# What's the plural of mouse??



## changomarcelo (Mar 23, 2002)

Do you say "I have two _mouses_, for example?" Is that right? What's the plural of mouse?


----------



## jokell82 (Mar 23, 2002)

Meece


----------



## themacko (Mar 23, 2002)

mooses


----------



## changomarcelo (Mar 23, 2002)

Hey! It's not a joke! I want to learn it!!


----------



## dlookus (Mar 23, 2002)

mousii


----------



## tagliatelle (Mar 23, 2002)

muizen dutch
souris french
mauses german


----------



## Boyko (Mar 23, 2002)

Mice.  (Seriously)

I have installed a mouse on my computer.
I install mice on computers for a living.
It may be a problem with your particular mouse.
I think it's a problem with this company's brand of mice.


----------



## alexachucarro (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Boyko _
> *Mice.  (Seriously) *



I wholeheartedly agree with Boyko, it's Mice. Mouses is sometimes used as an 'accepted false word'. 

But as far as English is supposed to be used (hmmm - many different versions) it's Mice.

Mice, unless......?


----------



## nkuvu (Mar 23, 2002)

I like "meece".  But then again, I read the jargon lexicon, so I like lots of words that aren't.


----------



## putamare (Mar 23, 2002)

_The Microsoft(R) Manual of Style for Technical Publications_ (ed. Amanda Clark, Microsoft Press, 1995, ISBN 1-55615-939-0) says:  "Avoid using the plural mice; if you need to refer to more than one mouse, use mouse devices."

While there are no words that could appropriately describe my general distaste for M$ that I could use without getting somebody's panties in a knot, they certainly are more authoritative than "I'm a professional & I'm right." 

Andy Walker for Cyberwalker Media Syndicate  tried to puzzle it out and posted his results here. 

The case against "mice" is clearly (he he) summed up by Pinker, Kim, and Prince in a post to the LINGUIST List:


> The 'computer mouse' case is unclear, beginning with the phenomenon itself. Obviously there is widespread squeamishness about 'mice' but apparently not enough to allow 'mouses' to dominate. 'Mouses' is rare in speech, and in an survey of a thick catalogue of computer mail-order ads, we found that 16 used the heading 'mice', none used 'mouses', and 6 copped out and used the singular 'mouse'.  We suspect that this case (and a family of related examples) is a different, weaker phenomenon, whereby irregular plurals, since their morphological idiosyncrasies force them to be stored in memory rather than generated by rule, tend to have noncompositional semantic representations, specific to the way in which that referent usually comes in bunches, rather than compositions of the root-meaning with generic plurality -- thus `mice' may well have a collecive sense that e.g. `dogs' does not.  A novel sense of an irregular noun that invites a different flavor of plurality (collective, distributive, dual, etc.) is liable to feel uncomfortable when used with the existing irregular plural form; e.g., if 'mice' refers not just to "more than one mouse" but to something connoting a swarm or infestation, it will clash somewhat with pointing devices, which are encountered one at a time. But there is no structural constraint blocking the irregularity, so the phenomenon manifests itself more as minor discomfort than outright ungrammaticality triggering regularization.



Since there is no official body that regulates English (like the Academy Francais), there is no "real" answer to the question. You can either: 1. Just stop caring (the most popular alternative to most Americans); 2. Pick an authority you trust and stick with their version like some kind of religion; or 3. Choose the term you like best and act like you know what you're talking about, thus becoming an authority for the more timid. Personally I like "mousen" (from VAX/VAXen, UNIX box/boxen), because it makes me sound like a total geek.


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2002)

after the post that declares m$ frowns upon the use of mice, it should be clear that the correct answer is MICE. Discussion beyond that point is ridiculous because when was the last time you saw m$ get it right?

After all, are we mice or men?


----------



## RacerX (Mar 23, 2002)

> _said by my good friend Ed_
> *After all, are we mice or men? *



We are surely not _mouse devices_, beyond that...


----------



## adambyte (Mar 23, 2002)

MS would probably call us "Man devices," not "men."


----------



## edX (Mar 23, 2002)

hey, leave my Man Device alone !!


----------



## putamare (Mar 23, 2002)

M$'s support of "mouse devices" only guarantees that "mouse devices" is the wrong choice, not that any other is correct. If we applied Ed's logic to browsers, IE would make Netscape Navigator the browser of choice.


----------



## gumse (Mar 23, 2002)

In swedish mouse = "mus" , the singular form of an intimate part of the female anatomy (in english   
that would be a more feline word) not sure about the plural form. "Möss" or "Musar"...
Whe have to ask the swedish academy , Sture where are you.... (remember me)


----------



## simX (Mar 24, 2002)

Um... why should the plural form of the word "mouse" be different according to it's meaning?

When we pluralize "tear" (as in the thing that comes from your eye), you say "tears".  When we pluralize "tear" (as in a "tear in a page"), you still say "tears".  Granted, they sound different, but you still pluralize them the same way.

How about "speaker"?  When you pluralize it in the form of many people who are delivering speeches, you say "speakers".  When referring to the object that attaches to your computer that produces sound, you still say "speakers" in the plural form.  (Here's something that both relates to computers and is a word that refers to two different things but is spelled and pronounced in exactly the same way)

I think it's obvious that the plural of mouse is "mice" no matter if you are talking about a thing that attaches to a computer that allows you to give commands or the animal.  Period.  (Yes, f*** you M$.  )

End of discussion.  <-- notice the period


----------



## putamare (Mar 24, 2002)

The plural of walkman is not walkmen, more than one Bigfoot is not Bigfeet. The plural of index (as found in the back of books) is indexes, but the plural of index (as the little numbers hung onto variables) is indecies. The only thing "obvious" is that a case can be made for all the alternatives, and there isn't any room for absolute truth in English linguistics.


----------



## jt3g (Mar 24, 2002)

i'm not sure if the case of mouse/mouses is analogous, but one can look at the case of the word "fish". the plural of the word fish is, as everyone knows, fish. (e.g., i saw three fish). however fishes is a perfectly acceptable word. in the previous example, if two of the fish were trout and one was a bass, there would be three fish, but only two fishes. (an example of how exact language can be, when used properly)

perhaps, if you had two single button and a three button, you would have three mice, but two mouses.

in the end, i'm not sure it matters.

j


----------



## symphonix (Mar 24, 2002)

I remember reading that Oxford's dictionary committee had decided that mouses was a legitimate word "when applied to computer pointing devices"

So, you could say "My AutoCAD workstation has two mouses."


----------



## boi (Mar 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by putamare _
> *The plural of walkman is not walkmen, more than one Bigfoot is not Bigfeet. The plural of index (as found in the back of books) is indexes, but the plural of index (as the little numbers hung onto variables) is indecies. The only thing "obvious" is that a case can be made for all the alternatives, and there isn't any room for absolute truth in English linguistics. *



i'm sorry, simX, but you got told.  
the irony of the "end of discussion" bit with the period and everything... hehe.
sorry, i'll shut my yap now.


----------



## edX (Mar 25, 2002)

i will admit that my logic was shortsighted in my previous post. However i will be quite happy if we all simply agree not to call them "mouse devices". Use any other plural form you would like (i admit i too like meece even if it still isn't right). but avoid complying with m$ and i will be on your side. 

i will use mice because that makes the most sense to me.


----------



## ksv (Mar 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *How about "speaker"?  When you pluralize it in the form of many people who are delivering speeches, you say "speakers".  When referring to the object that attaches to your computer that produces sound, you still say "speakers" in the plural form.  (Here's something that both relates to computers and is a word that refers to two different things but is spelled and pronounced in exactly the same way) *



Actually a speaker and a speaker is exactly the same thing, just like a dog and a dog. The dogs could be different races, in other words look completely different and act different, just like a speaker and a speaker, an object that produces sound and a human who speaks.
Also, "speaker" (used about an object that produces sound), is short for "loudspeaker". In norwegian it's "loudspeaker", too, translated directly to "høyttaler".


----------



## Tigger (Mar 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hervé Hinnekens _
> *muizen dutch
> souris french
> mauses german *


Actually, the plural of Maus is Mäuse in German


----------



## googolplex (Mar 25, 2002)

yes, mouse devices just sounds so bill gates


----------



## lonny (Mar 25, 2002)

Considering Gumse's post...
"mouse device" sounds kinda kinky!


----------



## genghiscohen (Mar 25, 2002)

"If the plural of mouse is mice, and the plural of louse is lice, shouldn't the plural of spouse be spice?"
Think about it...


----------



## putamare (Mar 25, 2002)

the plural of spouse is bigamy


----------



## googolplex (Mar 25, 2002)

I like that one


----------



## genghiscohen (Mar 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by putamare _
> *the plural of spouse is bigamy *


Except in Utah.


----------



## simX (Mar 25, 2002)

OK, fine.  Maybe I was wrong about the whole "obvious" thing and the "end of discussion" thing , but I still think the plural of "mouse" should be "mice".  It just sounds right.  And I agree about the stupidity of the "mouse devices" thing.



> _Originally posted by ksv_
> Actually a speaker and a speaker is exactly the same thing, just like a dog and a dog. The dogs could be different races, in other words look completely different and act different, just like a speaker and a speaker, an object that produces sound and a human who speaks.
> Also, "speaker" (used about an object that produces sound), is short for "loudspeaker". In norwegian it's "loudspeaker", too, translated directly to "høyttaler".



Didn't you just contradict yourself?  You said a "speaker" is short for "loudspeaker" in the context that it's "an object that produces sound".  But I highly doubt that a "speaker" as in someone that makes a speech is short for "loudspeaker".  This is mainly because 1) I wouldn't describe a person as an object and 2) some speakers are quiet and you have to strain to hear them.


----------



## ksv (Mar 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *Didn't you just contradict yourself?*



Oh, aha?
OK, let's say "an object/a person that produces sound" instead, and you'll get my point 
You know, I'm always right and I'm the best.
A person who makes a speech could still be a LOUDspeaker, if he speaks loud. And an object that produces sound could just be a speaker, if it isn't especially powerful  

Heh hee! Seems like I won that discussion, eh?


----------



## scruffy (Mar 27, 2002)

The plural of spouse is probably bloody exhausting.


----------



## ladavacm (Mar 27, 2002)

The plural of spouse is quite probably alimony.  Or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.


----------



## Bluefusion (Mar 27, 2002)

If Microsoft says it's Mouse Devices, then they are wrong. Therefore, we should invent our own. I personally think the world would be a lot better off if we referred to "meeces". 

Bill Gates works at a large Software Device. In the Software Device, they assemble and package Code Fragments into large Computer Code Objects and sell them in Retail Devices. These Retail Devices then sell them to their Human Devices, who enable the Computer Code Objects to rename their Mouse Devices.

OK?


----------

