> what is the grammar/rule around what gets pluralized and what doesn't? How does one know that "code" can refer to a single line of code, a whole file of code, a project, or even the entirety of all code your eyes have ever seen without having to have an s tacked on to the end of it?
Well, the grammar is that English has two different classes of noun, and any given noun belongs to one class or the other. Standard terminology calls them "mass nouns" and "count nouns".
The distinction is so deeply embedded in the language that it requires agreement from surrounding words; you might compare many [which can only apply to count nouns] vs much [only to mass nouns], or observe that there are separate generic nouns for each class [thing is the generic count noun; stuff is the generic mass noun].
For "how does one know", the general concept is that count nouns refer to things that occur discretely, and mass nouns refer to things that are indivisible or continuous, most prototypically materials like water, mud, paper, or steel.
Where the class of a noun is not fixed by common use (for example, if you're making it up, or if it's very rare), a speaker will assign it to one class or the other based on how they internally conceive of whatever they're referring to.
> This was a very well explained distinction, with the exception of you using "Noël" as one of the examples
Do you have reason to believe it's true, or are you commenting to say that it would have been a well-explained distinction if it were true?
I tried to verify it, and found nothing but evidence that implicitly or explicitly contradicted it.
(The best I could find in favor were the English wikipedia page on the house of Perrier-Jouët, which lists a pronunciation with /t/ -- the French page lists no pronunciation at all -- and the 19th-century book Comment on prononce le français, which confirms that maïs is pronounced with a final /s/, but lists it without comment alongside several other words that feature the same irregular pronunciation of "-s", none of which include a diaeresis. I'm compelled to infer that the realization of /s/ in maïs has nothing to do with the diaeresis.
The way I was taught this in French school is that the diaeresis causes the letter to be pronounced separately, so in maïs the "¨" forces you to say "a" and "i" separately (ah- ee) instead of together ("eh" as in "mais" which is an existing French word).
It only affects the diphthong AFAIK, so I agree with you that it's not the reason for why the "s" is pronounced out loud.
The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
The outcome for the final "-s" is somewhat influenced by the origin of the word, as you would pronounce "bis" differently depending on whether you mean "beige" or half-whole-wheat bread, vs. if you mean "repeated" (from latin).
There are a bunch of such weird exceptions, like "vis" (screw, or past tense of "to see") or "bus" (bus, or drank) which both can be pronounced either depending on their meaning, or "os" which is different depending on plural vs. singular.
For the ending "-s" there is also some regional variation. Where I was born, you would normally pronounce the final "s" in words like "plus" or "moins", and I was very surprised as a teenager to meet people from other French regions who made fun of it.
> The final "s" is usually silent in French and I'm not aware of any rule for what defines the exceptions.
I don't think there is a rule. The 19th-century book said this:
>> L's s'est maintenu ou définitivement rétabli depuis plus ou moins longtemps dans maïs, jadis, fi(l)s et lis (y compris fleur de lis le plus souvent, malgré l'Académie); dans metis, cassis, vis (substantif) et tournevis. La prononciation de ces mots sans s est tout à fait surannée; on ne peut plus la conserver que pour les nécessités de la rime, et encore!
The reference to /s/ being maintained or reestablished, and the pronunciation without /s/ being out of date, suggests to me that the rule was that final /s/ was lost (in Parisian French, I guess...), and that there was a specific effort to put it back into some words. But that's speculation on my part.
It seems clear that bus "bus" and maïs "maize" have a final /s/ because they are foreign words. It's less clear to me why they're given those spellings as opposed to something more like busse.
For the champagne, we see this heading the French wikipedia page:
> Moët & Chandon (prononciation /moɛt‿e ʃɑ̃ˈdɔ̃/) est une maison de Champagne fondée en 1743
But that doesn't imply that there is a /t/ pronounced in "Moët" when not followed by a vowel; that's just normal French liaison. The explicit liaison marker in the phonetic spelling strongly implies that there isn't a /t/ in citation pronunciation.
This is all wiki information though - do you have a better source?
> Before the subscription model, if Adobe wanted to sell me another copy of Lightroom they had to work really hard to make useful features that people actually wanted, enough to the point they'd buy [the new] version.
> You are advocating for no constraints (total war) on the stronger side. Taken literally, that means genocide of the losers. Really, that's what you want?
Taken literally, it means genocide of the losers is an option the winning side has. It always has been.
Note that Genghis Khan's explicit plan when he conquered China was to wipe out the Chinese to make room for Mongols. He wasn't stopped from doing that; there was no constraint to block him.
> Not sure about the first syllable of "poplitibus"
Lewis and Short doesn't mark that o short or long. This also occurred with vexo, which I assumed was because the first syllable of anything starting with vex- is necessarily long (because the 'x' is two non-liquid consonants).
In the case of poples, 'l' is a liquid and a short vowel could be revealed by the syllabification po-ples (or po-pli-), but I guess this is never attested? This verse can't answer the question because the syllable is allowed to be long.
I don't think debazel was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers for the benefit of the children. He was saying that children should have been banned from owning computers so that the government would have no excuse to regulate what's allowed on computers.
so we agree that governments only using the safety of children as pretext to extend their control of people's lives, otherwise there are better solution protect children of the harms of the internet.
But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence.
Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one.
2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more important targets.
They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.
Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.
That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
1. Your answer can be "no" when the true answer is "yes". Consider this process with a circle of perimeter "21":
--------------------- (unwrap the circle)
----------+---------- (bisect the line)
-**-------+--------** (drop four points)
The four points don't fall into either of the two semicircles that you stupidly predefined, but they do fall into a different semicircle.
2. Your answer of "1/2, because it's divided into two equal lengths" is completely wrong for the scenario that you specify.
Consider the case where we drop a single point. We can do the same procedure:
A. Unwrap the circle;
B. Bisect the line;
C. Drop one point.
But even though the line is still divided into two equal lengths, our one point has a 100% chance of falling either on one side of the bisection point, or on the other side.
For the case where we drop four points, the article already gives the correct answer for your method, which is 1/2^3 (because there are 3+1 points).
Well, the grammar is that English has two different classes of noun, and any given noun belongs to one class or the other. Standard terminology calls them "mass nouns" and "count nouns".
The distinction is so deeply embedded in the language that it requires agreement from surrounding words; you might compare many [which can only apply to count nouns] vs much [only to mass nouns], or observe that there are separate generic nouns for each class [thing is the generic count noun; stuff is the generic mass noun].
For "how does one know", the general concept is that count nouns refer to things that occur discretely, and mass nouns refer to things that are indivisible or continuous, most prototypically materials like water, mud, paper, or steel.
Where the class of a noun is not fixed by common use (for example, if you're making it up, or if it's very rare), a speaker will assign it to one class or the other based on how they internally conceive of whatever they're referring to.
reply