Conference thebay::joyoflex

>    I've never seen a "chao" though.

When I started at DEC, they told me "chao" ran the company.  I should 
have known it was really a team effort...

						>>>==>PStJTT        

    A friend of mine has a fantasy/SF-related button that reads:
    What does a sacred chao say?  MU!
    
    
    And I once had an english teacher write "Kudos to you" on a paper.
    I remember I had to look it up, because I had no idea what it meant.
    
    -Jody
    

    "Kudos" is, I believe, a singular noun - from the Greek _kydos_,
    meaning fame or glory.  Of course the plural of "kudos" would be
    "kudos."  I don't believe there is a word "kudo" other than that
    spoken in ignorance.
    
    Bernie

    "Kudo" is just a very obvious back formation. My father used
    it all the time knowing full well what he was doing. There
    wasn't any confusion about what he meant either.

>                            -< kudo = one atta-boy >-
                                 
Atta-boy?  Wouldn't that be 1x10-to-the-minus-18 boy?  Sounds like small
praise to me... 
				>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .4
    
    Yes, it is often the case that incorrect or ungrammatical speech
    is clearly understood.  That fact does not make the speaker correct.
    
    Bernie

    When a speaker knowingly says something that appears incorrect, one
    might very well consider his intent in saying it that way. Objecting to
    the "error" is presumptious.

    Re: .7
    
    If a speaker says something incorrect or ungrammatical, whether
    intentional or out of ignorance, it is still incorrect and, therefore,
    appropriate to cite the error.  It would be presumptuous of the
    speaker to assume prescience on the part of his hearers.  If there
    is doubt of the speaker's intentions, then the speaker can easily
    clarify them.
    
    Bernie

    When the meaning is clear, it is not appropriate to cite the "error."
    It is merely rude. The speaker may very well be assuming literacy, not
    prescience, on the part of his listeners. Give him the benefit of the
    doubt and enjoy his joke. 
    
    Even if the meaning is not clear, you can ask for a clarification
    rather than citing the "error". However much you may detest "kudo" as
    an incorrect singlular form of an alleged plural "kudos", the meaning
    is clear. Therefore why bother to say anything? We all know there are
    pedants for whom correctness isn't next to God in importance but rather
    God Himself. Why make yourself one? 

    The back-formation "kudo" may one day find its way into a dictionary,
    if people continue to say "ku-does" thinking that it's the plural of
    "kudo."  Be that as it may, I'm not about to send mail back to the
    sender to let her know of her mistake, be that intentional or not.
    
    It's a "feature" of natural languages that words keep changing,
    or rather, people keep changing words.
    
  --Simon
     

        8^)

        It reads as if some of this topic should be taken up in
        HUMAN::ETIQUETTE.

    Re: .9
    
    If the speaker is using irony or sarcasm or making a little joke,
    and if he does so in a way that is obvious to his listeners, then
    there is no problem as far as I am concerned.
    
    There is a problem, however, as far as I am concerned if I believe
    the speaker has made a grammatical error.   I shall point out such
    errors whenever I feel it appropriate.  It is a fact that kudos
    is a singular noun.  There is simply no controversy about it.  If
    I made such an error, I would like it to be pointed out.  What's
    the harm?
    
    I realize that it is unpopular today and quite un-egalitarian even to
    suggest that anyone's usage may be wrong.  The corrector is not
    regarded as expert or friendly or helpful, but rather as pedantic.
    How sad.
    
    Oh well, some of us would rather be right and welcome the corrections.
    
    Bernie

>    Oh well, some of us would rather be right and welcome the corrections.

But what makes you "right?"  That someone has written in a book that 
kudos is singular?  What makes that person right?

In time, if kudo stays in current use, someone else will write that kudo 
is singular a back formation from kudos, the now-anachronistic singular. 
Will kudo be "right" then?

And given yet more time, perhaps people will forget that it is a back 
formation at all.  Then it will appear to be regular -- following the 
traditional rules of singular and plural.  Is it "right" yet?  

Or will it always be wrong just because it was "wrong" when you first 
learnt it?

Language is a slippery thing.  Trying to formulate the right and wrong 
of it is like trying to stop a river by reaching in and grabbing it.

					>>>==>PStJTT

> But what makes you "right?"  That someone has written in a book that 
> kudos is singular?  What makes that person right?

    Note that there is a candy-bar called "Kudos".  I believe that
    it comes only one to a package.   And if candy makers can
    willfully lie to children then this is a colder world than
    I thought!
    
    ;-)

    Re: .103
    
    > But what makes you "right?"  That someone has written in a book
    > that kudos is singular?  What makes that person right?
    
    Scholarship.  Knowledge and expertise in the language.  Ultimately
    we must choose those experts whom we most respect.  Those whom we
    believe to be most aware of the literate tradition in English.
    
    One should start with a dictionary, one that you believe is sensitive
    to proper usage.  Remember that dictionaries are history books,
    so we must be careful to choose one that exercises _some_ discretion.
    
    Webster's _New World_ writes:
    
    	kudos  n. [Gr. _kydos_, glory, fame ...] [Colloq.] credit or
    	praise for an achieviement; glory; fame: sometimes wrongly taken
    	as a plural of an assumed "kudo"
    
    If you are still skeptical, you should consult a usage guide written by
    someone whose opinion you respect.  Fowler writes:
    
    	kudos, Greek for _glory_, became an English slang word of limited
    	currency at a time when Greek was more widely learnt, and is
    	now, it seems, sometimes mistaken for a plural.
    
    In matters of English grammar and usage, one should _never_ blindly
    accept another's opinion.  Find the best opinion you can, apply
    whatever filters you feel appropriate, and think for yourself.
    
    If you believe, as many today seem to, that any utterance is as
    correct as any other and that there is no "right" in English, then
    it really doesn't matter who you consult, for they will be equally
    correct.  Personally, I believe there is such a thing as correct
    English and it is possible to learn and understand it.
    
    Bernie
    
    Bernie

    Then, after all that scholarship has been thoroughly digested, run the
    word through the usage mill, like all the other words in English. What
    do you suppose will pop out? Kudo = 1; kudos > 1. The word *will*
    be adopted and adapted to fit common English forms regardless of
    whether it's considered use, misuse, or abuse.
    
    Knowing full well the origins and the singular form of "kudos", I
    *like* kudo as singular and kudos as plural. Therefore I shall use it
    that way. There won't be any point in attempting a correction because I
    already know what the correct form is. 

    
    Have I missed something here?
    
    Could someone give me an example of the use of "kudo" as singular,
    and "kudos" as plural, that is meaningful?
    
    I know how to use kudos (sing.) in a sentence (but can't recall
    ever having done so...).  However, I'm stumped when it comes to
    trying to find a use for "a bunch of kudos" or whatever.
    
    Mat.   (waiting to be enlightened)
    *:o)
    

    The University of Whatsitstown gave a kudo to Mrs. Personage by awarding
    her an honorary Doctor of Philosophy. 
    
    Nationwide, institutes of higher learning gave out 697 kudos in 1988. 
    

>                                                         Ultimately
>    we must choose those experts whom we most respect.  Those whom we
>    believe to be most aware of the literate tradition in English.
>
>    One should start with a dictionary, one that you believe is sensitive
>    to proper usage.  Remember that dictionaries are history books,
>    so we must be careful to choose one that exercises _some_ discretion.

All of which is to say you find people that agree with your point of
view, then cite them.  Those who disagree with you are `insensitive to
proper usage' or `fail to exercise discretion.' 

Sounds like usage by opinion to me....

On dictionaries: 

We should consider not only that dictionaries are history books, but 
that the first dictionary was compiled by a drunkard and a scoundrel 
(whom I dearly love) and that those that follow are written by the sort 
of people who would steal the idea from a drunkard and a scoundrel.

					>>>==>PStJTT

    	An earlier dictionary was written by the French Academy, but
    the old rascal even joked about that. It took the forty of them
    forty years to complete their dictionary, and he was planning to
    do it in three, though actually he took longer.
    
    JOHNSON :- "As three to sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of
    an Englishman to a Frenchman".
    
    	I think the thing that concerns me in this is that we may be
    starting to see a split between written and spoken English. I have
    never heard "kudos" spoken with other than a short "o" sound, and
    that is so awkward to say without the final "s" that I cannot imagine
    anyone familiar with the normal pronunciation thinking it to be
    a plural. "kudo" is no more credible a back-formation in spoken
    English than "mistres" would be in written English.

>        JOHNSON :- "As three to sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of
>    an Englishman to a Frenchman".

>                                                             I have
>    never heard "kudos" spoken with other than a short "o" sound, and
>    that is so awkward to say without the final "s" that I cannot imagine
>    anyone familiar with the normal pronunciation thinking it to be
>    a plural. 

Isn't that odd?  I've never heard it pronounced with other than a long 
"o."  In fact when I read this, I pulled down the two word-histories I 
keep on the shelf and looked it up.   They list both, one listing long 
"o" first, and the other listing short "o" first. 

I agree that if the short "o" method was universal, we probably wouldn't 
be having this rat-hole, since it would be awkward to pronounce.  Shall 
we go down a level and argue about if there's a "right" way to pronounce 
it?
					>>>==>PStJTT

     re .-1
     
>>   Shall we go down a level and argue about if there's a
>>   "right" way to pronounce it?
     
     Of course!  Isn't that what this conference is for?
     
     Perhaps it should be in a new base note, though .... :-)
     
     Dan

    Re: .19
    
    > All of which is to say you find people that agree with your point
    > of view, then cite them.  Those who disagree with you are
    > 'insensitive to proper usage' or 'fail to exercise discretion.'
    
    <<<<<FLAME ON>>>>>>>>
    
    Where do you get off accusing me of such bad faith?  Do you know
    for a fact that I searched only for those sources that agreed with
    me and rejected those that disagreed with me?  Are you aware how
    serious your charge is?  How dare you accuse me of dishonesty!
    Your sophomoric response has no place in an adult discussion.
    
    I am a frequent contributor to this and the Grammar notes files.
    The sources I cited are among about six that I always cite.  In
    this case, I went to three sources, all of whom agreed that 'kudo'
    is an error.  (I decided to quote only two of them for brevity.)
    
    Your reply (if one may dignify it with such a name) implies that
    you have gone to as much trouble as I, and have found sources that
    say 'kudo' is a proper singular.  Where are they?  I demand that
    you show that it is even possible to find such an authority or I
    demand an apology for your unjustified attack on my veracity.
    
    <<<<<<<FLAME OFF>>>>>>>>>
    
    Re: .16
    
    If you like 'kudo,' then you should by all means use it.  I often
    find myself in the position of rejecting all of the authorities
    and going with my own view.  I respect that sort of independence.
    You cannot, however, claim the view to be 'mainstream' or 'generally
    accepted.'   The best you can say is that the authorities say you're
    wrong, but you disagree with the authorities.  People do not seem
    to like such independence, but that's their problem.
    
    Bernie
                                                        

    Gentlemen, gentlemen, please.
    
    No amount of debate over kudo vs kudos is worth any acrimony at all.
    Let us not get into a war of name calling or of citations (or lack of
    them). The name of this conference is JOYoflex. Let's keep it that way.
    
    moderation in all things, especially notes conferences,
    
    twe

    	My Oxford dictionary only gives a short "o", but maybe I should
    look for a more extensive version.
    
    	However, the plural of a kudo (by analogy with domino) would
    be kudoes if it is pronounced long.
    
    	It is fortunate we are all agreed that it is a noun  :-
    
    	Singular	Plural
    	One doe		two does	(noun)
	One domino	two dominoes	(noun), but
    	She does	they do		(verb)

re: .24

	Relax, Bernie.  Don't be so fragile and insecure.  Your 
six authorities will undoubtedly tell you that the use of "you" in

>    > All of which is to say you find people that agree with your point
>    > of view, then cite them.  Those who disagree with you are
>    > 'insensitive to proper usage' or 'fail to exercise discretion.'
    
does not have to me you personally.  I meant it in the less personal,
more global sense of "To mix a martini, first you pour the gin in, then
you take a teaspoon of vermouth and feed it to the dog." Which is not to
say that you personally do that at all, but that is how it's done. 

So mix a martini (first you pour the gin in...) and settle back.  As
someone else said, the joy goes out of lex when you take it so
seriously. 
						>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .27
    
    Thanks for setting me straight.  The joy goes out of the Lex when
    we cease to discuss the subject ('kudos' in this case) and shift
    the discussion to the noters themselves.
    
    Bernie

    What about the "s"?  Voiced or unvoiced?  Voiced (like a "z")
    would make it sound like an English plural.  Unvoiced would make it
    sound singular, like "pathos."
    
Lew Lasher

re: .28

	OK... so we're all smiling again, right?  Then I can say that 
although I didn't single anyone out in particular, when one (shall we 
say) selects authorities to cite, one is making a personal judgement. 
Thus the authorities don't provide grounds for being "right."  They just 
show that you're not alone in your opinion.  The opposing opinion (in 
this case pro-"kudo") is not "wrong"  and the usage is in contention. 
For that reason, if people choose to make "kudo" into a word and use it 
enough to get it generally recognized, it's as right as anything else. 
If words could not be created, then we wouldn't have any at all.  

Are we still smiling?  I don't mind us being in disagreement, but I 
don't want us in conflict, if you get what I mean.

Re: .29

>    I'm not suggesting we should slavishly copy a 2000-yr-old
>    pronunciation, but I prefer to follow Fowler as far as pronouncing
>    foreign words is concerned: use the English sound that's nearest
>    to the original.  


Hmmmm.  Of course "kudos" is not "kydos."  It's "kudos," a word used in 
English and found in english dictionaries and so forth.  I don't know if 
origin of the word means more than the origin of the first Taber in the 
US.  He may have been British, but I'm not -- I'm An Merrican. 

Words that get borrowed from other languages seem to gradually get 
subsumed by the language that grabbed them.  We'd all be speaking 
Indo-European otherwise.  Every once in a while someone tries to reverse 
the trend.  They tell you that your ren-alt automobile is a ray-no, for
example, but it's like trying to grab the wind.  What puzzles me is why 
people try to stop the process.  I understand that you can feel terribly
erudite if you pronounce pince-nez "correctly,"  but it tends to block
communication rather than make it easier. 

Making words that are exceptions in english more regular would seem to be a 
laudable thing.  But it ain't.
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re: .31
    
    > When one...selects authorities to cite, one is making a personal
    > judgement.  Thus the authorities don't provide grounds for being
    > "right."  They just show that you're not alone in your opinion.
    
    Not at all.  I have focused on and rely upon a few sources because
    I have deep respect for their expertise, based upon their literacy,
    their backgrounds, their common sense, and their position in the
    world of English commentary.  I _never_ consult a source merely
    to confirm that I am not alone in my opinion.  I often consult a
    source in ignorance, to determine what is right.  I also have good
    reason to believe that I am not alone in this practice.
    
    
    > If people choose to make "kudo" into a word and use it enough
    > to get it generally recognized, it's as right as anything else.
    
    Generally accepted by whom?  Common usage is not sufficient to determine
    correctness. There are words that have been in common use for years
    ("ain't" comes to mind), but are nevertheless not accepted as correct.  
    
    Why is it such a bitter pill for people to swallow that there is
    such a thing as correct English, that people do make errors in grammar
    and usage, and that there are those who can be relied upon to tell
    us what is right?
    
    > If words could not be created, then we wouldn't have any at all.
    
    Indeed.  But that is not to say that care should not be taken in creating
    them, or that any combination of syllables uttered by anyone should
    automatically be accepted into the language.
    
    Bernie

    	Also we should remember that geographic isolation and ignorance
    now provide less of an excuse for changing the pronunciation of
    a borrowed word. If you mis-pronounce a French borrowing when talking
    to a French person, then unless the borrowing is so ancient and
    well established (e.g. mutton) that he would have learnt it in his
    English classes, then he will at best not understand or be confused,
    and at worst regard you as an ignorant foreigner beneath contempt.
    
    	Now we have Greece on Easynet, maybe we should check the modern
    Greek pronunciation.
    
    	(Dave from France, whose French pronunciation is far from perfect,
    but who wouldn't dare to pronounce too badly any word of recent
    French origin).

re: .32

I give up, Bernie.  Our world views are too far apart.  Let's just say 
we disagree.
					>>>==>PStJTT

>                  If you mis-pronounce a French borrowing when talking
>    to a French person, then unless the borrowing is so ancient and
>    well established (e.g. mutton) that he would have learnt it in his
>    English classes, then he will at best not understand or be confused,
>    and at worst regard you as an ignorant foreigner beneath contempt.

If you correctly pronounce an English word, he also may not understand. 
And chances are he already regards you as an ignorant foreigner beneath 
contempt.  That's a common way for people outside their own countries to 
feel.

As to should I pronounce a word that has French origins as if I were 
speaking French... well, what if the French borrowed it from the Greek? 
Should I pop the stack two times and pronounce it as if I were speaking 
Greek?  And if that Greek word had come from Indo-European?  Where do we 
stop?  Why should we start?  

Understand -- this is only opinion -- but I think we'd be a lot better
off working toward regularization of English. If that means we don't
pronounce words the same way the language we got the word from does,
that's OK.  I know of no modern language that is "pure."  They all have 
come from some other.  When I'm speaking French, I accept that words 
that look similar to English words will be pronounced differently.  The 
above postulated Frenchman must accept the same thing.  That would be 
easier to do if we were consistant.
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Hey, every one of you is wrong!
    
    The word is kudo's.

>                     (excluding, of course, DEC - in which company you've
>    got to speak American to make yourself understood) 


That's "*talk* American."  

I've noticed that what you say is generally true, and I've always 
wondered if it is because England is in close proximity to the rest of 
Europe.  We get away with more/faster changes because we're further from 
the place it originated in.  Even in these days of widespread electronic 
communication, we still are more influenced by the people from the next 
state than we are by people in the next country.

How about Austrailia?  They're pretty far from the European influence 
too.  Do they play as fast and loose with english as we do in the US? 
(Certainly they don't often sound like they're speaking english....)

					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re the "kudos vs kudo" flap:
    
    A sentence that a purist might not like, but which conveys a certain
    _sense_ would be,
    
    "He ekes praise, one measly kudo at a time."
    
    It wouldn't seem half as effective with "kudos" instead.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re: .40
    
    Wonderful!

    Re: .18 and .40
    
    > The University of Whatsitsname gave akudo to Mrs. Personage by
    > awarding her an honorary Doctor of Philosophy.
    
    > Nationwide, institutes of higher learning gave out 697 kudos in
    > 1988.
    
    > He ekes praise, one measly kudo at a time.
    
    All of these uses are incorrect.  "Kudos" is fame or glory resulting
    from an achievement, or praise given for an achievement.  One can
    no more speak of 'five kudos' than one can speak of 'five praise' or
    'six fame.'  "Kudos" is not a countable entity.  Proper uses would
    be:
    
    	The performance of students on their final exams warrent no
    	kudos to their teachers.
    
    	Money was unimportant to him; he was satisfied only by the kudos
        of his profession.
    
    
    Bernie

    Re .42 -
    
    >   The performance of students on their final exams warrent no
    >	kudos to their teachers.                             ^
 
    Penalty for spelling error:  subtract one kudo
    
    - Neils
    

    Re: .43
    
    Are you sure it isn't a typo?  We have a general, long-standing
    practice in this file not to pick on the trivial, especially when
    nonexistent typing skills are involved.
    
    Speaking of the nonexistent, there is, of course, no "kudo tally"
    because ... well, let's not go through that again!
    
    Bernie

    I thought kudo was waiting its turn to become bread.
    
    
    re .whatever, about "kudo" being a deliberate joke
    
    Sure, if you really know your audience, you can do it.  There
    is a better way though.  A dummy once commented on my play of
    a bridge hand, "Congratulation."
    
    "Kudo" will enter the language because of the work of a lot of
    dummies.  We don't have to condone them though.
    
    
    re .34 (re .30, whether the "s" is voiced or unvoiced)
        
>   Not voiced. The `s' in `kydos' is a `sigma' not a `zeta'.
    
    Doesn't work.  Unvoiced, it sounds like Microsoft's product for
    the VAX.

     The conjugation of the verb "kudos".  
     (Sung to the tune of "Mairzy Doats")
     
     I Kudos
     And you Kudos;
     He-she-or-it Kudos with Kudos.
     A kiddo'll kudos too, wouldn't you?
     
     They Kudos
     And ya'll Kudos;
     Yes, we all Kudos too-dos; (sorry)
     I'd like to be kudos'd too, wouldn't you?

     [It's a sobering thought to realize your brain has just turned
     to mush.]
     
    I'm sure the use of the letter 's' ending a word has been discussed
     somewhere in this file, but I hesitated doing a DIR/TITLE = S.  :-)
     (Wouldn't ewe?)

     So I thought I'd toss this one in here:

     Which usages are correct?

     "Greetings, folks."
     "Greetings, folk."
     "Greeting, folks."
     "Greeting, folk."

     							Don
      

    Which usage is correct?
    
    It depends on how many greetings you are sending to how many
    people.

They're all correct.  So is "Greeting.  Your friends and neighbors have
selected you..."

Used to be that you knew your were folked when you got *that* greeting.

Dave C.

    Very good, Dave; *you* are correct.
    
    Actually, I knew I was folked when I rec'd a letter which began,
    
    "Greeting.  The United States of America..."
                                                                 
    So many were sent the government (that's g-u-v m-i-n-t) could spare 
    only one per person.
    						Don

    
    There is no justice.
    
    Played Scrabble with a friend of mine (vice-principal of a middle
    school) on the weekend and he placed the word....KUDO
    
    Aha, I jumped on him and challenged him.  Aha I was doing great
    picking up valuable points and stopping him from collecting.
    
    Out comes the official Scrabble (tm) dictionary and there it was:
    
    Kudo  n. (pl. -s) praise
    
    Now I have to write to Selchow and Richter to get them to change
    their dictionary. Anyone else ever get caught by their dictionary?
    
    Still won the game, however.
    
    Roger

    *Never* use the game's dictionary.  It is designed to fit the game,
    and, I'm sure, wasn't put together with the meticulous care a
    stand-alone dictionary usually is.  A company can't spend too much
    time with details--lag time between idea & production is money lost.
    Look at the errors made in TRIVIAL PURSUIT.  Probably the same
    percentage as the Official Scrabble (tm) Dictionary.
    
    Better to select a mutually acceptable std.-use dictionary.  Preferably
    one in hardcover that would put an ox in a coma if you dropped it
    on his head.
                                 
    							Don
    
    P.S.  Did it list "kudos" as "praises"...? ;-)
                           -            - 

Re previous:

The Official dictionary for the British version of Scrabble is a specific 
existing dictionary - Chambers if my memory serves me correctly - so the problem
of a hastily compiled special dictionary doesn't arise.

Jon

    
    re; previous few
    
    This was at our campsite and the game is for relaxation. And the
    only dictionary available is the Official Scrabble (tm) Dictionary.
    We also have a copy of a British publication that is sort of a Scrabble
    trivia. It was written by the guy who started the National Scrabble
    Championships there.
    
    He does state that the official dictionary in England is Chambers.
    It also contains ~40 more two letter words than the Scrabble
    dictionary. 
    
    As a note of nothing, he relates that the highest possible theoretical
    word score obtainable is 1961 points. It is formed by filling your
    seven tiles along the bottom of the board to form one long word
    (can't remember it) which gets you the three triples. It also completes
    several words down, three of which are tripled. Also in the bottom
    row, all the good letters obviously are on the multiple tile values.
    
    If anyone is interested, I can get the specifics this weekend when
    I am relaxing.
    
    Roger

    Canadians know why the noun "riding" has a plural.  So the Official
    Scrabble Seller's dictionary lists the noun with a plural, but in
    order to evade teaching most of their customers, they gave the
    definition "action of one who rides."  By this definition, the
    noun "driving" should also appear with a plural, and many thousands
    of similar words.  But they don't.
    
    The same dictionary lists many words of the French, Hebrew, Arabic,
    Indian, etc. languages, whose status as English words is somewhat
    debatable.  Furthermore they consider the Hebrew names of Hebrew
    letters and the Greek names of Greek letters, once these names have
    been transliterated into English, to be English words, right along
    with the English names of English letters.  But try looking for
    the French names of French letters, the Spanish names of Spanish
    letters, the Japanese names of Japanese letters (just the phonetic
    ones, in order to be fair), etc.
    
    I've wondered why the Official Scrabble Seller didn't want to fix
    their dictionary.  They would surely be able to sell a real one
    at a higher price.
    
    (Do we need a separate note for this dictionary?  Naw, it belongs
    in the note on crap.)

    	Yorkshire people know why the noun "riding" has a plural. Yorkshire
    is made up of three ridings.

    >Yorkshire is made up of three ridings.
    
    Officially, sadly, no more.  The ridings disappeared with the 
    re-organisation of county boundaries, when we got all the wonderful
    evocative counties like Avon, North Humberside etc.
    
    Nick

    	Does this mean that we now have humbersides instead?

From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

usage: Some commentators hold that since "kudos" is a singular word it cannot
be used as a plural and that the word "kudo" is impossible. But "kudo" does
exist; it is simply the most recent example of a word created by back-formation
from another word misunderstood as a plural. "Kudos" was introduced into 
English in the 19th century; it was used in contexts where a reader unfamiliar
with Greek could not be sure whether it was singular or plural. By the 1920s
it began to appear as a plural, and about 25 years later "kudo" began to appear.
It may have begun as a misunderstanding, but then so did "cherry" and "pea".

From the Oxford American English Dictionary:

kudos (koo-dohz) n. (informal) honor and glory.

> This word is always singular: "all the kudos she received has made her
conceited".
    

    What about cherry and pea?
    
    					andrew

    "Pea" from "pease" (as in "pease porridge hot...").
    
    "Cherry" from "ciris" from "ceresium".
    
    Ray

    Ciris?  I know the French word for "cherry" is "cerise" but
    I don't see the connection (pease I understand).
    
    					andrew

    Sorry, I had cheated and looked that one up.  "Ciris" is labeled "OE"
    in the etymology, which indicates that it was derived from the OED.
    
    Ray

    re cherries and peas
    
    But the point in the pedantry is that the words were borrowed
    from a language in which they were singulars ending in an "s"
    sound.  They were subsequently re-analyzed by English speakers
    as plurals.
    
    Anybody have examples of borrowings _from_ English that did the
    same thing?  The only one I know of is "film", which according to
    one Linguistics textbook was borrowed into Arabic and, as it fit
    the tri-literal root pattern, was given an Arabic-style plural
    of "aflaam".  And I don't know enough Arabic to confirm this.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Here's an inverse example:

    In Latin, "opera" is the plural of "opus." However, in English, "opera" is
    singluar.

    Or is that Greek?

    - Jim

    No, Jim, it's English, not Greek.  :-)
    
    -dick

    Oh, I know that the word "opus" is also in English, but we stole it from
    Latin (or Greek, or whatever,) right?

    Besides, if "opera" in English is plural, then how come folks don't say,
    "I'm going out tonight to see some opera." Well, I suppose you could say,
    "I'm gonna go watch me some opera," but that's different.

    Also, if "opera," is plural in English, then how can we talk about
    Mozart's operas? Isn't that redundant?

    Anyway, I'll shut up now. 8^)

    - Jim

    Sorry, I was being facetious.  I read two possible syntaxes into .65.
    
    "Opus" is singular in Latin.  (It's a neuter word, despite a typically
    masculine -us ending.)  In English, it is singular, as in "Magnum
    opus," but is sometimes incorrectly seen as a collective, as in "the
    famous artist's opus."  More often, this latter usage is made with the
    French "oeuvre," in the singular, no less, which is also technically
    wrong but has come to mean "a body of work."
    
    In Latin, "opera" is the plural of "opus."  In English, it is rarely
    used in this way, having been adapted to refer to the musical drama
    genre, and it is a singular word.  It refers to this musical type
    because an opera isn't a single thing, it comprises singing and
    orchestral playing and acting and (often) dance and set decoration - in
    sum, many different types of work, from which many works, from which
    the plural form.
    
    -dick

    The Spanish "vino de Jerez" [Xerez] got turned into "sherries" by the
    English for a couple of centuries until it finally got worn down to
    "sherry", freeing "sherries" to be used as the plural.

re: .67

>    Also, if "opera," is plural in English, then how can we talk
>    about Mozart's operas? Isn't that redundant?

Of course not.  There are many composers, other than Mozart, who
composed operae, and Mozart composed many other types of music. 
:^)

The use of "opus" and "opera" is interesting in the musical
context.  "Opus" is frequently used to refer to a musical work,
including, I believe, an opera.  For example, an opera might be
referred to as "opus 1234".

Clay