Conference thebay::joyoflex

How about:

	Contains no sugar, preservatives, or additives of any kind.

Or:

	This product contains no sugar, preservatives, or additives of
	any kind.

							-- Nina

This product contains neither sugar, preservatives, nor any other additives.

 Just omit the "There is."  Complete sentences are not necessary on product
 containers just to make the meaning clear to the reader.

 Neil

Although the suggested alternatives (oops - spot the deliberate semantic
error?) are better, the original sentence could be corrected by replacing
'is' with 'are'.

Jeff.

These sound like good suggestions.  I wonder if the company would give us
royalties for the new wording?  :-)

Re: .4 replacing 'is' with 'are'
 
        There are no sugar, preservatives...

doesn't sound too good to me unless you replace sugar with sugars; even then
it's still clumsy.

---Phil

The books on usage disapprove, to varying degrees, on the use of
"neither" with three items rather than two.  They recommend
"no" and "or" as a cure.

This one is fun.

 
There are no sugars, preservatives, or additives of any kind.

There are no preservatives, sugar, or additives of any kind.

There is no sugar, nor other preservatives or additives of any kind.
                             

							.wIx.

No.  Just see response #1 for a solution.

OK, .1 wins, but I see no problem with "there are no sugar, preservatives
or...".  The three items combine to form a natural plural, or they do in
the U.K. at least.

How about "My friend and I are going to the pub."?  Same thing.

Jeff.

So, what do I win?  Sugar, additives, and preservatives of any kind?

							-- Nina

 I just noticed that the company has changed the wording on the juice box.

 It was:

     There is no sugar, preservatives, or additives of any kind.

 It now reads:

     There are no sugars, preservatives, or additives of any kind.

 I still have one of the "old" type boxes.  How much am I bid for this
 classic item?

 ---Phil

    Send the old box to Nina - it's the prize!
    
    BS

Imagine my excitement...
					-- Nina

While we're on the subject of sugar, here are some quotes from
soda cans I get a kick out of:

	100% Nutrisweet

	Caffeine Free

	PEPSI FREE

O.K.  now it's real clear.  There's no caffeine,
and no PEPSI in the product.  (just Nutrisweet!)

/Eric

	"Where are my glasses?" was my plaintive cry.  But I knew the 
missing item was a singular object.  Why the grammatical plural to refer to
a single inseparable assembly?
	Is it possibly because it/they (the glasses or spectacles) is/are
composed of two lenses?  A pair of trousers is singular at one end and plural 
at the other, and is not composed of two anythings!
	Other examples of grammatical plurality and singular reality came 
to mind:
	A pair of dividers
	A pair of compasses
	A pair of scissors... ditto shears
	And the glasses are sometimes referred to as a _pair_ of glasses.
	Hmmm.  Do you suppose it's got something to do with the symmetry
of the objects, and the _pair_ phraseology?
	But then there are the proportional dividers; I don't _think_
it/they is/are referred to with the _pair_ phrase.  Is/are it/they?
	Obviously I'm struggling in the quicksand.  Does anyone think this 
is silly?  Or do you have other examples of singular plurality?
	Is English unique in this grammatical oddity?
	Dave

    A) No.
    B) It's because English (and most other Indo-European languages)
       have lost the dual.
    
    			-John Bishop

    It is not risking very much to assume that the reason for the
    plural form is the fact that each object consists of two distinct
    parts joined together.
    
    I have never heard the use "a pair of compasses" applied to one
    object.  I assume you mean the kind of compass a draftsman uses; I 
    know it only as "a compass."
    
    Bernie

              There certainly must be a common root somewhere
              as was referred to in a previous note.
              In Italian and French glasses (spectacles) are
              plural (occhiali,lunettes).
              Scissors is a strange case in Italian as it can
              be both plural and singular and most of the items
              which were cited are referred to "as a pair of ...".
              Compass is also singular in Italian (compasso) as
              in English.
              Does anyone know why in English it's the same word
              for a direction finder as for a draughtman's tool ?
              In Italian and French (I think ..Help Roger) they
              are different words.
    
                                                Max 

    	It seems that sight correctors generally come these days with
    parts for both eyes, even where only one requires the assistance.
    
    	Previously monocles were more common.
    
    	Its funny that binnacles have nothing whatever to do with this,
    but are boxes for a compass (singular).

    Is this a restriction only imposed in my family (grandfather was a
    pedant - so it's quite possible ;-) or am I right in thinking that this
    is a distinction between British and American English: a compass
    (direction indicator) isn't, for me, the same as a pair of compasses
    (arc drawer). 
    
    Maybe it used to be an Anglo-American distinction, but has
    been steadily eroded ever since the first talkie.
    
    
    Aside:
    
    Borg�s (who had an English grandmother) used this Anglo-American
    pun in his title La muerte y la br�jula (where `br�jula' means
    `compass' (direction indicator). The site of the last `killing'
    in the short story could have been predicted by the use of a
    pair of compasses (not, in Spanish, a `br�jula').

    re: Compass
    
    Comes from Lat "compassare": to measure in steps - cf "passus":
    step. By derivation a compass was any tool that can be used to make 
    measures.
    
    In French "compas" is both an arc drawer and some kind 
    of compass used by the sailors (azimuth compass, I think).
    The magnetic compass is called "boussole" (perhaps from Italian
    bussola: little box).
     
    Note that we have an adjective "compass�", which means formal,
    or snob. A possible explanation for this would be that someone 
    who is measuring a distance in steps concentrates on his/her 
    own steps, their length, number etc, and seems to ignore the rest 
    of the world.
    
    	roger

    I suspect that there may be a connection between a navigational
    (magnetic) compass and the instrument for drawing circles in that
    the older compass cards (on which are printed the points ...N S E W... 
    and their subdivisions) were circular in shape.  To compass (more
    commonly to encompass) something means to surround it.  Hence there
    is the implication that by surrounding it with a circle, it is 
    bounded on all points of the compass.

    According to Webster's New World Dictionary, the noun 'compass'
    is from the Middle English and Old French _compas_, a circle; and
    this in turn is probably from the Latin _compassare_, which is a
    compound of _com_, together + _passus_, a step.
    
    This dictionary, incidentally, recognizes the form 'pair of compasses.'
    
    Bernie

              Re .21
              It's even closer than you thought Roger.
              Bussola does actually mean a magnetic compass
              in Italian.
                                        Max

    Trousers, I believe, derives from "trews", which were separate
    coverings, one for each leg.

    Going back to the original problem of the fruit juice, I am left
    slightly disturbed by the solution shown in .11.  I have always
    understood the plural of the sugar refers to types of sugar.
    
    e.g. Sucrose is a sugar.
         Sucrose and fructose are sugars.
    
    So now the fruit juice manufacturer would have us believe that there
    are no sugars of any kind in the juice.  It seems to me that there
    should at least be fructose in it!
    
    stuart

    Reading all the suggestions an old scetch of Shelly Berman come
    to my mind, where he tries find out the plural of Kleenex, and arrives
    at Kleenessies, or
    Stewardess  and Stewardye
    Bingo and Bingye
    Jackass and Jackye!
    etc.
    Rudi.
    

    I always thought the plural of Kleenex was spelled Kleenices (as
    in vertex, vertices).
    
    Similarly, stewardess, stewardi (by faulty analogy with alumnus,
    alumni).
    
    Another part of his routine was the assertion that martini was plural,
    and the singular was martinus.
    
    len.
    
    
    

    That gives a whole new insight into Italian food:
    
    pepperonus = one slice of pepperoni
    linguinus = one strand of linguini
    
    .
    .
    .

    re:.29
    
    No, Italian is something else again. By analogy with "graffito"/
    "graffiti", it should be:
    
    one slice of pepperoni = pepperono
    one strand of linguini = linguino *
          ... of spaghetti = spaghetto
    
    * Actually, this *is* the proper singular.
    
    --- jerry

>          ... of spaghetti = spaghetto
    
Actually, "the Spaghetto" is what we used to call the poor, predominantly 
Italian neighborhood that I came from.  We just thought it was a cute 
play on words.
						>>>==>PStJTT

    Now then, what are you doing with Hair for plural? (Hairs?)
    Rudi.
    

    That's "his/hairs"
    
    --b
    

Why is it _a pair of_ panties,

but, only _a_ bra?

Pete

    Re: .34            
                      
    I think that's something you should look into carefully.
    
    Bruce

    Pete -- it's never *only* a bra!
    
    					andrew

    It's _a_ bra, because it's considered as a single entity.
    
    roger

    Re: <<< Note 120.37 by YIPPEE::LIRON >>>

>>    It's _a_ bra, because it's considered as a single entity.
    
	Roger,

	In Bristol, "entity" is two rude words!

	Delia

    
    Radetsky marhces on, eh, Delia ?
    
    Ian
    

    So, what would be the plural of Susan B. Anthony, as in, the coin.

    Choose one:

        I have five Susan B. Anthonies.

        I have five Susans B. Anthony.

    I had to make this choice in a discussion elsewhere, and I picked the last
    one so I could add that extra little dash of pretentiousness. 8^)

    - Jim

    Pretentions, yes -- 
    
    Correct?  Ah -- doubt it.
    
    					andrew

    OhSure, Mr. Box, make with the pretentious Southern accent... :-)
    

    Re .40
    
    Jim, your spurious form "Susans B. Anthony" is based on the form of
    titles like "attorneys general."  These titles consist of a noun
    modified by an adjective, and adjectives in English rarely appear in a
    plural form although their referents do.  In other languages, such as
    Latin and its offspring, adjectives are declined to correspond with
    their referents; vide e.g. "procureurs g�n�raux" ("attorneys general")
    in French.  But the name we use for the coin is the unmodified name of
    a woman, and names are all nouns.  So this name should be treated as a
    unit, as "Susan B. Anthonys."  (Note the spelling of the surname...)
    
    I might skirt the issue.  In writing, I'd use "Susan B. Anthony
    dollars," and in speech I'd say "Sue Bees."

    OK, but should it really be "Susan B. Anthonys" instead of
    "Susan B. Anthonies"? For example, if I were going to visit her family,
    would I be going to visit the Anothonys or the Anthonies?

    (It just looks weird.)

    - Jim

    But now that I think about it, if I were going to visit the Mouse family,
    I wouldn't say, "I'm going to visit the Mice." I'd say, "I'm going to
    visit the Mouses."

    OK, works for me.

    - Jim

    *We* use "Suzie B's" as the plural.
    
    							Ann B.

    Sue Bee is a honey.

    I wouldn't know, Tom, I never met her.  But I respect what she did for
    the advancement of women's rights.  :-)
    
    Ann, I know "Suzie B" is a common nickname for the coin, but I've known
    "Sue Bee" used both in speech and in writing by coin dealers I've done
    business with, so...
    
    I mean, after all, if Digital can use VAX, which is a registered
    trademark for another machine that sucks...  :-)