17 Jul
2009
17 Jul
'09
11:14 a.m.
oh ya... and
why are they "VAXen"?
Ox/Oxen -> VAX/VAXen is the straight answer (there are a few joke
answers from back in the day like "why isn't it box/boxen?")
http://dictionary.babylon.com/VAXen
?Are there "PDP 11/44en" too? I've
got a couple Rainbowen here...
Not in English you don't. At issue is the plural of English words
ending in 'x' (which I'm sure goes back to Anglo-Saxon or something.
The rule from Latin would be something like the plurals ending in 'es'
since that's typical of third declension nouns). 
17 Jul
17 Jul
2:17 p.m.
New subject: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards (was "An interesting eBay find ....)
2009/7/17 Roger Holmes <roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk>:
So are photocopiers of a certain brand Xeroxen? Are helmsmen coxen? If I
receive one fax then another are they faxen? If I apply one fix to my
program and then another are they fixen? How about a dog fox and a vixen,
are they foxen? One mix plus another are mixen? Small pox and chicken pox
are poxen? One sax plus another saxen? Male and female sexen? Do your pay
your taxes or your taxen? Surely in 90% of cases the norm is to add es.
Adding en sometimes makes a noun in to an adjective, flaxen, waxen for
example. Apart form oxen (a.k.a. bullocks), I could not think of one other
example of plural xen. There may well be more but it was quite easy to come
up my list which should all be xes.
The -en ending is a feature from Anglo-Saxon Old English. The -x
ending is a red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English
In OE, nouns were divided into strong and weak. Strong nouns formed a
regular plural - book/books, frog/frogs - weak ones had an irregular
plural: cow/kine. Sometimes it was an ablaut, where just the vowel
changes: mouse/mice, goose/geese. German does something similar:
vogel/v?gel ("bird"/"birds").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_morphology#Nouns
One of the irregular plurals is -en: ox/oxen, child/children, man/men,
brother/brethren.
The hackish use of it for VAX, box, etc. is just intentional
overgeneralisation: knowingly applying a specific rule in a
non-specific case.
http://dictionary.die.net/overgeneralization
A possible origin, hints Wikipedia, is that it's a bunch of unrelated
vaxes, but a cluster of vaxen.
The Jargon File suggests this is by extension from "vixen", but not
why... "Vixen" being a female fox; "fox" is a strong noun: fox/foxes.
http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/vaxen
But perhaps it's to denote interchangeability:
http://foldoc.org/boxen
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
oh ya...
and why are they "VAXen"?
Ox/Oxen -> VAX/VAXen is the straight answer (there are a few joke
answers from back in the day like "why isn't it box/boxen?")
http://dictionary.babylon.com/VAXen
?Are there "PDP 11/44en" too? I've
got a couple Rainbowen here...
Not in English you don't. ?At issue is the plural of English words
ending in 'x' (which I'm sure goes back to Anglo-Saxon or something.
The rule from Latin would be something like the plurals ending in 'es'
since that's typical of third declension nouns). 
3:37 p.m.
New subject: VAXen [was RE: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards...]
From: Liam Proven
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:18 PM
The -en ending is a feature from Anglo-Saxon Old
English. The -x
ending is a red herring.
In OE, nouns were divided into strong and weak. Strong
nouns formed a
regular plural - book/books, frog/frogs - weak ones had an irregular
plural: cow/kine. Sometimes it was an ablaut, where just the vowel
changes: mouse/mice, goose/geese. German does something similar:
vogel/v?gel ("bird"/"birds").
I just took at look at the Wrongipedia page to see whether the confusion
was Liam's or theirs. It's theirs.
In Germanic grammar (as an academic subject), *strong* nouns are the ones
with different endings, or umlaut (goose/geese), or both. I don't recall
any nouns forming a plural via ablaut (sing/sang/sung/song is an example
of ablaut in English). *Weak* nouns are the ones with -en.
Historically, BTW, that -en was part of the *stem*, and the original
endings were lost in the transition from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-
Germanic. Compare English oxen, German Ochsen, with Sanskrit uks.anas
(where the dot should be beneath the preceding <s>, indicating an "sh"-
like pronunciation).
One of the irregular plurals is -en: ox/oxen,
child/children, man/men,
brother/brethren.
man/men is umlaut, like goose/geese.
The hackish use of it for VAX, box, etc. is just
intentional
overgeneralisation: knowingly applying a specific rule in a
non-specific case.
http://dictionary.die.net/overgeneralization
A possible origin, hints Wikipedia, is that it's a
bunch of unrelated
vaxes, but a cluster of vaxen.
The Jargon File suggests this is by extension from
"vixen", but not
why... "Vixen" being a female fox; "fox" is a strong noun: fox/foxes.
The *original* Jargon File states that it's from "oxen", with the sound
*perhaps* helped along by "vixen". It wouldn't surprise me that ESR
would ****^Wget that wrong, too.
But perhaps it's to denote interchangeability:
http://foldoc.org/boxen
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
(206) 342-2239
(206) 465-2916 cell
http://www.pdpplanet.org/
...who has spent most of the last 4 decades doing Indo-European studies.
19 Jul
19 Jul
4:12 a.m.
New subject: VAXen [was RE: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards...]
2009/7/17 Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com>:
Damnit. I knew there was at least one linguist on the list & I am no
more than an interested amateur. Excuse me while I remove my foot from
my mouth.
There.
I would feebly say in my defence that I though it was odd that the
strong/weak usage here did not match that for verbs, where of course
strong verbs are those that do not follow the standard pattern for
conjugation - but I had a reference, so I let it be. Serves me right.
Have you fixed the article?
Umlaut? Do you mean ablaut?
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
From: Liam
Proven
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:18 PM
The -en ending is a feature from Anglo-Saxon Old
English. The -x
ending is a red herring.
In OE, nouns were divided into strong and weak.
Strong nouns formed a
regular plural - book/books, frog/frogs - weak ones had an irregular
plural: cow/kine. Sometimes it was an ablaut, where just the vowel
changes: mouse/mice, goose/geese. German does something similar:
vogel/v?gel ("bird"/"birds").
I just took at look at the Wrongipedia page to see whether the confusion
was Liam's or theirs. ?It's theirs.
In Germanic grammar (as an academic subject), *strong* nouns are the ones
with different endings, or umlaut (goose/geese), or both. ?I don't recall
any nouns forming a plural via ablaut (sing/sang/sung/song is an example
of ablaut in English). ?*Weak* nouns are the ones with -en. Historically, BTW, that -en was part of the *stem*,
and the original
endings were lost in the transition from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-
Germanic. ?Compare English oxen, German Ochsen, with Sanskrit uks.anas
(where the dot should be beneath the preceding <s>, indicating an "sh"-
like pronunciation).
Interesting!
One of the
irregular plurals is -en: ox/oxen, child/children, man/men,
brother/brethren.
man/men is umlaut, like goose/geese.
20 Jul
20 Jul
12:01 p.m.
New subject: [WAAAY OT] RE: VAXen [was RE: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards...]
For those not interested in linguistics, this will be boring. YHBW.
From: Liam Proven
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 4:13 AM
2009/7/17 Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com>:
> I just took at look at the Wrongipedia page to see
whether the confusion
> was Liam's or theirs. It's theirs.
I would feebly say in my defence that I though it was
odd that the
strong/weak usage here did not match that for verbs, where of course
strong verbs are those that do not follow the standard pattern for
conjugation - but I had a reference, so I let it be. Serves me right.
Have you fixed the article?
I have corrected a number of Indo-European related articles in the past. My
corrections get removed by some twit. I don't bother any longer--life is too
short.
>> One of the irregular plurals is -en: ox/oxen,
child/children, man/men,
>> brother/brethren.
> man/men is umlaut, like goose/geese.
Umlaut? Do you mean ablaut?
No. These are two different processes/phenomena.
Most people are familiar with the term "umlaut" as the name for the two little
dots over a, o, and u in German, but it more properly refers to a phonological
process in which a sound in a following syllable affects a sound preceding it.
The most common form of umlaut in the Germanic languages is called i-umlaut; in
some of the Germanic languages u-umlaut is present (an _a_ becomes _o_ in a
syllable preceding a syllable with a _u_, for example). Umlaut is automatic
until the syllable with the *i or *j (= _y_--the symbols were created by German
linguists in the 19th Century) is lost.
PGmc. *gans, pl. *gansiz = *gensiz by i-umlaut. In German, we get Gans, G?nser; in
English (and Frisian, but that's not important now), the *n is lost with
lengthening of the preceding vowel, and we end up with Anglo-Saxon go:s, ge:s >
Modern English goose, geese.[1]
PGmc. *manu, pl. *manijaz = *menijaz > English man, men (and German Mann,
M?nner).
Ablaut, on the other hand, is already in place in the oldest Indo-European
languages, and the conditioning factor(s) for it have been argued about for
more than 200 years. There are two (at least) kinds of ablaut, called
qualitative and quantitative. In the former, some forms of a stem will show an
*e while others will show an *o; in the latter, *e/o (as the ablaut vowel is
often written) will drop out (zero grade) or lengthen (lengthened grade) or may
show up in normal grade. Proto-Indo-European *e > Proto-Germanic *i and *o >
*a, so sing/sang is an example of qualitative ablaut; PIE *CnC > PGmc. *CunC,
so PIE *snghw- > PGmc. *sung- > sung (as well as a nominal form *sunga: which
by a-umlaut gives us "song").
[1] I can't write a macron ("long mark") over the vowels, so I'm using a
modern
convention in which colon marks length.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
(206) 342-2239
(206) 465-2916 cell
http://www.pdpplanet.org/
21 Jul
21 Jul
6:52 a.m.
New subject: [WAAAY OT] RE: VAXen [was RE: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards...]
2009/7/20 Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com>:
For those not interested in linguistics, this will be
boring. ?YHBW.
Fascinating stuff. Thanks for that!
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
From: Liam Proven
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 4:13 AM
2009/7/17 Rich Alderson <RichA at
vulcan.com>:
> I just took at look at the Wrongipedia page
to see whether the confusion
> was Liam's or theirs. ?It's theirs.
I would feebly say in my defence that I though it
was odd that the
strong/weak usage here did not match that for verbs, where of course
strong verbs are those that do not follow the standard pattern for
conjugation - but I had a reference, so I let it be. Serves me right.
Have you fixed the article?
I have corrected a number of Indo-European related articles in the past. ?My
corrections get removed by some twit. ?I don't bother any longer--life is too
short.
>> One of the irregular plurals is -en:
ox/oxen, child/children, man/men,
>> brother/brethren.
> man/men is umlaut, like goose/geese.
Umlaut? Do you mean ablaut?
No. ?These are two different processes/phenomena.
Most people are familiar with the term "umlaut" as the name for the two little
dots over a, o, and u in German, but it more properly refers to a phonological
process in which a sound in a following syllable affects a sound preceding it.
The most common form of umlaut in the Germanic languages is called i-umlaut; in
some of the Germanic languages u-umlaut is present (an _a_ becomes _o_ in a
syllable preceding a syllable with a _u_, for example). ?Umlaut is automatic
until the syllable with the *i or *j (= _y_--the symbols were created by German
linguists in the 19th Century) is lost.
PGmc. *gans, pl. *gansiz = *gensiz by i-umlaut. ?In German, we get Gans, G?nser; in
English (and Frisian, but that's not important now), the *n is lost with
lengthening of the preceding vowel, and we end up with Anglo-Saxon go:s, ge:s >
Modern English goose, geese.[1]
PGmc. *manu, pl. *manijaz = *menijaz > English man, men (and German Mann,
M?nner).
Ablaut, on the other hand, is already in place in the oldest Indo-European
languages, and the conditioning factor(s) for it have been argued about for
more than 200 years. ?There are two (at least) kinds of ablaut, called
qualitative and quantitative. ?In the former, some forms of a stem will show an
*e while others will show an *o; in the latter, *e/o (as the ablaut vowel is
often written) will drop out (zero grade) or lengthen (lengthened grade) or may
show up in normal grade. ?Proto-Indo-European *e > Proto-Germanic *i and *o >
*a, so sing/sang is an example of qualitative ablaut; PIE *CnC > PGmc. *CunC,
so PIE *snghw- > PGmc. *sung- > sung (as well as a nominal form *sunga: which
by a-umlaut gives us "song").
[1] I can't write a macron ("long mark") over the vowels, so I'm using
a modern
? ?convention in which colon marks length.
Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Server Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
mailto:RichA at vulcan.com
(206) 342-2239
(206) 465-2916 cell
http://www.pdpplanet.org/
5633
days inactive
5637
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
lproven＠gmail.com -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
roger.holmes＠microspot.co.uk