Halloween candy

On 2005-11-18, Hillary Israeli wrote:
In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*No -- actually, I think it's pretty funny that I'd never tasted lox
*until after I left home, and just assumed my mother didn't even know
*what they were, and that I would be able to introduce HER to them.

I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but...
erm... isn't "lox" singular??

I believe that "lox" is an uncountable noun in English (like "bread"),
which makes it grammatically singular for verbs, but you can't use the
indefinite article "a".

Lox is good.
*I ate a lox.
*I ate three lox.

(* indicates ungrammatical sentences.)

------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
(Senior member, IEEE) (Board of Directors, ISCB)
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Affiliations for identification only.

In article ,
(Hillary Israeli) wrote:

In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*No -- actually, I think it's pretty funny that I'd never tasted lox
*until after I left home, and just assumed my mother didn't even know
*what they were, and that I would be able to introduce HER to them.

I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but...
erm... isn't "lox" singular??

Hmmm -- you're right, but it sounds like it SHOULD be plural! "Lox is
good" just sounds wrong!

I wonder what the plural would be -- maybe it is both singular and
plural, like, say "deer"? There are two kinds of lox (loxen? loxi?
loxes?), but I don't see a plural form listed in any of the
dictionaries I consulted. Come to think of it, "salmon" is both
singular and plural, isn't it?

sigh I like to think I make few grammatical errors, even when
typing fast -- but even if I'd read this over carefully, I'm not sure
I'd have caught this one.

(And just in case anyone thinks Hillary was out of line here -- thanks!
I always enjoy a chance to learn something new, and to have an excuse to
peruse the dictionary.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Kevin Karplus wrote:

On 2005-11-18, Hillary Israeli wrote:
In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*No -- actually, I think it's pretty funny that I'd never tasted lox
*until after I left home, and just assumed my mother didn't even know
*what they were, and that I would be able to introduce HER to them.

I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but...
erm... isn't "lox" singular??

I believe that "lox" is an uncountable noun in English (like "bread"),
which makes it grammatically singular for verbs, but you can't use the
indefinite article "a".

Lox is good.
*I ate a lox.
*I ate three lox.


I'm not sure bread is a good example -- you CAN say "They served three
different breads with dinner."

So if they were seving more than one kind of lox, what would the
sentence be?
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*In article ,
* (Hillary Israeli) wrote:
*
*
* I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but...
* erm... isn't "lox" singular??
*
*Hmmm -- you're right, but it sounds like it SHOULD be plural! "Lox is
*good" just sounds wrong!

Uh, I beg to differ! Lox is good - sounds right. Lox are good - sounds
wrong!!!

*I wonder what the plural would be -- maybe it is both singular and
*plural, like, say "deer"? There are two kinds of lox (loxen? loxi?
*loxes?), but I don't see a plural form listed in any of the
*dictionaries I consulted. Come to think of it, "salmon" is both
*singular and plural, isn't it?

See my previous post... the OED lists the plural of "lox" as "lox, loxes,"
so I guess it can be either, but I have never ever seen the word "loxes,"
nor heard it before, and I come from a family containing two "loxologists"
(which is what we in our family call old Jewish guys in the fish biz who
know more than I could possibly explain about lox).

h.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*So if they were seving more than one kind of lox, what would the
*sentence be?

Well, I was just at a parent potluck dinner for my son's preK class, and
someone brought 3 kinds of lox to the party - so I would say we had 3
kinds of lox! I would never say we had "3 lox" or "3 loxes," though. That
would just "sound weird" to me.

I just looked in the OED, and lox is listed with the plural "lox, loxes,"
so I guess you COULD say "we had 3 lox" or "we had 3 loxes," but man, that
still sounds weird to me. I definitely wouldn't say that my mom (who loves
lox) likes lox so much that she hides "them" so we won't find "them" if
you see what I mean. Lox, to me, is definitely an "it."

Sorry to go OT. Bringing it perhaps back on topic... when I was a child,
about 5 years old, someone referred to me as a [bad name deleted] because
I did not like lox. I thought it was a horrible thing to do, to make fun
of a kid because she didn't like a particular kind of food, especially a
kind of strange one like lox (which I now love btw)! I have made a
particular effort to avoid making a big deal over my own kids' willingness
to eat or not eat any particular foods specifically because I remember the
shame and humiliation I suffered as a kid because of this one woman's
careless comment (she was a friend of my mom's). Does anyone else have any
parenting hotbuttons like that that come from their own childhood
"trauma"?

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx

On 2005-11-19, dragonlady wrote:
In article ,
Kevin Karplus wrote:
I believe that "lox" is an uncountable noun in English (like "bread"),
which makes it grammatically singular for verbs, but you can't use the
indefinite article "a".

Lox is good.
*I ate a lox.
*I ate three lox.


I'm not sure bread is a good example -- you CAN say "They served three
different breads with dinner."

So if they were seving more than one kind of lox, what would the
sentence be?

Actualy, "bread" is a good example of an uncountable noun. Many
uncountable nouns become technical terms for types of the underlying
object when used countably.

To say "I sell three breads" in English would mean three types of
bread, never three loaves of bread (unlike Spanish, for example, where
"pan" is a countable noun, and the plural would refer to loaves of bread).

Perhaps a better example would have been "rice", which, like "lox"
ends with the "s" sound. An agronomist can refer to the many rices
grown in California, but in ordinary usage, "rice" is uncountable and
one has to add counting words (bowls, grains, kilos, ...).

"Lox are good" is very open to being misheard as "locks are good,"
which may be a true statement, but not at all the same as "lox is
good."

------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
(Senior member, IEEE) (Board of Directors, ISCB)
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Affiliations for identification only.

In article ,
(Hillary Israeli) wrote:

In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*In article ,
* (Hillary Israeli) wrote:
*
*
* I didn't say anything about this when I saw it in the other post but...
* erm... isn't "lox" singular??
*
*Hmmm -- you're right, but it sounds like it SHOULD be plural! "Lox is
*good" just sounds wrong!

Uh, I beg to differ! Lox is good - sounds right. Lox are good - sounds
wrong!!!

*I wonder what the plural would be -- maybe it is both singular and
*plural, like, say "deer"? There are two kinds of lox (loxen? loxi?
*loxes?), but I don't see a plural form listed in any of the
*dictionaries I consulted. Come to think of it, "salmon" is both
*singular and plural, isn't it?

See my previous post... the OED lists the plural of "lox" as "lox, loxes,"
so I guess it can be either, but I have never ever seen the word "loxes,"
nor heard it before, and I come from a family containing two "loxologists"
(which is what we in our family call old Jewish guys in the fish biz who
know more than I could possibly explain about lox).

h.

Thanks for checking the OED for me. I don't have one at home -- it's on
my "things I'd love to own some day" list.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
Kevin Karplus wrote:

On 2005-11-19, dragonlady wrote:
In article ,
Kevin Karplus wrote:
I believe that "lox" is an uncountable noun in English (like "bread"),
which makes it grammatically singular for verbs, but you can't use the
indefinite article "a".

Lox is good.
*I ate a lox.
*I ate three lox.


I'm not sure bread is a good example -- you CAN say "They served three
different breads with dinner."

So if they were seving more than one kind of lox, what would the
sentence be?

Actualy, "bread" is a good example of an uncountable noun. Many
uncountable nouns become technical terms for types of the underlying
object when used countably.

To say "I sell three breads" in English would mean three types of
bread, never three loaves of bread (unlike Spanish, for example, where
"pan" is a countable noun, and the plural would refer to loaves of bread).

Perhaps a better example would have been "rice", which, like "lox"
ends with the "s" sound. An agronomist can refer to the many rices
grown in California, but in ordinary usage, "rice" is uncountable and
one has to add counting words (bowls, grains, kilos, ...).

"Lox are good" is very open to being misheard as "locks are good,"
which may be a true statement, but not at all the same as "lox is
good."

------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
(Senior member, IEEE) (Board of Directors, ISCB)
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Affiliations for identification only.


But that doesn't answer the question: if you are serving more than one
kind of lox, how do you say it?
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Whether I put one piece or three pieces of lox on my bagel, I say that
I'm putting "lox" on my bagel.

When I go to a store that carries more than one kind of lox, I refer to
it as "three kinds of lox" NOT "three loxes" or even "three lox".

Kevin Karplus hit it on the head. I don't refer to "three breads" but
to "three loaves of bread" or "three slices of bread" or "three kinds of
bread". Lox works the same way.

I prefer the Atlantic Harvest brand of lox from Trader Joe. It's much
less salty than most other kinds of lox, but still has plenty of flavor.
Much better even than most deli lox.

--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.

In ,
dragonlady wrote:

*
*But that doesn't answer the question: if you are serving more than one
*kind of lox, how do you say it?

"It."

har dee har har.

But seriously, folks - if you are serving more than one kind of lox, you
say "On the stainless steel fish tray, I am serving Nova; on the
leaf-shaped platter is gravlax, the tartan-trimmed china platter holds
Scottish lox, and Uncle Morty's top-of-the-line regular is on the paper
plates over there. Dig in - l'chaim!"

-h.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx