short takes

[cellio]

Happy 05/05/05. (First pointed out to me by lensedqso.)

Harkening back to a recent entry: how lightsabers work (link from ralphmelton and mabfan).

Ridiculous food challenges just got even weirder: 15-pound burger challenge -- if you and a friend can eat it in three hours it's free; otherwise it's $30. Ugh. On the other hand, if you go into it blowing off the challenge from the start (and get the wet condiments on the side), it's not a bad price for a week's worth of meatloaf for the right person. (I got the link from nsingman.)

Emails 'pose threat to IQ' (link from brokengoose). Well, at least a threat to the ability to write correct English. "Email" is not a counting noun! C'mon, journalists should know better! (I know -- many of them don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize.) Easy way to tell that the phrase "an email" is wrong: substitute by analogy. Do you send "a mail" (physical) to your pen-pal? Email is the mass noun, like mail; it is not the instance, like a letter.

I was reading something recently and saw a reference to Rabbi Micha Berger. Rabbi? When did that happen? I feel bad that I failed to notice somehow. (While we don't talk often, we're occasional correspondents and I have been a guest in his home. He wasn't a rabbi then.)

Comments

[hopeness.livejournal.com]

Hmm, then what do you say instead of "an email"?

[cellio]

Just "email" ("I sent email to Bob"), or "a message" or "a note" or whatever. Same as with paper -- you send mail, or a letter, or a note, or... but not "a mail".

"An email" is pervasive enough by now (sigh) that I don't fault regular people for repeating it, though it makes me cringe. But professional wordsmiths -- who have helped to cause this error to propegate -- really should have known better, in my opinion.

[cahwyguy.livejournal.com]

Micha (who is the primary person I rely upon for Orthodox answers for the FAQ, by the way) rarely refers to himself that way, but I do think he has the title in his community (Aish). One of these days I would love to meet him and personally thank him for all his help to me.

A real good guy.

[cellio]

I know Micha from soc.culture.jewish and the occasional encounter since (and now his blog, aspaqlaria, which I know you already know about but I mention for others who might care). When I was several months into my studies of Judaism and we'd been having a long email discussion about orthodoxy, he invited me to spend a Shabbat with his family. It was a fabulous experience! He's one of those people I would try to visit fairly frequently if we lived in the same city but we don't so we don't.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

These same people really ought to have been pushing a term like "e-letter". Since they didn't, natural processes filled in the linguistic gap by borrowing a related word and making it serve double duty.

I've also heard things like "I just sent a 'mail to Bob," which always means electronic letter and never postal letter, and is one step worse than "an email." Your efforts at correctness are laudable, but may be doomed. :)

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

I think I have to disagree with you.

"A Letter" is the noun, and "To Mail" is the action associated with that noun.

"An Email" is the noun, and "To Send" is the action associated with that noun.

So "I mailed the letter" and "I sent the email" are both correct.

Merriam-Webster backs me up (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=e-mail) on email being a noun (although they insist on spelling it as e-mail).

[cellio]

I didn't mean to imply that "email" isn't also a noun; it is. Are you saying that it's not also a verb?

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

Easy way to tell that the phrase "an email" is wrong: substitute by analogy. Do you send "a mail" (physical) to your pen-pal? Email is the mass noun, like mail; it is not the instance, like a letter.

"a mail" is not correct useage because "to mail" is the verb and "a letter' is the noun. There is no such noun as "a mail". "An email" is correct as a singular noun. "To send an email" would be perfectly correct useage as a noun, just as "email me" would be the verb form - a close analogy would be that you either recieve a telephone call or you call someone on the telephone - both are correct.

Plus, I don't see it used in the article as a verb anywhere - only as the noun:

"Emails 'pose threat to IQ'
(read as "Letters pose threat to IQ" or "Cows pose threat to IQ")

The distractions of constant emails
(read as: "The distractions of constant letters" "The distractions of constant cows")

who also demonstrated that emails in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip
("who also demonstrated that letters in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip" or "who also demonstrated that cows in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip)

challenges every time an email dropped into their inbox
("challenges every time a letter dropped into their mailbox" or "challenges every time a cow dropped into their mailbox")

by the almost complete lack of discipline in handling emails.
("by the almost complete lack of discipline in handling letters" or "by the almost complete lack of discipline in handling cows")

This is the worst one:
by the two-thirds of people who check work emails out of office hours and even on holiday
("by the two-thirds of people who check work letters out of office hours and even on holiday" or "by the two-thirds of people who check work cows out of office hours and even on holiday")

[cellio]

"a mail" is not correct useage because "to mail" is the verb and "a letter' is the noun.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You clearly aren't arguing that "mail" isn't a noun because it's already a verb, because you cite "call" later as both noun and verb. "A mail" isn't correct because "mail" isn't a countable thing. "Mail", however, is a perfectly reasonable noun. "The mailman just delivered the mail." People don't usually "send mail" because they send soemthing more specific instead, like "a letter" -- but there would be nothing grammatically wrong with "sending mail". It's just more vague than people usually like.

Similarly, you can "send email" just fine. You can (by analogy with "call") also "email somone" -- "email" is the verb, "someone" is the object. I generally avoid this in favor of "send email to", but that's just me. But the determiner isn't part of this; I "send mail" or "send email" but not "send a mail" or "send an email".

Plus, I don't see it used in the article as a verb anywhere - only as the noun:

I failed to connect the dots. If something is not countable, then you can't pluralize it by adding "s" -- so "emails" is never a correct plural. For another example, "water" is generally not a counting noun (absent special uses like "the waters of Babylon"); you have a glass of water, not a glass of waters. A countable analogue is "drop"; you can talk about drops (plural) of water, but not about waters.

It looks like you equate "email" with "letter", grammatically. I think they're different; in fact, you could even use "email" as an adjective ("email letter") if you really wanted, but the noun "email" by itself does not, to my mind, refer to a single instance of email. Just as physical mail isn't a letter; a letter is a specific case of mail.

[jducoeur]

Email is the mass noun, like mail; it is not the instance, like a letter.

Sorry, but the descriptivist in me just doesn't buy it. In practice, "email" has been used as a singular, countable noun for a fair number of years now, and has largely entered the common lexicon in that form. Nowadays, people routinely say, "I sent you an email about that".

Yes, it's also used as a verb, and as a mass noun. Doesn't change the fact that it is *also* used as a singular noun. As always, seeking consistency in English is simply a path to heartbreak...

[cellio]

People also routinely talk about ATM machines and PIN numbers; does that make it right? Does that mean we shouldn't strive to do better?

If I were a newspaper editor, I would insist on correcting these cases. That people do it doesn't mean that we should do it (and continue to propegate the usage). When a correct alternative exists, we should use that.

[jducoeur]

This may be a descriptivist/prescriptivist argument that we aren't going to come to a consensus on. IMO, when you have a completely new entity such as email, it is logical to observe the practical evolution of the language around it and conform to that.

And the ATM/PIN cases really aren't appropriate analogies -- both are examples of a specific phenomenon (an acronym nounifying to the point where the individual words are lost) that is quite different. They're closer to one of my favorite silly examples: "Roast Beef with Au Jus". Each of these examples indicates that the speaker doesn't know what the word they are using *means*. That isn't the case with "email".

I honestly don't understand why this particular case bothers you so much. It's not as if this sort of verbal overload is terribly unusual in English. Yes, it's a verb, a collective noun and an individual one. So what? I've always found the sense of the word to be consistently clear in practice...

[cellio]

I don't mind part-of-speech overload; English is chock full of that. But a formulation that seems to be both obviously and unnecessarily incorrect from a grammatical point of view grates on my nerves, and I think "an email" or "emails" (plural noun) both match that description. The singular form of "they" is similarly ungrammatical and while I don't agree myself, I can see the argument that it is at least necessary. I lump all of those in the same category as "ATM machine" and "beef with au jus"; in all cases if people stopped and thought about the real meanings of those words they'd realize the error.

Let me try something from a different domain: "Master Master $name". I suspect that makes your skin crawl about as much as "an email" does for me. People clearly say it, but if I recall correctly you're one of the folks who tries to change that. (Or am I wrong?)

[jducoeur]

Nope -- I find it mildly silly, and I gently discourage it, but mainly on the grounds that it isn't period, rather than because of grammar issues. I think that's more Steffan's hobbyhorse than mine.

And I genuinely disagree that the singular use of "email" is useless. I use the word in the singular (or plural) when I am talking about *specific* emails ("I sent you several emails on that subject last week"), and in the collective when I am talking about a less-definite collection of email ("Yes, I know you -- I think we've exchanged email"). That's a subtle distinction, and certainly one that can be lived without, but one that I find semantically useful, and grammatically intuitive.

Of course, it's worth noting that I also use the singular "they" frequently, and I'm one of those weird yankees who uses "y'all" as well. Utility and intuition always trump rules for me, when it comes to grammar, and I tend to favor fine semantic distinctions...

[cellio]

I think that's more Steffan's hobbyhorse than mine.

Oops, sorry -- I thought it was more general among Silverwing heralds. :-)

"I sent you several emails on that subject last week"

In that case I say "messages" and let context carry it. It won't be long before a paper message is the flavor that needs to be explicitly clarified anyway.

I've been known to use "y'all", though I might also say "you folks" or even "you, plural" in certain cases. :-)

[jducoeur]

I thought it was more general among Silverwing heralds.

Actually, I'm the outlier -- the Silverwing who (technically, at least) isn't a herald. Well, okay, neither is Argyle, but we're conspicuously the weirdoes: the non-herald Laurels in a household of heraldic Pelicans.

(Of course, twenty years hanging around heralds means that I probably know more heraldry than most Baronial Pursuivants. But it isn't how I self-identify...)

In that case I say "messages" and let context carry it. It won't be long before a paper message is the flavor that needs to be explicitly clarified anyway.

While that's an entirely reasonable usage, it's less semantically precise than the definite form of "email", so I tend towards the latter.

Like I said, though, this is *mostly* a descriptivist/prescriptivist argument, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on it. I'm a fairly hardcore descriptivist when it comes to the English language; I get the impression that you're somewhere on the other side of that fence, although I don't know precisely where. That alone means that we're proceeding from different sets of assumptions of how to address a question like this.

I've been known to use "y'all", though I might also say "you folks" or even "you, plural" in certain cases.

Me, too. But over the years, I've gradually been getting more comfortable with "y'all". Really, the only thing that makes me at all reluctant is that it comes across as a bit affected from the northerner like myself. But again, utility uber alles -- it's such a concisely useful word that it's slowly become a central element in my vocabulary...

[cellio]

Actually, I'm the outlier -- the Silverwing who (technically, at least) isn't a herald.

Technically, shmecklically -- I've seen you act as a herald and a pretty darn good one. :-) But ok, two non-heraldic laurels in a heraldic-pelican household is pretty nifty, so I won't hassle you too much (nor ask to join and mess up your stats as a non-herald pelican). :-)

Like I said, though, this is *mostly* a descriptivist/prescriptivist argument, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on it.

Sounds like, yes. I'm not entirely prescriptivist, but in my own speech/writing and in that of anyone I'm responsible for, I will work very hard to make sure that usage is logical and correct, semantically and grammatically in the ways that matter. I agree with Bill Walsh that many of our "rules" aren't compelling, but I feel pretty strongly about some factors that I think really are rules.

And I'm not against new usage patterns; heck, I've championed some. I've been on the "wrong side" of the "terminal punctuation and close quotes/parens" dispute for decades, as I believe that logical placement must trump an out-of-date concession to typesetting. But my guiding principle is logic, not what the average guy on the street is actually doing. So in that we disagree.

Really, the only thing that makes me at all reluctant is that it comes across as a bit affected from the northerner like myself.

That's exactly why I sometimes hesitate to say "y'all". But it's darn useful.