PSA: Dice

[ATHATH]

The singular form of "dice" is "die". The plural form of "die" is "dice", not "dices".

Correct Example: Roll a die.
Incorrect Example: Roll a dice.

Thank you for your time.

[Trekkin]

Unless, of course, you are referring to the molds used to make die-cast dice rather than dice themselves. One can indeed roll the dies, and thereby roll the dice within.

And, of course, depending on dialect dice can be singular. It shows up more often in British than American English.

Thus, it is entirely possible to roll some dies and within them some dices in order to tell your GM across the Atlantic what the dice indicate you got on your die roll.

[90,000]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends, I prefer sure as the singular and try to get people to use it, but over here (UK) dice as a singular is so common is essentially correct. I think it might actually be in one of the dictionaries. Note that this is more common with non roleplayers.

Dices is not used though, it's like sheep. I say 'I roll a die', others say 'I roll a dice', but everyone says 'I roll four dice'.

[Lord Torath]

It depends, I prefer sure as the singular and try to get people to use it, but over here (UK) dice as a singular is so common is essentially correct. I think it might actually be in one of the dictionaries. Note that this is more common with non roleplayers.

Dices is not used though, it's like sheep. I say 'I roll a die', others say 'I roll a dice', but everyone says 'I roll four dice'.

"Dices" is used, but usually involves a chef knife or butcher knife. Or a katana: "It slices; it dices; it makes french fries in three different shapes." Come to think of it, though, does Leo really dual-wield katanas? Or is that some sort of wakazashi or ninja-to?

[Joe the Rat]

Dice is also the verb form. He dices with death on the fate of his soul.

It's also a proper noun, but he's got a lifetime ban from... a lot of things.

[CharonsHelper]

And the past tense of die is dead. But... what if you made dice dies out of the dead. (bone probably - or maybe involving horse glue)

Then you could roll dead dies with dice.

[DataNinja]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

Ah, you must be new around here. This forum runs on pedantry.

[Max_Killjoy]

As long as the intent of the statement is clear it doesn't matter. Anything else is pedantic.

And thus languages suffer long and painful deaths.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Dices" is used, but usually involves a chef knife or butcher knife. Or a katana: "It slices; it dices; it makes french fries in three different shapes." Come to think of it, though, does Leo really dual-wield katanas? Or is that some sort of wakazashi or ninja-to?

That's a conjugated form of the verb "dice", not a form of the noun "die".

[Segev]

Let's dice these die-cast dice until they die!

[Anonymouswizard]

Ah, you must be new around here. This forum runs on pedantry.

It's been a while since I've been on a thread of this type, so remind me. Is it two or three pages until we're allowed to realise we're all arguing for the same thing?

Also I'll have you know that most of us aren't running, I suspect most of us post sitting down

[CharonsHelper]

Also I'll have you know that most of us aren't running, I suspect most of us post sitting down

I'm sitting down, but I'm also half refrigerator, so...

[Segev]

I'm sitting down, but I'm also half refrigerator, so...

On your mom's or dad's side? I understand the ice chest inheritance rites are matrilineal.

[ImNotTrevor]

And thus languages suffer long and painful deaths.

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

[Max_Killjoy]

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

I refuse to accept idiots using "optics" to mean "how the public will perceive an action" or flipping "lend" and "borrow" as verbs.

[Mordar]

Linguistically speaking, languages very rarely just die but very commonly turn into multiple new languages.

Also, trying to police the formation of a language and prevent it from changing has never actually worked in the entirety of human history.

Also also, because I like shattering worldviews, the Grammar rules we're taught in school are not only arbitrary (meaning there is no actual reason to use those rules as opposed to any other set) but were mostly established by a bunch of latin-speaking monks who wanted English to sound more Latin so they could feel less bad about the bible being in English. The rules were prescribed, and not descriptive of how the language is or was actually spoken. This is why many constructions seen in academia sound strange and stuffy, and why we describe some writing as "Conversational." Academic Written English and Spoken English are very different dialects.

TL;DR
Historically speaking, any "correct" way to speak English was selected arbitrarily and trying to enforce One True Right Way upon a language has never worked on any language, ever, so it's not worth trying.

/randomrant

Yet you used "proper" grammar, punctuation and spelling (at least as far as I can tell) along with traditionally accepted definitions and word uses to make your point(s).

Is that because you wanted your points to be sufficiently well articulated as to be both clear and persuasive?

I subscribe to the idea that "language lives" as well...but that doesn't mean it can be pruned as to grow stronger and not just kudzu all over my desk.

- M

[Satinavian]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

[hymer]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

There's a lot of truth to this, but there is also a force driving the other way, a unifying force with global media, entertainment, teaching and business. It seems to me people will tend to learn two kinds of English (which may indeed turn into dialects with time, I agree): One for international or just interregional communication, and one for local identity.
It may of course turn out a lot more messily than that.

[ImNotTrevor]

Yet you used "proper" grammar, punctuation and spelling (at least as far as I can tell) along with traditionally accepted definitions and word uses to make your point(s).

Is that because you wanted your points to be sufficiently well articulated as to be both clear and persuasive?

I subscribe to the idea that "language lives" as well...but that doesn't mean it can be pruned as to grow stronger and not just kudzu all over my desk.

- M

"You used grammar, therefore the grammar being arbitrary is untrue!"

I can use the arbitrarily selected grammar when I feel the audience is appropriate. How I write here is not how I speak, which is not how I text, which is not how I write Resumes, which is not how I write college essays. When I say "I'm gonna run over and get me a snack right quick" to my friends (and yes, that is an accurate example of my spoken english), I am speaking Correct English in a dialect that is not Academic English. Because there is no legitimate reason why the southern dialect of english is incorrect.

Your argument doesn't counter mine, but it does show the irony that one must occassionally follow arbitrary rules to acheove desires results.

I refuse to accept idiots using "optics" to mean "how the public will perceive an action" or flipping "lend" and "borrow" as verbs.

Grammarists in the 1400's refused to accept the word "You" being used as the second-person singular. And as we all know, they were right in the end.

[Max_Killjoy]

"You used grammar, therefore the grammar being arbitrary is untrue!"

I can use the arbitrarily selected grammar when I feel the audience is appropriate. How I write here is not how I speak, which is not how I text, which is not how I write Resumes, which is not how I write college essays. When I say "I'm gonna run over and get me a snack right quick" to my friends (and yes, that is an accurate example of my spoken english), I am speaking Correct English in a dialect that is not Academic English. Because there is no legitimate reason why the southern dialect of english is incorrect.

Your argument doesn't counter mine, but it does show the irony that one must occassionally follow arbitrary rules to acheove desires results.



Grammarists in the 1400's refused to accept the word "You" being used as the second-person singular. And as we all know, they were right in the end.

This is not the 14th century. We have the printing press, an "infinite" supply of books (relative to that time period), mass public education, public libraries, the internet, etc.

There's no need to just shrug and watch language degrade. "Die" is the singular, "dice" is the plural. "Dice" for a single die is as incorrect as "mice" for a single mouse.

("Ask" and "axe" are not homophones, and neither are "cot" and "caught". And by all the spirits of every dead writer ever, THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN PLURALIZATION.)

[Anonymouswizard]

If I was going to write English how I'd speak it there would likely be commas in strange places (I have a minor speech impediment, not a stammer but can sound like one), ever other sentence would include the word 'sorry', and sentences would just run on for too long because I wouldn't know when to stop them because I don't tend to stop sentences until I've finished my train of thought.

To be honest, I tend to write overlong, sentences even while typing. Sorry.

[Yuki Akuma]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

[hymer]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

There's quite a bit more to it than that, though. Here's one thing:

[Max_Killjoy]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

Language is a tool for communication. The utility of that tool suffers when the language degrades.

Something as "simple" and "subtle" as the Oxford comma can change the meaning of a sentence entirely.

Spoiler: Just a tiny bit NSFW

Show

[Anonymouswizard]

Linguistic prescriptivism is stupid and has never worked. Even in languages with prescriptivist "language academies". Talk the way you want to talk, and as long as people understand you, that's fine.

I remember watching a video on prescriptivism versus descriptivism. I agree on some language areas being prescriptivist, such as academia, if clarity of language is paramount, but honestly in everyday conversion or writing on this forum I'm not going to bother strictly following grammar rules.

Spelling is different, I can work with a few misspelt words and infer from context, and can even read the 'if all the letters are there and the first and last are in the right place' things, but I recommend people try to make sure their spelling is correct (for their version of English at least) just so that it takes less brainpower to read what they're saying.

[Segev]

While linguistic drift does happen, there is no reason to support it where it hinders understanding. Otherwise, we shouldn't ever correct anybody for using whatever word they like to mean whatever they wish it to. Perhaps, like the Caterpillar, they must pay some words a little extra for overtime, but surely the fact that we can't comprehend them is our fault for being linguistic prescritivists.

Using "dice" as a singular does grate on my ear, though it's mildly forgivable because it is understandable.

Using "irregardless," however, not only grates on my ear, but (because I know the meaning of the prefix) it makes me stop and try to figure out how one thing is with regard to another, even though after I stop and think for a moment I realize the person is just speaking poorly.

It especially drives me batty when people start misusing words because they think the words sound sophisticated.

The prevalence of misused words even in modern mass media, amongst pundits and writers who make their living at it, is troubling...because they often wind up writing nonsense that I then must spend quite some time divining the real meaning of, and as it gets worse, communication suffers.


There is beauty in a well-constructed language which remembers that certain prefixes and suffixes (or, in some languages, modifying particles or tones) have specific meanings that modify root words. It enhances communication and expands vocabulary by allowing clear, concise information transmission. When we start to say that "it's just linguistic drift; get over it" because people who are less educated don't know the meanings of the words (or constructions) they're misusing, we excuse bad communication and make it harder to construct new, meaningful expressions, because we do things like make antonyms into synonyms (except when we mean the opposite).

Context might be powerful, but rely too much on it to untangle language that has become meaningless by itself and you wind up with constant, intractable miscommunication.


Heck, Japanese has a lot of context-related half-finished sentences with implied subjects and even verbs, and while it's intelligible, a lot of miscommunication occurs that is impossible to transliterate into English because English is a more precise language, and would not accept the trail-offs and implied subjects that allow the listener to inject entirely opposite meanings from what the speaker meant. It sometimes makes anime a little confusing, because the transliterater had to choose one of the two (or more) meanings, and thus we as English-speaking audiences get clarity that wasn't there. Making it hard to understand how the other party misunderstood...or how they MEANT what they claim to have intended.

This is in no small part because Japanese puts a lot of stock in context that is multi-layered and social-position-based, on top of numerous other elements. Again, they can make themselves understood, but it's not as powerful a language as English for precise communication.

I dread to see English lose that precision just because "linguistic drift happens." May as well just argue that we shouldn't bother teaching it; babies pointing and making whatever noises they want are just as valid a means of communication. That's linguistic drift, right?

[Max_Killjoy]

Spoiler: spoiler added by Max_Killjoy to save space

Show

While linguistic drift does happen, there is no reason to support it where it hinders understanding. Otherwise, we shouldn't ever correct anybody for using whatever word they like to mean whatever they wish it to. Perhaps, like the Caterpillar, they must pay some words a little extra for overtime, but surely the fact that we can't comprehend them is our fault for being linguistic prescritivists.

Using "dice" as a singular does grate on my ear, though it's mildly forgivable because it is understandable.

Using "irregardless," however, not only grates on my ear, but (because I know the meaning of the prefix) it makes me stop and try to figure out how one thing is with regard to another, even though after I stop and think for a moment I realize the person is just speaking poorly.

It especially drives me batty when people start misusing words because they think the words sound sophisticated.

The prevalence of misused words even in modern mass media, amongst pundits and writers who make their living at it, is troubling...because they often wind up writing nonsense that I then must spend quite some time divining the real meaning of, and as it gets worse, communication suffers.


There is beauty in a well-constructed language which remembers that certain prefixes and suffixes (or, in some languages, modifying particles or tones) have specific meanings that modify root words. It enhances communication and expands vocabulary by allowing clear, concise information transmission. When we start to say that "it's just linguistic drift; get over it" because people who are less educated don't know the meanings of the words (or constructions) they're misusing, we excuse bad communication and make it harder to construct new, meaningful expressions, because we do things like make antonyms into synonyms (except when we mean the opposite).

Context might be powerful, but rely too much on it to untangle language that has become meaningless by itself and you wind up with constant, intractable miscommunication.


Heck, Japanese has a lot of context-related half-finished sentences with implied subjects and even verbs, and while it's intelligible, a lot of miscommunication occurs that is impossible to transliterate into English because English is a more precise language, and would not accept the trail-offs and implied subjects that allow the listener to inject entirely opposite meanings from what the speaker meant. It sometimes makes anime a little confusing, because the transliterater had to choose one of the two (or more) meanings, and thus we as English-speaking audiences get clarity that wasn't there. Making it hard to understand how the other party misunderstood...or how they MEANT what they claim to have intended.

This is in no small part because Japanese puts a lot of stock in context that is multi-layered and social-position-based, on top of numerous other elements. Again, they can make themselves understood, but it's not as powerful a language as English for precise communication.

I dread to see English lose that precision just because "linguistic drift happens." May as well just argue that we shouldn't bother teaching it; babies pointing and making whatever noises they want are just as valid a means of communication. That's linguistic drift, right?

These forums desperately need a +1 button for moments like this.

It's one thing to expand a language because new ideas come into our shared space of ideas, and new words are needed. As an old acquaintance of mine on Usenet once said, "on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

It's another thing entirely to watch a language fall apart and use its utility as a means of sharing ideas, because we didn't want to be "prescriptive". (In part I blame postmodernists and their disdain for actual meaning.)

[CharonsHelper]

With English as new lingua franca, further "evolution" will probably mean it will split into several new languages based on regional dialects. It is already happening.

I'll +1 that this is unlikely due to modern media.

There's already been a lessening of accents due to this.

[Yuki Akuma]

Language is a tool for communication. The utility of that tool suffers when the language degrades.

Something as "simple" and "subtle" as the Oxford comma can change the meaning of a sentence entirely.

Spoiler: Just a tiny bit NSFW

Show

God, I've always hated that example of why the Oxford comma is vital. You can just rearrange the nouns to make that sentence less ambiguous!

I agree that the Oxford comma has uses but come on. Deliberate ambiguity doesn't prove anything.