Showing posts with label English historical linguistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label English historical linguistics. Show all posts

Sunday, November 28, 2021

Singular "dice"?


Dice
(plural) are those things that you roll in tabletop games, sometimes known as "math(s) rocks". What's the singular? What do you call it when you roll only one?

There's a school of thought that says that the only correct answer is die. That is: one die, multiple dice. And it isn't difficult to find internet pedants claiming this. As usual, though, when internet pedants start fulminating against some linguistic usage, it means that the truth is more complicated and that there are other possibilities out there.

My starting point, as usual, is the OED. There it says:

The form dice (used as plural and singular) is of much more frequent occurrence in gaming and related senses than the singular die.

This is to be found in the OED's second edition (1989), so it's clear that the singular use has been around for a while. The OED also provides an example from 1557:

1557   R. Record Whetstone of Witte sig. Rii   I haue a dice of Brasse of .64. vnces of Troye weighte.

(Two earlier examples are provided there, but both involve the regularized plural dices – which, though it implies a singular dice, doesn't count as a use of it.)

Speaking for myself, as a Brit, the singular die is just not grammatical for me in the context of the six-sided cubes with numbers on. Moreover, some of the sources above imply that there is a British-American difference as regards the use of these forms. Time to play around with Google Ngram Viewer!

The usual caveats are needed with regard to this source: it's just published books, so it's biased towards formal, conservative practice; there are some terrible errors of dating and transcription in there; it's pretty much useless before 1800; etc. But it's easy to use and good for getting an overview, in general terms, of historical developments.

Starting with the basic corpus "English (2019)", we see a lot of fluctuation. a die is in general more common than a dice throughout, which is not surprising, since a die is not restricted to the context of math-rocks. Since 1990 it seems as if a dice is on the rise.


The picture is similar for this die vs. this dice. But let's now turn to regional differences. As usual with Google Books, the picture for American English closely matches the overall view:


British English is different, though - with the two uses much closer together.


The smaller-scale fluctuations are harder to assess, but it looks like there was relatively little difference between the two in 2000, and that the gap has since widened again. If we restrict the context even further (roll a die vs. roll a dice), looking at the post-1950 period (the Age of Math Rocks), it's even closer. The below graph shows that for British English the two variants are pretty much in lockstep until about 2008, when singular die seems to shoot up again.


And here's the corresponding graph for American English:


Here, singular dice has very much been the minority variant all along, and hardly used at all before 1998.

So there's a clear difference between British English, where singular dice is an established variant, and American English, where it (largely) isn't. But none of this empirical evidence helps us to figure out what the CORRECT singular form is, of course! That can only be done through LOGIC and RATIONAL REASONING!

I present the following analogically-linked forms for your delectation:

  • two mice : one mouse
  • two lice : one louse
  • two dice : one douse
QED. The douse is cast!

Monday, October 01, 2018

Which History of the English Language textbook should I use?

Back in early 2017 I asked a group of estimable colleagues (aka my Facebook friends) to give me their opinions on which of the many, many History of the English Language textbooks is the best. The context was that I wanted "Something for the students to read to accompany a big intro lecture course, ideally with exercises that can be used in tutorials". You can click the link for the full version, but here's a summary of the options, with people's comments (in alphabetical order by author surname).

I've also given each book a special George's mates rating, from one þ (terrible) to five þþþþþ (well-loved). It must be kept in mind that this rating, like most quantitative measures of academic quality, is entirely subjective and probably worthless. They're all pros who know what they're doing, but there's lots of groupthink on my wall, and on the whole these people tend more towards Hardcore Linguistics than towards English philology. Anyway, the rating is just my interpretation of what was said, and your needs will be specific to you.

If you have other views you'd be prepared to share, please feel free to comment below! (Some well-known books that weren't mentioned at all include Culpeper 2005 and Millward & Hayes 2011.)

Barber, Charles, Joan Beal, & Philip Shaw. 2012. The English language.

2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“very readable but not so easy to find specific details in”

Baugh, Albert C., & Thomas Cable. 2013. A history of the English language.

6th edition. London: Routledge.

George's mates rating: þ

“turgid and outdated” 
“very out of date” 
“totally outdated”

Brinton, Laurel J., & Leslie Arnovick. 2016. The English language: a linguistic history.

3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

George's mates rating: þþþþþ

“not bad, as far as I can judge”
“I like Brinton and Arnovick too, a lot … Only problem is: there is no ebook, and the paperback is 75 quid, so it's a bit pricey.” 
“I really like Brinton and Arnovick … Tons of exercises, with the answers at the end, and i like the level of linguistics; challenging but still accessible.”

Fennell, Barbara. 2001. A History of English: A Sociolinguistic Approach.

Oxford: Wiley.

George's mates rating: þþþþ

“I think it does the best job of including actual linguistic info, not just language and society, but also not trying to teach Old English in its entirety.”

Freeborn, Dennis. 2006. From Old English to Standard English.

London: Macmillan.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“contains lots of extracts from primary sources and has an accompanying workbook that you can pillage for exercises, but it's a mess as a textbook”
“excellent but not as a text”

van Gelderen, Elly. 2014. A history of the English language.

Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

George's mates rating: þþþþþ

“the best w.r.t. linguistics”
“Albeit quite generative…”
“comes the next closest [after Fennell] to striking this balance [including actual linguistic info, not just language and society, but also not trying to teach Old English in its entirety], I think”
“I like van Gelderen for the current approach, structural / socio angles and my guess is that the exercises would work well”
“Hogg & Denison or van Gelderen, but it depends how intro you need it to be and whether it's aimed at Linguistics/English language students or English literature ones”

Gramley, Stephan. 2011. The history of English: an introduction.

London: Routledge.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“I quite like Stephan Gramley’s one”
“Gramley is good … Both [this and another book] have accompanying websites”

Hogg, Richard, & David Denison (eds.). 2012. A history of the English language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“there is [also] Hogg/Denison (CUP), but … [it doesn't] have exercises”
“Hogg & Denison or van Gelderen, but it depends how intro you need it to be and whether it's aimed at Linguistics/English language students or English literature ones”

Johnson, Keith. 2015. The history of early English.

London: Routledge.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“Keith Johnson's the history of early English 2015 (… with exercises) [is good]. Both [this and another book] have accompanying websites”

Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.). 2012. The Oxford history of English.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“a good amount of detail, chapters written by specialists, but no exercises”
“Mugglestone (OUP) … [doesn't] have exercises”

Pyles, Thomas, & John Algeo. 2010. The origins and development of the English language.

6th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage.

George's mates rating: þþþ

“I used Pyles and Algeo, which I didn’t particularly like, although the workbook is quite good”

Strang, Barbara. 1970. A history of English.

London: Routledge.

George's mates rating: þþ

“does go backwards, but the book is not really useable at all”