 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / October 2009what kinds of cats?
I am having an argument with the RFC-Editor. My co-author had written: but some of them may be required in certain types of article. and she changed it into but some of them may be required in certain types of articles. To justify this, she referred to the Chicago Manual of Style at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Usage/Usage89.html where it says: Q. Several times lately I've written or revised copy to change the word in the prepositional phrase following "kinds of" or "types of" to the singular from the plural"from "what kinds of cats"" "three types of errors" to "what kinds of cat," "three types of error." And several times a client has treated the resulting phrase like an error. I haven?t found the answer to this usage question in CMOS. What do you think? A. Your client is right. According to Webster's, "kinds of" takes a plural if the relevant noun is countable. (Dictionaries are good for this kind of question.) Do we believe this? And do we trust Webster? Sadly, Fowler seems silent on the issue, but it seems totally wrong to me, certainly on this side of the pond. So, can anyone find examples of either usage in well-known literature (and even better in well-known American literature)?  SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 At 15:58:25 on Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote in <KIGKDD.IuB@clerew.man.ac.uk>: Hi, Charles! >I am having an argument with the RFC-Editor. Since this relates to an RFC, can we presume that the intention is that it should adhere to the rules of US English, rather than to those of Commonwealth English? If the intention is to write the RFC in Commonwealth English, then both Webster and the Chicago Manual of Style are irrelevant; however, if it is intended to write it in US English, then this is not the appropriate newsgroup, and alt.usage.english/alt.english.usage would be better fitted to assist on the usage of US English. SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >At 15:58:25 on Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> >wrote in <KIGKDD.IuB@clerew.man.ac.uk>: >Hi, Charles! >>I am having an argument with the RFC-Editor. >Since this relates to an RFC, can we presume that the intention is that >it should adhere to the rules of US English, rather than to those of >Commonwealth English? No. The internet is international, and so is the IETF (and it even holds meetings outside of N. America just to enhance its image :-( ). And the fact that the RFC-Editor actually sits looking out over all the boats in Marina-del-Rey does not of itself mean that US English is to be preferred. The RFC-Editor is just another publishing house and hence has a "house style" which is no more nor less stupid than any other publishing house (and they are notoriously stupid, in general). So I repeat my question. Which usage is correct: "how many breeds of dog are there?" or "how many breeds of dogs are there?"? In English English, for a start, and preferably with quotations (of either form) from well-respected literature. SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 > So I repeat my question. Which usage is correct: "how many breeds of dog > are there?" or "how many breeds of dogs are there?"? In English English, > for a start, and preferably with quotations (of either form) from > well-respected literature. Well to my ears the former sounds correct. But in the absence of well- respected literature, I did a Google search for "kinds of" (including the quotes, to keep it as a phrase). Surprisingly (to me), in the first several pages of results, countable nouns were pluralised, almost without exception. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org Tony Mountifield wrote... >> So I repeat my question. Which usage is correct: "how many breeds >> of dog >> are there?" or "how many breeds of dogs are there?" > Well to my ears the former sounds correct. And to mine, but I think there's a degree of distinction in British English that's been elided in America, where there seems to be an unbendable rule - if it's countable, it must be plural. Restricting the Google search to site:.uk shows that where the thing is countable, sometimes it's singular and sometimes plural. But one of the sites probably illustrates the nuance: 'Are there different kinds of stem cell?' It would be quite wrong in my view to write 'cells' there. It seems to depend on the particularity of the thing, which some syntactician may be able to pin down. SignatureNoel [Incidentally, one of the Google results led me to a page called 'Particular Kinds of Obligations': http://www.russian-civil-code.com/PartII/SectionIV/ with *the* most baffling advert at the top. It might still be there if you're quick.] >Tony Mountifield wrote... >>> >>> So I repeat my question. Which usage is correct: "how many breeds >>> of dog >>> are there?" or "how many breeds of dogs are there?" >> Well to my ears the former sounds correct. >And to mine, but I think there's a degree of distinction in British >English that's been elided in America, where there seems to be an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >'cells' there. It seems to depend on the particularity of the thing, >which some syntactician may be able to pin down. So it seems to be an American practice - and a totally illogical practice at that. A Dachshund is "a kind of dog". OK? A Rotweiler is "a kind of dog". OK? Now let us talk about Dachshunds and Rotweilers together. So we have "two kinds". OK? So surely the plural of "a kind of dog" is "two kinds of dog". But the Americans want that plural to be "two kinds of dogs". So do they also want the singular to be "a kind of dogs"? Cross post to alt.usage.english added to see if anyone there can explain the anomaly. SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 > In <gsprfl$ev...@news.motzarella.org> "Ildhund" <jn...@removemsn.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A Dachshund is "a kind of dog". OK? > A Rotweiler is "a kind of dog". OK? Even more OK as "Rottweiler". Obaue: I think "okay" is more common in America and "OK" in Britain, even though the expression originated here in America as the initials. > Now let us talk about Dachshunds and Rotweilers together. So we have "two > kinds". OK? > > So surely the plural of "a kind of dog" is "two kinds of dog". > > But the Americans want that plural to be "two kinds of dogs". Probably not all of us. > So do they also want the singular to be "a kind of dogs"? ... Maybe we should. Dogs, plural, come in different kinds. And many of us say things like "those kind of dogs". -- Jerry Friedman >> In <gsprfl$ev...@news.motzarella.org> "Ildhund" <jn...@removemsn.com> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Maybe we should. Dogs, plural, come in different kinds. And many of >us say things like "those kind of dogs". If I started to say 'those kind of dogs,' I hope my warning buzzer would click on in time to make me say 'dogs of that sort.' Come to think of it, though, why not 'dogs of those sorts'? Well, that just doesn't sound right, but it doesn't sound not as right as 'those kind of dogs' doesn't. 'Those kind of dogs' seems to imply the correctitude of 'these kind of dogs,' which sounds totally wrong. My great grandfather, Evander White, maybe fresh from England, might have said 'dogs of that lot.' (Google gets lots of hits on 'Evander White,' but I don't know if any of them are the same as my great grampa. I only know his name from genealogical charts. I knew his wife, Sarah White, when I was quite small and she was quite old. I suppose her Evander White was long gone at that point.) Signature"How dreary, to be...Somebody! How public, like a frog, to tell one's name, the live-long June, to an admiring bog!" <Emily Dickinson> >> Now let us talk about Dachshunds and Rotweilers together. So we have "two >> kinds". OK? >> >> So surely the plural of "a kind of dog" is "two kinds of dog". >> >> But the Americans want that plural to be "two kinds of dogs". >Probably not all of us. Well I am glad to hear that. But apparently Webster wants that, and the Chicago Manual of Style just quotes Webster, and the RFC-Editor (which is where this thread actually started) follows the Chicago Manual of Style regardless :-( . SignatureCharles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 > jerry_friedman@yahoo.com writes: >>> Now let us talk about Dachshunds and Rotweilers together. So we >>> have "two kinds". OK? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (which is where this thread actually started) follows the Chicago > Manual of Style regardless :-( . Well, there are dogs, and there are many kinds of them (not "of it"). SignatureSkitt (AmE) [...] > Well, there are dogs, and there are many kinds of them (not "of it"). And there is the dog, and there are many kinds of it. Liegt vielleicht da der Hund begraben? SignatureLes (BrE) hello,what are you saying, i come from china "Leslie Danks" <leslie.danks@aon.at> ??????:49fb402b$0$2299$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at... > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Liegt vielleicht da der Hund begraben? > [...] > >> Well, there are dogs, and there are many kinds of them (not "of it"). > > And there is the dog, and there are many kinds of it. I find that to be an unusual way to put it. > Liegt vielleicht da der Hund begraben? Oh, I don't know. (BTW, the same saying exists in Latvian.) SignatureSkitt (AmE) has never buried a dog > >Tony Mountifield wrote... > >>> > >>> So I repeat my question. Which usage is correct: "how many breeds > >>> of dog are there?" or "how many breeds of dogs are there?" > >> Well to my ears the former sounds correct. > >And to mine, but I think there's a degree of distinction in British > >English that's been elided in America, where there seems to be an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >'cells' there. It seems to depend on the particularity of the thing, > > which some syntactician may be able to pin down. > So it seems to be an American practice - and a totally illogical > practice at that. > A Dachshund is "a kind of dog". OK? A Rotweiler is "a kind of dog". > OK? > Now let us talk about Dachshunds and Rotweilers together. So we have > "two kinds". OK? > So surely the plural of "a kind of dog" is "two kinds of dog". Now bring in humans: You'd probably say "this kind/sort of man/woman" but would you say "these kinds/sorts of man/woman" or "these kinds/sorts of men/women"? > But the Americans want that plural to be "two kinds of dogs". So do > they also want the singular to be "a kind of dogs"? > Cross post to alt.usage.english added to see if anyone there can > explain the anomaly. So it is a bone, after all. Grrrrr! ;-) SignatureNew Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te! David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/ > >At 15:58:25 on Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> > >wrote in <KIGKDD.IuB@clerew.man.ac.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > for a start, and preferably with quotations (of either form) from > well-respected literature. The former. Because "dog" in this instance refers to the species canis familiaris not to any particular member of that species i.e. any particular dog, or dogs. The question could equally well be expressed - "how many breeds of canis familiaris are there ?" As there's only one species canis familiaris, there can only be one dog in this context. Or put another way "dog" is being used in the abstract rather than in the particular sense. The same as one might ask "how many makes of car used to be made in Detroit ?" Rather than "how many makes of cars used to be made in Detroit ?" michael adams ... www.superaffiliate7.com Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking my Web Site. You will find good Affiiliates for health products, such as EDTA-Oral Chelation, Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are for Computer, household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on your Computer), Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope. >I am having an argument with the RFC-Editor. My co-author had written: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > So, can anyone find examples of either usage in well-known literature (and > even better in well-known American literature)? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.