Re: Why sci.math?
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:47:18 +0200
Jim Spriggs <jim.sprigs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Jesse F. Hughes" wrote:
>
>> So, near as I can figger, the trailing "s" isn't justified on grounds
>> of plurality.
>
> 'tis justified on grounds of long-standing usage; like so much else in
> natural language.
Of course. Nothing wrong with that. Language *is* idiosyncratic,
after all.
(Though, it's a bit funny when Robin Chapman claims the "s" in maths
is natural, since mathematics ends in an "s". As if there's some
obvious fact that shortenings of s-ending words should also end in
"s".)
--
"Your knowledge is the power that promote good thought, how then can you have
good thought without powerful knowledge or how can you have powerful knowledge
without learning or how can you learn without a teacher and how can a teacher
teach if he or she has not learned the subject." --CA Alternative High School
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why sci.math?
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Re: Why sci.math?
- References:
- Why sci.math?
- From: Shytot
- Re: Why sci.math?
- From: David Ames
- Re: Why sci.math?
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Why sci.math?
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Why sci.math?
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: Why sci.math?
- Next by thread: Re: Why sci.math?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|