Interesting. The "inflector weirdness" that I''ve most seen get reported here is "Address" => "Addres". What does your patch do with this? On 7/13/05, Richard Piacentini <ricp-nFa1xD8ZTHc@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi guys, > > here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules > > as i''m not a native english speaker and this can maybe break some > existing apps i wanted to have your thoughts on it before working on a patch. > > thanks in advance, > > Richard > > --------------------------------------------------- > Singular Actual Plural Proposed Plural > > # -es > cactus => cactus => cactuses > fungus => fungus => funguses > hippopotamus => hippopotamus => hippopotamuses > > # don''t know for this one, but octopi seems strange to me even if correct > octopus => octopi => octopodes > > # -oes > echo => echos => echoes > embargo => embargos => embargoes > hero => heros => heroes > torpedo => torpedos => torpedoes > veto => vetos => vetoes > volcano => volcanos => volcanoes > > # various > foot => foots => feets > tooth => tooths => teeth > goose => gooses => geese > > # for these i don''t know, actually ''Symposium'' pluralize to ''Symposia'' > so maybe it should be done the same way here to follow POLS, > or use ''Symposiums'' instead ? > > curriculum => curriculums => curricula > memorandum => memorandums => memoranda > maximum => maximums => maxima > minimum => minimums => minima > criterion => criterions => criteria > phenomenon => phenomenons => phenomena > automaton => automatons => automata > > # actually we have index => indices, matrix => matrices, vertex => > vertices so these should follow the same rules IMHO > > appendix => appendixes => appendices > helix => helixes => helices > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Hi guys, here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules as i''m not a native english speaker and this can maybe break some existing apps i wanted to have your thoughts on it before working on a patch. thanks in advance, Richard --------------------------------------------------- Singular Actual Plural Proposed Plural # -es cactus => cactus => cactuses fungus => fungus => funguses hippopotamus => hippopotamus => hippopotamuses # don''t know for this one, but octopi seems strange to me even if correct octopus => octopi => octopodes # -oes echo => echos => echoes embargo => embargos => embargoes hero => heros => heroes torpedo => torpedos => torpedoes veto => vetos => vetoes volcano => volcanos => volcanoes # various foot => foots => feets tooth => tooths => teeth goose => gooses => geese # for these i don''t know, actually ''Symposium'' pluralize to ''Symposia'' so maybe it should be done the same way here to follow POLS, or use ''Symposiums'' instead ? curriculum => curriculums => curricula memorandum => memorandums => memoranda maximum => maximums => maxima minimum => minimums => minima criterion => criterions => criteria phenomenon => phenomenons => phenomena automaton => automatons => automata # actually we have index => indices, matrix => matrices, vertex => vertices so these should follow the same rules IMHO appendix => appendixes => appendices helix => helixes => helices
On 7/13/05, Richard Piacentini <ricp-nFa1xD8ZTHc@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi Michael, > > for Adress it''s fixed in 0.13: Adress => AdressesOh, cool; I hadn''t noticed that. Thanks
Hi Michael, for Adress it''s fixed in 0.13: Adress => Adresses> Interesting. > > The "inflector weirdness" that I''ve most seen get reported here is > "Address" => "Addres". What does your patch do with this? >
What does ''Actual Plural'' mean here? actual in what sense... because foots isnt the plural of foot ( as well as bunch of others ) Richard Piacentini wrote:>Hi guys, > >here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules > >as i''m not a native english speaker and this can maybe break some >existing apps i wanted to have your thoughts on it before working on a patch. > >thanks in advance, > >Richard > >--------------------------------------------------- >Singular Actual Plural Proposed Plural > ># -es >cactus => cactus => cactuses >fungus => fungus => funguses >hippopotamus => hippopotamus => hippopotamuses > ># don''t know for this one, but octopi seems strange to me even if correct >octopus => octopi => octopodes > ># -oes >echo => echos => echoes >embargo => embargos => embargoes >hero => heros => heroes >torpedo => torpedos => torpedoes >veto => vetos => vetoes >volcano => volcanos => volcanoes > ># various >foot => foots => feets >tooth => tooths => teeth >goose => gooses => geese > ># for these i don''t know, actually ''Symposium'' pluralize to ''Symposia'' >so maybe it should be done the same way here to follow POLS, >or use ''Symposiums'' instead ? > >curriculum => curriculums => curricula >memorandum => memorandums => memoranda >maximum => maximums => maxima >minimum => minimums => minima >criterion => criterions => criteria >phenomenon => phenomenons => phenomena >automaton => automatons => automata > ># actually we have index => indices, matrix => matrices, vertex => >vertices so these should follow the same rules IMHO > >appendix => appendixes => appendices >helix => helixes => helices > > > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
and it even works with: Address => Addresses, sorry for the typo ;-)> On 7/13/05, Richard Piacentini <ricp-nFa1xD8ZTHc@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > for Adress it''s fixed in 0.13: Adress => Adresses > > > Oh, cool; I hadn''t noticed that. Thanks > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
David Heinemeier Hansson
2005-Jul-13 14:58 UTC
Re: proposal: Inflector''s rules modifications
> here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rulesRelying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make it better. -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
Hi Sean, ''Actual Plural'' means how it''s actually resolved by inflector''s pluralize_rules> What does ''Actual Plural'' mean here? > > actual in what sense... > > because foots isnt the plural of foot > > ( as well as bunch of others ) >
David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>>here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules >> >> > >Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I >definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new >comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make >it better. > >I have to agree with that... _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> > here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules > > Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I > definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new > comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make > it better.Hi David, I agree with that, my point was not to invent an "easier" flavor but just trying to follow a "Principle of Least Stumping" ;-) Richard
I agree entirely. Any apprehension folks have about adopting the pluralization convention will be exacerbated by poor pluralization. On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Sean T Allen wrote:> Richard Piacentini wrote: > > >>>> here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make >>>> to inflector''s rules >>>> >>>> >>> Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense >>> that I >>> definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new >>> comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to >>> make >>> it better. >>> >>> >> >> Hi David, >> >> I agree with that, my point was not to invent an "easier" flavor but >> just trying to follow a "Principle of Least Stumping" ;-) >> >> > > Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual > pluralization rules... > > how is feets less stumping than foots? > > they are both incorrect english... > > the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' > > ditto for the others > > <sean.vcf> > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Richard Piacentini wrote:>>>here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules >>> >>> >>Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I >>definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new >>comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make >>it better. >> >> > >Hi David, > >I agree with that, my point was not to invent an "easier" flavor but >just trying to follow a "Principle of Least Stumping" ;-) > >Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual pluralization rules... how is feets less stumping than foots? they are both incorrect english... the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' ditto for the others _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the proposed plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! Richard> Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual > pluralization rules... > > how is feets less stumping than foots? > > they are both incorrect english... > > the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' > > ditto for the others > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
k how about octopi though... that is correct as would fungi, hippopotami etc... that should really be the correct ones... Richard Piacentini wrote:>mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the proposed >plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! > >Richard > > > > >>Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual >>pluralization rules... >> >>how is feets less stumping than foots? >> >>they are both incorrect english... >> >>the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' >> >>ditto for the others >>_______________________________________________ >>Rails mailing list >>Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I believe. Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff? -sam On 7/13/05, Sean T Allen <sean-5W9FBhQXBOtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:> k > > how about octopi though... > that is correct > > as would fungi, hippopotami etc... > > that should really be the correct ones... > > Richard Piacentini wrote: > > >mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the proposed > >plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! > > > >Richard > > > > > > > > > >>Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual > >>pluralization rules... > >> > >>how is feets less stumping than foots? > >> > >>they are both incorrect english... > >> > >>the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' > >> > >>ditto for the others > >>________
Todd Grimason
2005-Jul-13 16:58 UTC
Re: proposal: Inflector''s rules modifications [solved]
* David Heinemeier Hansson [2005-07-13 10:59]:> Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I > definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new > comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make > it better.Solved!: Esperanto For those not familiar with it: Esperanto is a planned language which has a simple, straightforward structure and essentially no irregularities. No irregularities! Perfect! ;-) -- ________________________________ toddgrimason*todd[ at ]slack.net
we''ll apparently after checking... octopi was originally correct but octopuses has been common usage octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus Samuel Johnson wrote:>Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if >octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I believe. >Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff? > >-sam > >On 7/13/05, Sean T Allen <sean-5W9FBhQXBOtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>k >> >>how about octopi though... >>that is correct >> >>as would fungi, hippopotami etc... >> >>that should really be the correct ones... >> >>Richard Piacentini wrote: >> >> >> >>>mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the proposed >>>plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! >>> >>>Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual >>>>pluralization rules... >>>> >>>>how is feets less stumping than foots? >>>> >>>>they are both incorrect english... >>>> >>>>the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' >>>> >>>>ditto for the others >>>>________ >>>> >>>> >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Matthew Denner
2005-Jul-13 17:06 UTC
Re: proposal: Inflector''s rules modifications [solved]
Todd Grimason wrote:> * David Heinemeier Hansson [2005-07-13 10:59]: > > >>Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I >>definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new >>comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make >>it better. > > > Solved!: Esperanto > > For those not familiar with it: > Esperanto is a planned language which has a simple, straightforward > structure and essentially no irregularities. > > No irregularities! Perfect! ;-)If it''s good enough for William Shatner then it should be good enough for us mere mortals: http://www.incubusthefilm.com/ Matt
Perhaps this whole thing could be solved by integrating some form of dictionary into the mix. Now I have no knowledge of the inner working of rails so I might way off track, but what about... oh I don''t know, an Oxford dictionary gem or something that gets referred to for pluralization rules? -Scotty On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Sean T Allen wrote:> we''ll apparently after checking... > > octopi was originally correct but octopuses has been common usage > > octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus > > Samuel Johnson wrote: >> Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if >> octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I believe. >> Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff? >> >> -sam >> >> On 7/13/05, Sean T Allen <sean-5W9FBhQXBOtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >>> k >>> >>> how about octopi though... >>> that is correct >>> >>> as would fungi, hippopotami etc... >>> >>> that should really be the correct ones... >>> >>> Richard Piacentini wrote: >>> >>> >>>> mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the >>>> proposed >>>> plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual >>>>> pluralization rules... >>>>> >>>>> how is feets less stumping than foots? >>>>> >>>>> they are both incorrect english... >>>>> >>>>> the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' >>>>> >>>>> ditto for the others >>>>> ________ >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> >> > > <sean.vcf> > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
David Heinemeier Hansson
2005-Jul-13 17:11 UTC
Re: proposal: Inflector''s rules modifications
> octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopusOr perhaps we get some perspective and wonder how often people are going to have model classes named Octopod ;) -- David Heinemeier Hansson http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain http://www.basecamphq.com -- Online project management http://www.backpackit.com -- Personal information manager http://www.rubyonrails.com -- Web-application framework
Seems like a ton of potential overhead for a seemingly expendable and superficial feature. On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Scott Doane wrote:> Perhaps this whole thing could be solved by integrating some form > of dictionary into the mix. Now I have no knowledge of the inner > working of rails so I might way off track, but what about... oh I > don''t know, an Oxford dictionary gem or something that gets > referred to for pluralization rules? > > -Scotty > > On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Sean T Allen wrote: > >> we''ll apparently after checking... >> >> octopi was originally correct but octopuses has been common usage >> >> octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus >> >> Samuel Johnson wrote: >>> Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if >>> octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I >>> believe. >>> Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff? >>> >>> -sam >>> >>> On 7/13/05, Sean T Allen <sean-5W9FBhQXBOtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> >>>> k >>>> >>>> how about octopi though... >>>> that is correct >>>> >>>> as would fungi, hippopotami etc... >>>> >>>> that should really be the correct ones... >>>> >>>> Richard Piacentini wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right, the >>>>> proposed >>>>> plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and definitely not ''feets'' ! >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual >>>>>> pluralization rules... >>>>>> >>>>>> how is feets less stumping than foots? >>>>>> >>>>>> they are both incorrect english... >>>>>> >>>>>> the least stumping to me would be ''feet'' >>>>>> >>>>>> ditto for the others >>>>>> ________ >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails mailing list >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >>> >>> >> >> <sean.vcf> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Why not just add a singleton method to the inflector to add new rules? Put the
new rules in your environment.rb
-Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Toby Boudreaux
To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Rails] proposal: Inflector''s rules modifications
Seems like a ton of potential overhead for a seemingly expendable and
superficial feature.
On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Scott Doane wrote:
Perhaps this whole thing could be solved by integrating some form of
dictionary into the mix. Now I have no knowledge of the inner working of rails
so I might way off track, but what about... oh I don''t know, an Oxford
dictionary gem or something that gets referred to for pluralization rules?
-Scotty
On Jul 13, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Sean T Allen wrote:
we''ll apparently after checking...
octopi was originally correct but octopuses has been common usage
octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus
Samuel Johnson wrote:
Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if
octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I believe.
Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff?
-sam
On 7/13/05, Sean T Allen <sean-5W9FBhQXBOtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
k
how about octopi though...
that is correct
as would fungi, hippopotami etc...
that should really be the correct ones...
Richard Piacentini wrote:
mea culpa that''s a typing error, you''re perfectly right,
the proposed
plural of ''foot'' has to be ''feet'' and
definitely not ''feets'' !
Richard
Wouldnt the policy of least stumping be to follow the actual
pluralization rules...
how is feets less stumping than foots?
they are both incorrect english...
the least stumping to me would be ''feet''
ditto for the others
________
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
<sean.vcf>
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Right for octopuses and too bad for my octopedes ! even Fowler agrees on that :-D "A note on the plural : Fowler states that "the only acceptable plural in English is octopuses", and that octopi ismisconceived and octopodes pedantic. Octopi derives from the mistaken notion that octopus is Latin . But it isn''t; it is Greek , from oktopous, whose plural is oktopoi. If the word were Latin, it would beoctoped and the plural octopedes, analogous to centipedes and millipedes." http://www.anoca.org/family/octopuses/octopus.html> we''ll apparently after checking... > > octopi was originally correct but octopuses has been common usage > > octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus > > Samuel Johnson wrote: > > Let''s not bring greek words into this. Octopi would be correct if > > octopus were latin. The correct pluralization is octopods, I believe. > > Maybe we should find a linguist who knows about this stuff? > > > > -sam
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 19:11 +0200, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:> > octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus > > Or perhaps we get some perspective and wonder how often people are > going to have model classes named Octopod ;)if you go by there shouldn''t we wonder also on Buffalo and Tomato that are already taken in account, otherwise it should be perceived as blatant discrimination by all the octopi...herr octopuses ? ;-)
Pluralization in the English language of words from Latin or Greek origin is unpredictable at best. I think the "convention" should be to attempt to follow common usage of the English language as closely as possible. I realize that this measurement is mostly subjective when working on a global scale. I do think it will leave (at least English-speaking) new comers with less confusion. For instance octopodes is the "correct" pluralization of octopus since it is of greed decent. In all of my years speaking, and more importantly, listening to the English language, I have never heard it used. Octopi is far more common as is octopuses though often used in error. Here are my adjustments to your suggestions. Please adjust/improve if living in Canada being raised by two South-African English majors has given me any sort of a strange slant. (* next to what isn''t current implementation) cactus => cacti * fungus => fungi * hippopotamus => hippopotamuses * - hippopotami is correct, but laughable and never used octopus => octopi The following rule-set I agree with. While volcanoes and volcanos are used interchangably, I don''t know how often I''m going to create a website that catalogues them, so applying a special rule would be a waste of time. echo => echoes * embargo => embargoes * hero => heroes * torpedo => torpedoes * veto => vetoes * volcano => volcanoes * # various foot => feet * tooth => teeth * goose => geese * Out of the following, a fine rule can be extracted. There is a problem with phenomenons vs phenomena (as they are two different things in plural) but again, not worth wasting time on. curriculum => curricula memorandum => memoranda maximum => maxima minimum => minima phenomenon => phenomena automaton => automata appendix => appendices * helix => helices * The important thing here is that the vocabulary when talking about data structures to technical and non-technical team-members is that we have a common language. It was a great idea mimic the English language so that you don''t end up saying something like: "So let me get this straight, Policy Holder can have many and belong to many Car?" We just have to keep the end result in mind. My apologies for how long-winded this reply has been. I think I should blog a bit to get this typing out of my system. - Simon Wex David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>>here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules > > > Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I > definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new > comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make > it better.
Holy crap! How often am I going to have a ''hippopotamuses'' table?! Probably not even if I worked for a Zoo... Is "set_table_name ''foo''" so bad? I''d be more inclined to do away with automatic pluralization altogether rather than have it try to cover every imaginable case. Not to mention what starts happening to the non-English speaking users out there. Or extract all this nonsense into a Pluralization library. Jason On 7/13/05, Simon Wex <simon-CdwZJljFklGxC8Nw+8W25jKzEDxYleXD@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Pluralization in the English language of words from Latin or Greek > origin is unpredictable at best. I think the "convention" should be to > attempt to follow common usage of the English language as closely as > possible. I realize that this measurement is mostly subjective when > working on a global scale. I do think it will leave (at least > English-speaking) new comers with less confusion. > > For instance octopodes is the "correct" pluralization of octopus since > it is of greed decent. In all of my years speaking, and more > importantly, listening to the English language, I have never heard it > used. Octopi is far more common as is octopuses though often used in error. > > Here are my adjustments to your suggestions. Please adjust/improve if > living in Canada being raised by two South-African English majors has > given me any sort of a strange slant. > > (* next to what isn''t current implementation) > > cactus => cacti * > fungus => fungi * > hippopotamus => hippopotamuses * > - hippopotami is correct, but laughable and never used > octopus => octopi > > The following rule-set I agree with. While volcanoes and volcanos are > used interchangably, I don''t know how often I''m going to create a > website that catalogues them, so applying a special rule would be a > waste of time. > echo => echoes * > embargo => embargoes * > hero => heroes * > torpedo => torpedoes * > veto => vetoes * > volcano => volcanoes * > > # various > foot => feet * > tooth => teeth * > goose => geese * > > Out of the following, a fine rule can be extracted. There is a problem > with phenomenons vs phenomena (as they are two different things in > plural) but again, not worth wasting time on. > > curriculum => curricula > memorandum => memoranda > maximum => maxima > minimum => minima > phenomenon => phenomena > automaton => automata > > appendix => appendices * > helix => helices * > > The important thing here is that the vocabulary when talking about data > structures to technical and non-technical team-members is that we have a > common language. It was a great idea mimic the English language so that > you don''t end up saying something like: "So let me get this straight, > Policy Holder can have many and belong to many Car?" > > We just have to keep the end result in mind. My apologies for how > long-winded this reply has been. I think I should blog a bit to get this > typing out of my system. > > - Simon Wex > > David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: > >>here''s a proposed list of modications that i would like to make to inflector''s rules > > > > > > Relying on English pluralization is "bad enough" (in the sense that I > > definitely enjoy it, but it''s a convention that does stump some new > > comers). Inventing an "easier" flavor of English is not going to make > > it better. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:>> octopods is the plural of octopod which isnt the same word as octopus >> >> > >Or perhaps we get some perspective and wonder how often people are >going to have model classes named Octopod ;) > >I tend to agree....perhaps if we end up with fields on our databases named hippopotamusses we should be thinking more about the nature of the application than the nature of the database :-) Maybe we could name it something simpler like large_gray_water_dwelling_mammals, that would singularize quite readily to large_gray_water_dwelling_mammal. Ben No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.13/47 - Release Date: 7/12/2005 _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails