Re: Missing Singulars

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 5:24:17 PM on Friday, December 19, 2008, Andrew Jarrette
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 3:40:00 PM on Friday, December 19, 2008, Andrew
> >> Jarrette wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> Well, we live in free societies with freedom of speech,
> >>> so people can speak any way they want, including saying
> >>> "irregardless" or "I could care less".  I think Piotr is
> >>> referring to correct English usage, and in this respect
> >>> I agree with what he has said.
>
> >> *Whose* correct English usage? To take one of your
> >> examples, 'I could care less' is undoubtedly correct English
> >> usage for a great many people, probably a majority of U.S.
> >> speakers, silly as it may sound to some of us.
>
> > By your argument we are all correct whatever we say, even
> > if logically it doesn't make sense.
>
> I implied no such thing. I merely pointed out that as a
> matter of empirical fact 'I could care less' is today an
> acceptable idiom expressing indifference.

Who says that it is acceptable? You? Do you say this because your
research supports it? Is it because it is now being taught in the
classroom? Is it because the intelligentsia say it? If it's because
it's common, does that mean commonness equals acceptability?

>
> > You lean towards the "anything goes" descriptive attitude,
> > while I lean to the prescriptive ideal.
>
> Of course I speak in descriptive terms when I'm describing
> English as she is spoke!
>
> > I suppose as long as one can understand it, then you
> > regard it as acceptable English.
>
> No. First, acceptability, like appropriateness, is a
> function of context and speech community; there is no
> universally acceptable variety of English. Secondly,
> something can be readily understandable by native speakers
> without being acceptable to them, and something can be
> normal in a given context despite being incomprehensible to
> many outsiders.
>
> > Well, I was using the phrase "in English one says", and I
> > usually understand that to mean what is considered proper,
> > not fashionable or popular.
>
> Considered proper by whom, and in what context(s)? A's
> proper English is B's putting on airs and C's slightly
> vulgar sloppiness.
>
> Brian

How can anyone say who it is that decides what is proper or acceptable
or normal? The president? The Queen? You and I are both dealing in
subjective territory, and we have a difference of subjective opinion.
I have based my objection to "ten police" on my own usage and my
general impression of what I see and hear most often in English
written material and speech. You agreed that you would probably not
say "ten police", but differ from me in saying that your speech is not
representative. OK not representative, but does that mean that the
standard is to say and write "ten police"? I did a Google of "many
police" and after perusing the first 10 pages subjectively "many
police" was attributive perhaps 90% of the time, usually followed by
"officers" or "training manuals" or "chiefs" or the like. When it
rarely took a plural verb like "are" with no appositive, it was
usually equal in meaning to "many police forces" or "the members of
many police forces", but not "many policemen". I would still say
based on what I saw in this search and my general memory that it is
more natural in English to use "police" as a non-count noun rather
than a count noun, so without numerals or quantity determinants. As
for "cattle", I concede that large numbers like "3000 cattle" are used
before it, but this is a sort of mass number and "10 cattle", ten
individuals, I think still sounds like an unnatural combination of
words. I suppose it might depend on whether one is accounting one's
assets or one is indicating animals in view.

Andrew