Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aliquid 06-10-04, 02:22 PM	Just a quick survey.. How many people find it annoying when someone refers to a single die as a dice? How many people don't care? and how many people prefer to call a single die a dice? and I guess a 4th category... how many people don't know what I am talking about ;)
Solaris 06-10-04, 03:07 PM	Preference shouldn't enter into it. The word "dice" a plural noun, and anyone using it as a singular noun is either ignorant or careless.
MrkGrismer 06-10-04, 03:14 PM	As bad as clerics and all their focii...
Solaris 06-10-04, 03:21 PM	Foci. Latin words have suffered so much abuse in English that I think it's become generally acceptable to pluralize them according to English rules. For example, dictionary.com lists "focuses" and "foci" as plurals for "focus". And then there's the whole "this datum" / "these data" thing that most people have just given up on...
MrkGrismer 06-10-04, 03:59 PM	... actually it was intentional... no senses of humor around here. What cracks me up is Ford chose to name one of their cars 'Focus.' So, if they have a bunch of them on the lot they have quite the number of...
Grayson 06-10-04, 04:00 PM	I'll fight to the last infinitive to keep ignorance of the English language away from my gaming table, heh.
Edymnion 06-10-04, 08:10 PM	English is a living language, its rules and vocabulary are constantly changing. If enough people want "dice" to refer to a single die, then it will become an official part of the language. Just like it is now considered proper english to end a sentance in a preposition, where it was a big no-no as little as 20 years ago.
tiggrhoo 06-10-04, 09:45 PM	"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." —Through the Looking-Glass It used to bother me, but now I just consider myself on the cutting edge of linguistic evolution. :D
WotC_Huscarl 06-10-04, 11:44 PM	It's just one more entry in a long list of reasons for me to look down self-righteously on those I consider my intellectual inferiors. Steve
PlaDeDump 06-11-04, 12:29 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion English is a living language, its rules and vocabulary are constantly changing. If enough people want "dice" to refer to a single die, then it will become an official part of the language. I agree with you Edymnion. Personally though, I always use the word "die" when refering to a single die.
TigerWolfe 06-11-04, 12:46 AM	i use die for a singular die and i have the bad habit of correcting people who use dice as the singular form of dice
Incenjucar 06-11-04, 01:05 AM	My feeling is that changing words is unhealthy for the proper recording of history. Can you imagine how silly it would be if some poor fool confused "Twas a cool night." for meaning "It was a great night." rather than "It was a bit on the chilly side that night."? Harmless, certainly, but it's but an example. New words I don't mind at all, though. They're Splendorific.
Tenzhi 06-11-04, 01:44 AM	I say we keep the singular as "die" and change the plural to "death" - that way you can either have a single die or a whole bag of death.
Ehelonna 06-11-04, 02:21 AM	I have a tendency to use "dX" where X is the number of sides. After all, a die is not descriptive enough when playing D&D. :angel: e.g. DM; Roll a die.... Player; uhhh... what type??? D20? d6? d12?
Rpgpunk 06-11-04, 02:31 AM	Die=1 Dice=more than one.
roguebfl 06-11-04, 02:38 AM	I personal refure to die for singular, but I don't make a habbit of correcting people, unless the incorrection would lead to a miss understanding. as saying 1 dice does not have a controdictor meanin to what they ment It does not bother me
Ranger REG 06-11-04, 04:13 AM	Originally posted by Aliquid Just a quick survey.. How many people find it annoying when someone refers to a single die as a dice? How many people don't care? Don't really care. I have other pet peeve, like the misspelling of SAMURAI. I mean if you can't spell it, just use "Warriors of Japan."
bitnine 06-11-04, 04:30 AM	Heh, when folk let mangled words bother them that much, it causes a great wellspring of apathy to surge forth in my heart. Really, as long as I don't bleed from my eyeballs trying to read a post, as long as it doesn't interfere with the communicative purpose of the post, then it doesn't matter all that much. Sometimes I see it said that people who are careless with their word use just make themselves look less intelligent, but most times, that's from the people who get worked up at other's mistakes.
Sweet Steph 06-11-04, 05:05 AM	I'll always use die myself when referring to the singular, but I don't get bent out of shape when others are unable to speak properly. One thing I know for certain is that people can't be forced to use correct language. The sheer number of individuals who regularly replace rogue with rouge is proof enough of that.
tiggrhoo 06-11-04, 07:39 AM	Right isn't always best. Originally posted by Sweet Steph I'll always use die myself when referring to the singular, but I don't get bent out of shape when others are unable to speak properly. That's a good attitude. It's not what I do, but it's still good. <== [NOT in patronizing tone of voice -- simply agreeing.] But let me comment on the point Steph raised. Actually, it's the people who are unable to speak (or spell) properly who are more bothersome, IMO. If someone chooses to speak improperly, that's a bit different. Obviously, I can't always tell which is which, but I can usually guess if I know the person well enough. (However, if it's Isaac Asimov or Mark Twain, you can be sure he's doing it on purpose.) Ignorant (or sloppy typing): "The hydra can attack with all of it's heads." :banghead: Correct (but probably got beat up a lot during recess ;) ): "Who's there?" "It is I." Incorrect (but probably knows better, so I don't mind): "Where did that dice go?" And how many of us would say "That ain't happening", knowing it's not widely acceptable but finding it expresses our meaning well? Language is fluid. It evolves over time. I believe "ain't" serves a useful grammatical purpose, and will eventually be perfectly acceptable. And so will singular "dice", I hope. That's not to say I agree with the news people (for example) changing words on purpose just so they feel smarter than the rest of us. Darn it, it has been "Mos-COW" for longer than you've been at that news desk. I'm not going to start saying "Mos-coh" just because you think it's cute now that you have a microphone. Same goes for "Ee-rock" (That's Iraq. It sounds like "rack" -- deal with it.) "Ee-rahn" (sorry, I'm sticking with "I-ran".) "Gutter" (Qatar is pronounced like it's spelled. There's no 'G' in it. I heard the recording from their embassy, for cryin' out loud!) Yes, "di-a-mond" is technically correct, and so is "di-mond"... but have you noticed that anyone who says it the first way is trying to sell you one? I could just see Marilyn Monroe singing "Di-a-monds are a girl's best friend"; it would screw up the rhythm and she knew it. I'll bet Marilyn knew how to pronounce Moscow, too. (Well, come to think of it... maybe. :D But I'm sure she wouldn't say "Mos-coh". ) Think about it... who would you rather have at your birthday party, Tom Brokaw or Marilyn Monroe? I mean, which news anchor ever had a chance to score with a U.S. president! :) This proves that "Mos-coh" is wrong. So, to sum up my linguistic essay: gentlemen prefer blondes. Yay Marilyn! :D
Kheldren 06-11-04, 08:03 AM	Having always been told that whilst "die" is singular, "dice" can be both plural and singular I checked the dictionary. (For some reason I keep a complete Oxford English Dictionary under my desk at work...) dice, sb (properly pl.): see DIE sb and in Combs. below. My reading of this is that it is not technically correct to use it as a singular, but unless one is being very pedantic it is not actually wrong - the people saying it is wrong are! That said I like to be pedantic so I will have to remember to use die for the singular. There are plenty of worse grammatical sins that people ignore so this should not get the attention it does :(
Will Brandiman 06-11-04, 08:04 AM	Originally posted by roguebfl I personal refure to die for singular, but I don't make a habbit of correcting people, unless the incorrection would lead to a miss understanding. as saying 1 dice does not have a controdictor meanin to what they ment It does not bother me I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm or just bad spelling and grammar. :D By the way, I know it's die but I say dice anyway as, strangely, using the wrong word is less confusing in my group than using the right one. Go figure! :rolleyes:
Jimmy_Groove 06-11-04, 08:10 AM	I generally say "D6" ect. when talking about a single die, but I still always correct someone who says "a dice". While one day the rules may change, in this house that day has not yet come. Likewise, anyone who says "cannons" drives me crazy.
tiggrhoo 06-11-04, 08:19 AM	Originally posted by Jimmy_Groove Likewise, anyone who says "cannons" drives me crazy. I see your point. But does it help any that dictionary.com lists "cannons" as an acceptable plural? Stamp out irregular plurals! (We're coming after those irregular verbs next. ;) )
MrkGrismer 06-11-04, 09:08 AM	It does bug the crap out of me when somebody says 'download' instead of 'install' however. (I think my friends are doing it on purpose just to annoy me now)
Aliquid 06-11-04, 12:13 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion English is a living language, its rules and vocabulary are constantly changing. If enough people want "dice" to refer to a single die, then it will become an official part of the language. Just like it is now considered proper english to end a sentance in a preposition, where it was a big no-no as little as 20 years ago. My concern is that the English language is both evolving and devolving at the same time.... and the devolving aspect might be more prominent. The creation of new words is a good thing. It allows us to verbalise things with more clarity, and properly describe things in our changing world. Deterioration of grammatical rules is another thing all together. Typically it is a matter of people being lazy. Take the word “whom” for example. Few people use it anymore (myself included), as it is far easier to just say “who” instead of trying to figure out which one is appropriate. The same could be said for the use of “dice” as a singular. Most games use 2d6 (Monopoly, Craps, etc), and as such, most instances of written or verbal reference to a die is in the plural. The every day person rarely has reason to speak of a single die, as they seem to always show up in pairs. One day this “every day person” comes across one die. Instead of saying to himself “I wonder what the singular form of dice is… I have never come across this before”, he simply calls it a dice. He does this because stopping and thinking about that question takes an effort, and humans often prefer to avoid effort. Now I am not saying that I don’t do these things as well. I am sure I break grammatical rules every day. This post is likely riddled with them. What I am trying to say is that we shouldn’t just turn a blind eye to the deterioration of proper grammar, as it is leading us down a dangerous road. In forty years time, it is possible that “UR not kewl b/c you LOL 2 much” will be acceptable grammar for a high school term paper. That scares me. People often argue that “it gets the message across, so who cares”. Sure, this is true, but once a more complicated concept needs to be discussed, these people will be totally lost.
Bacon and Eggs 06-11-04, 12:21 PM	I vote for "Don't care". Dices?
UZI 06-11-04, 12:48 PM	Plural of dice is deese. Or was that the plural of doose? Or douse?
tiggrhoo 06-11-04, 01:18 PM	Originally posted by Aliquid My concern is that the English language is both evolving and devolving at the same time.... and the devolving aspect might be more prominent. ... Deterioration of grammatical rules is another thing all together. Typically it is a matter of people being lazy. Take the word “whom” for example. Few people use it anymore (myself included), as it is far easier to just say “who” instead of trying to figure out which one is appropriate. Well, this process didn't start recently. English has been deteriorating from (largely) Latin and German for hundreds of years, and I personally think we're much better off without declension of nouns and some of the more abstruse verb tenses like "conversational past tense". I am really glad we're not using German. Check out this (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html) hilarious essay by Mark Twain to see why. :) I'm especially glad the language "deteriorated" from having nouns with gender. I mean, really, what good is it to have to keep track of hammers being male and saws being female? Or was it the other way around? This only rarely helps you construct more information-dense sentences. As for "whom" ... what do we really lose by allowing "who" to fill both the subjective and objective roles? I would be hard pressed to come up with a sentence that would be made ambiguous by this simplification. After all, it works quite well for the word "you". (Speaking of which, we should probably adopt the Southern "y'all". English doesn't currently deal with "you-plural" very well.) Originally posted by Aliquid What I am trying to say is that we shouldn’t just turn a blind eye to the deterioration of proper grammar, as it is leading us down a dangerous road. In forty years time, it is possible that “UR not kewl b/c you LOL 2 much” will be acceptable grammar for a high school term paper. That scares me. People often argue that “it gets the message across, so who cares”. Sure, this is true, but once a more complicated concept needs to be discussed, these people will be totally lost. That scares me too. I'm all for simplifying grammar and spelling (that's the whole point to Esperanto, for example). But that doesn't mean that people should be ignorant of the difference between, say, past perfect and past participles. In fact, I wish that knowing these things were still a prerequisite for graduation, but that has been ruined for us. I think I'm just going to paint little antlers on all my dice. Then I can say "toss me that deer" or "roll those deer"... see, it won't matter how many there are. :D
Woas 06-11-04, 01:34 PM	How about Dici for plural and dice for singular? Hehe, I must be much worse at spelling than I thought. All these years I've thought it was spelled Di ....without the e. :cool:
Igfig 06-11-04, 10:14 PM	You think the Latin plurals are being corrupted? Look at all the Greek-derived words that are being messed up! Octopus- correct plural is not Octopi, but Octopodes! Same with Rhinoceros: Rhinocerotes!
neoneogeo 06-11-04, 11:45 PM	Pick your fights, this, my friend, shouldn't be one of them. neoneogeo
LordOfTheFries 06-12-04, 01:09 AM	To be perfectly honest... I know the correct thing to say; sometimes I say it, sometimes I don't. It all depends on how lazy I feel at the moment, but rather than say 'dice' when referring to one 'die' I would just say, for example, "Gimme that". I try my best to know the correct way to say something, also depending on the lazy factor, because it makes me seem ignorant, but sometimes I flat-out don't care. Just because I am intelligent does not mean that I am well educated either, only that I can manage a semblance of education through careful observation and experience of other people. I also can't tell you what a lot of the words I use mean, because I honestly don't know, but I use them correctly in context so it appears like I do. Language as a whole is all a grand game and the closest any of us will ever get to winning is being able to at least understand one another at some level. Nobody ever said it would be easy to play... ;)
Aliquid 06-12-04, 11:28 AM	Well if you want to get fussy.... check this out: We all pluralize dwarf incorrectly A quote from an annotated copy of The Hobbit: Soon after the publication of The Hobbit, Tolkien wrote to Stanley Unwin: No Reviewer (that I have seen), although all have carefully used the correct dwarfs themselves, has commented on the fact (which I only became conscious of through reviews) that I use throughout the “incorrect” plural dwarves. I am afraid it is just a piece of private bad grammar, rather shocking in a philologist… The real “historical” plural of dwarf (like teeth of tooth) is dwarrow, anyway: rather a nice word, but a bit too archaic. Still I rather wish I had used the word dwarrow.(Letters, No. 17) Page 8 from Douglas A Anderson’s Annotated version of The Hobbit so.... we all use dwarves when we should be using dwarfs... or dwarrow.
eclipticavatar 06-12-04, 05:15 PM	so.... we all use dwarves when we should be using dwarfs... or dwarrow. So Webster is wrong? dwarf ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dwôrf) n. pl. dwarfs or dwarves (dwôrvz) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dwarves
Aliquid 06-12-04, 07:08 PM	So Webster is wrong? Well... yes and no Dwarves has become accepted likely because of Tolkien's mistake. Tolkien in a sense is responsible for the modern image of a dwarf (and elf for that matter). His writing has been so influential that many other modern fantasy writers copied his misspelling of dwarfs. It wasn't because they wanted to copy his 'mistake', they just assumed his spelling was correct (he is Tolkien afterall). It got to the point where so many people were writing dwarves, that Webster added it as an acceptable spelling. These things happen all the time... the original spelling of the word tire (as in car tire) is tyre. The reason that the american spelling is "tire" is due to a misspelling in an advertising campaign by a tire company back in the early days of the automobile... People weren't too familiar with the word in the first place (since cars were new), so they assumed that the bill-boards had the proper spelling... and it stuck.
Fargo the Pirate 06-12-04, 08:26 PM	How appropriate that someone mentions Webster just as we're on the subject of discussing the de-evolution of the English language. Webster, caught up in that American exceptionalism thing that was going on in the at that time, decided it was time to get rid of the English language and create a new, American, language. Essentially, he wanted to make all spelling phonetic ('is' changed to 'iz'). Kind of interesting how people now cite him as an authority on the English language.
Edymnion 06-12-04, 08:40 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar My feeling is that changing words is unhealthy for the proper recording of history. Can you imagine how silly it would be if some poor fool confused "Twas a cool night." for meaning "It was a great night." rather than "It was a bit on the chilly side that night."? Harmless, certainly, but it's but an example. So, um, you mean that you would prefer that "crazy" still ment a leaking boat? And yes, crazy originally refered to a sailing vessel that had sprung a leak. It later migrated to include pots that were leaking, hence the assotiation between crazy and crackpot. It then jumped from broken pottery to someone's health breaking down, then from physical health to mental health, hence crazy having the current meaning of insanity. Etymology is actually a lot of fun, you should try it sometime. :D
Athenna 06-12-04, 08:57 PM	I've just been reading a book on how crazy the english language is. It's rather fascinating that there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 million words in this language, and it is still growing! English is a language derived from many others. Greek, Latin, French, German, you could probably name any major European language at the time English was first created and find words from all of them. The language has evolved from its first roots and changed, and it is still changing, and will continue to change as time progresses. The way this language is constructed is the major problem. There are many ways to plural something. For example, Deer doesn't even have a plural, the plural of Goose is Geese, yet more than one snake is snakes. There are enounciations that are supposed to be done, yet no one does them. Read and Read (present tense, past tense) are spelled the same way, yet promounced differently (i'm reading this book right now. I read that book already). There, Their, They're all pronounced the same, but have different meanings. Regional spellings, um, i'm not going there. Hell, for every letter in the alphabet you could find a word containing that letter as a silent letter. If you wanted to look at it one way, we have a spoken language, and a written language, because of how so many words are spelled differently than they sound like they should be. So give up, and just go with the flow :) While the proper term is die, i really don't care. Heck, the plural of die could be dies (like snake) or just die (deer), or any other one. Ironic that the topic i just typed on is my least favourite one? (english that is)
mad_caper 06-14-04, 12:48 AM	I still can't believe I read all of those posts. I'm often fascinated by the English language. Did you know the term Gypsy is actually derrogitory towards Egyptians? That's where it originated! But slightly more on topic: Someone previously made reference to Ford's Focus. It should be pointed out that, much like Mouse (in the sense of the computer device) Focus would be pluralized Focuses and Mouse as Mouses because they are not the same word as focus or mouse. Well, they're the same in the spelling and pronunciation. I mean, your mouse's tail comes out of the complete opposite end than would the animal's! Clearly it is different. Okay, so you could argue with me about the mouse, but Focus, because it is a proper noun and not the regular noun focus or verb to focus should be Focuses. On the subject of Silent letters, I think that the letter Q needs to be used much more frequently without the U following so as to make a hard K or C sound. So you could then spell Keen Qeen, and it would be correct. It is such a great but underused letter. I mean, you may as well get rid of it and spell queen kueen as it is the same thing. I try hard to say die but have the occasional lapse. Though I correct almost any other English mistake I catch, I don't usually mention that one.
Sweet Steph 06-14-04, 01:38 AM	Originally posted by mad_caper It is such a great but underused letter. It's also tied with X for being the most useless letter (in English, at any rate).
Bandido 06-14-04, 07:39 AM	I use dice as both singular and plural. I didn't even know die could be used as a singular until I was in my mid-teens, and I've never known anyone over here to use it except when being officious (people learning the 'correct' version which they haven't used before in their lives so they sound 'cleverer' (they just sound pretentious)). In any case, it's listed as acceptable in the OED, and a listing in the OED is a good enough measure for me of a word's correctness. Originally posted by mad_caper I'm often fascinated by the English language. Did you know the term Gypsy is actually derrogitory towards Egyptians? That's where it originated! That is surprising...especially since the Roma, the people generally referred to as gypsies, are Indian in descent, and have nothing to do with Egypt! Originally posted by Incencujar My feeling is that changing words is unhealthy for the proper recording of history. Can you imagine how silly it would be if some poor fool confused "Twas a cool night." for meaning "It was a great night." rather than "It was a bit on the chilly side that night."? Harmless, certainly, but it's but an example. Can I imagine how blessed or happy it would that poor fool got confused? That's what you must mean, right? After all, that's what silly first meant. ;) It then changed to mean pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable, feeble, and feeble-minded before arriving at its current meaning. Check here (http://www.krysstal.com/wordname.html) for that and other more interesting word changes in English. The change of the meaning of buxom is the most amusing, IMO. :D
Aliquid 06-14-04, 12:06 PM	OK... there is plenty of evidence in posts here that the english language is changing so much that... well fussing over the word dice is rather silly. It still bothers me for some reason... but as neoneogeo said, "Pick your fights, this, my friend, shouldn't be one of them." So, I am going to pick my battle. If there is a word I will make a fuss over it will be people saying "Legos" (when referring to the toy) The reason I can justify ranting about this one is that LEGO is the name of a company, it is not an English word, and the LEGO company specifically asks people to not say “Legos”. As such, I think I am justified in this crusade :) LEGO is the name of the company not the product. The toy is a LEGO brick, not a “Lego”. Furthermore, if you were to use the word Lego to refer to the product, it is already plural. Thus you have a “bucket of Lego”, or an individual Lego brick. I would compare it to “rice”. You don’t go to a restaurant and order a bowl of rices, you order a bowl of rice. Out of that bowl, you can pull out an individual grain of rice. That is the battle I shall pick… and I shall fight it until I educate the world :)
Sweet Steph 06-14-04, 12:21 PM	The company is probably fighting a losing battle in that case. Brand names have a long history of being absorbed into the English language and turned into generic terms, much to the dismay of the trademark holders. Just ask the makers of Coca-Cola.