4 ms·

I may be biased since I'm american but I always felt "maths" to be silly. The argument for "maths" is that mathematics is plural. But it is plural in the sense

I may be biased since I'm american but I always felt "maths" to be silly. The argument for "maths" is that mathematics is plural. But it is plural in the sense it is a "mass noun" like software or equipment. You wouldn't shorten software to "softe" or equipment to "equipe". Also, maths sound awkward and silly and went spoken pretty much similar to math.

timthorn 9y ago
> Also, maths sound awkward and silly Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly"
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly" But math came from england via the oxford dictionary. https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 Try this. Do you say "maths are fun" or "maths is fun"? What about physics. Do you say physics is difficult? Or physics are difficult. Is it singular or plural?
  - sbmassey 9y ago
    It is uncountable. Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural, it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you are used to.
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      > Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural That's the only justification. What other justification is there? > it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you are used to. Yes. Because the british mistakenly assumed mathematics was a "regular plural". For what reason would you keep the s at the end? Do you shorten economics to econS or to econ? Do you takes ECONS 101? The explanation was given here. https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 Why are you so resistant to FACTS and HISTORY? I don't get people who argue even after given evidence.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - consz 9y ago
        >That's the only justification. What other justification is there? That those who hear it can understand what the speaker is talking about -- I would say that is the only justification necessary (indeed, for any word), and is more than justified for the term "maths".
        awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
        That is a justification to continue using it. Sure. But that isn't the justification for shortening mathematics to maths. All I'm saying is that it was shortened to maths due to a misunderstanding of what mathematics is. And all I'm saying is that when british people saying the "correct" way to shorten mathematics is to shorten it to "maths", I'm saying their JUSTIFICATION is wrong. Because mathematics is not a regular plural. Okay? I'm explaining it as simply as possible. Use maths if you want. If that is what is used in britain, fine. I'm just saying the JUSTIFICATION for why british people say it is "correct" is wrong. Okay?
      - sbmassey 9y ago
        You seem amusingly obsessed over a trivial difference in the way two different varieties of English chose to shorten the word 'mathematics'. As far as I can tell, there are no official rules for shortening words in English, so I don't think that 'maths' is in any more need of a justification than 'math'. Or 'stats' vs 'stat' for statistics, come to that.
        awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
        > You seem amusingly obsessed over a trivial difference in the way two different varieties of English chose to shorten the word 'mathematics'. I'm not. I don't care. I know the world will eventually choose "math" because that's the way america says it. The only people who are obsessed are people justifying "maths". I don't care if you say "maths". Just don't justify it as being "logical". > As far as I can tell, there are no official rules for shortening words in English, so I don't think that 'maths' is in any more need of a justification than 'math'. There is. You add an "s" for REGULAR PLURALS. Like STATISTIC is a noun. Statistics is a regular plural. So statistics becomes STATS rather than stat. It's a simple rule. It's why economics is shortened to ECON rather than econs... Because economic is not a noun. Economics is not a regular plural. > Or 'stats' vs 'stat' for statistics, come to that. Statistic is a noun. Statistics is a regular plural. Regular plurals you shorten with s. So statistics shortening to stats makes sense. Mathematic isn't a noun. Mathematics isn't a regular noun. I already explained this to you. The fact that you think statistics supports your argument just goes to show that you really aren't getting it. Why you are so invested in pushing a lie even after people have corrected you, I'll never know.
eru 9y ago
Don't think there's much of an 'argument for' or 'argument against'. They are just different usages. It's just like arguing that the German Mathematik is silly, or that the English mathematics is.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
  > Don't think there's much of an 'argument for' or 'argument against'. Sure there is. The british argument for maths is that mathematics is "regular plural". Which it is not. It is a "mass noun". The british say maths IS fun, not maths ARE fun. Economics is another such word. Do british people go around saying econs 101? So the british argument for maths doesn't make any sense. So there are plenty of argument AGAINST maths. No argument FOR maths. Plenty of argument for math. No argument against math.
  - eru 9y ago
    The arguments were made up after the fact to 'explain' usage. Just like the 'rules' you hear to explain when to use 'I' vs 'me' or 'who' vs 'whom'. Check out eg http://fine.me.uk/emonds http://fine.me.uk/emonds
    - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
      > The arguments were made up after the fact to 'explain' usage. No. The reason why it was shortened to maths was because of the reasons stated.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The argument for "maths" is that mathematics is plural. No, mathematics is uncountable, not plural. I've always assumed it was because “math” is a distinct noun already, for a mowing of grass (were mathematics, and hence maths, plural rather than uncountable, there'd actually be more potential for confusion between “maths”, the short form of mathematics, and “maths”, the plural of “math”, which is avoided because uncountable nouns are grammatically treated as singular for most purposes, like subject/verb agreement; conversely, there is opportunity for such confusion with “math” as the short form. Admittedly, “math” for a mowing is rare enough in current usage outside of modified forms like “aftermath” that that's not big deal now.) > You wouldn't shorten software to "softe" or equipment to "equipe" Well, sure, because the long form of latter doesn't end with an “e” and equipt is already the related adjective form. Though shortening equipment as “equip’t” is something I've encountered (the apostrophe makes unambiguous that it's a shortening and minimizes confusion with the adjective.)

timthorn 9y ago

> Also, maths sound awkward and silly Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly"

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> Which, when in the UK, becomes: "Also, 'math' sounds awkward and silly" But math came from england via the oxford dictionary. https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 Try this. Do you say "maths are fun" or "maths is fun"? What about physics. Do you say physics is difficult? Or physics are difficult. Is it singular or plural?
- sbmassey 9y ago
  It is uncountable. Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural, it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you are used to.
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > Nobody serious justifies 'maths' based on it being plural That's the only justification. What other justification is there? > it is just a different contraction of the word 'mathematics' than what you are used to. Yes. Because the british mistakenly assumed mathematics was a "regular plural". For what reason would you keep the s at the end? Do you shorten economics to econS or to econ? Do you takes ECONS 101? The explanation was given here. https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 https://youtu.be/SbZCECvoaTA?t=50 Why are you so resistant to FACTS and HISTORY? I don't get people who argue even after given evidence.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - consz 9y ago
      >That's the only justification. What other justification is there? That those who hear it can understand what the speaker is talking about -- I would say that is the only justification necessary (indeed, for any word), and is more than justified for the term "maths".
      - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
        That is a justification to continue using it. Sure. But that isn't the justification for shortening mathematics to maths. All I'm saying is that it was shortened to maths due to a misunderstanding of what mathematics is. And all I'm saying is that when british people saying the "correct" way to shorten mathematics is to shorten it to "maths", I'm saying their JUSTIFICATION is wrong. Because mathematics is not a regular plural. Okay? I'm explaining it as simply as possible. Use maths if you want. If that is what is used in britain, fine. I'm just saying the JUSTIFICATION for why british people say it is "correct" is wrong. Okay?
    - sbmassey 9y ago
      You seem amusingly obsessed over a trivial difference in the way two different varieties of English chose to shorten the word 'mathematics'. As far as I can tell, there are no official rules for shortening words in English, so I don't think that 'maths' is in any more need of a justification than 'math'. Or 'stats' vs 'stat' for statistics, come to that.
      - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
        > You seem amusingly obsessed over a trivial difference in the way two different varieties of English chose to shorten the word 'mathematics'. I'm not. I don't care. I know the world will eventually choose "math" because that's the way america says it. The only people who are obsessed are people justifying "maths". I don't care if you say "maths". Just don't justify it as being "logical". > As far as I can tell, there are no official rules for shortening words in English, so I don't think that 'maths' is in any more need of a justification than 'math'. There is. You add an "s" for REGULAR PLURALS. Like STATISTIC is a noun. Statistics is a regular plural. So statistics becomes STATS rather than stat. It's a simple rule. It's why economics is shortened to ECON rather than econs... Because economic is not a noun. Economics is not a regular plural. > Or 'stats' vs 'stat' for statistics, come to that. Statistic is a noun. Statistics is a regular plural. Regular plurals you shorten with s. So statistics shortening to stats makes sense. Mathematic isn't a noun. Mathematics isn't a regular noun. I already explained this to you. The fact that you think statistics supports your argument just goes to show that you really aren't getting it. Why you are so invested in pushing a lie even after people have corrected you, I'll never know.

eru 9y ago

Don't think there's much of an 'argument for' or 'argument against'. They are just different usages. It's just like arguing that the German Mathematik is silly, or that the English mathematics is.

awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
> Don't think there's much of an 'argument for' or 'argument against'. Sure there is. The british argument for maths is that mathematics is "regular plural". Which it is not. It is a "mass noun". The british say maths IS fun, not maths ARE fun. Economics is another such word. Do british people go around saying econs 101? So the british argument for maths doesn't make any sense. So there are plenty of argument AGAINST maths. No argument FOR maths. Plenty of argument for math. No argument against math.
- eru 9y ago
  The arguments were made up after the fact to 'explain' usage. Just like the 'rules' you hear to explain when to use 'I' vs 'me' or 'who' vs 'whom'. Check out eg http://fine.me.uk/emonds http://fine.me.uk/emonds
  - awkwarddaturtle 9y ago
    > The arguments were made up after the fact to 'explain' usage. No. The reason why it was shortened to maths was because of the reasons stated.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The argument for "maths" is that mathematics is plural. No, mathematics is uncountable, not plural. I've always assumed it was because “math” is a distinct noun already, for a mowing of grass (were mathematics, and hence maths, plural rather than uncountable, there'd actually be more potential for confusion between “maths”, the short form of mathematics, and “maths”, the plural of “math”, which is avoided because uncountable nouns are grammatically treated as singular for most purposes, like subject/verb agreement; conversely, there is opportunity for such confusion with “math” as the short form. Admittedly, “math” for a mowing is rare enough in current usage outside of modified forms like “aftermath” that that's not big deal now.) > You wouldn't shorten software to "softe" or equipment to "equipe" Well, sure, because the long form of latter doesn't end with an “e” and equipt is already the related adjective form. Though shortening equipment as “equip’t” is something I've encountered (the apostrophe makes unambiguous that it's a shortening and minimizes confusion with the adjective.)