torso from the midrif up.


I don't know where you Dutchies keeps your midriffs, but mine wouldn't be shown on a (sculptural) bust, which can be of varying size usually terminates above the nipples.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group