There was an article in the Chicago Tribune about how some people in high profile jobs have given up sending any e-mails. George Bush, for example, hasn't used his e-mail since 2001. I couldn't find the specific article online, but I did find this rewrite of it. It is amazing, though, what some of these top executives will do! The Boeing CEO exchanged sexually graphic e-mail with an underling? A Wall Street analysist was pushing stock during the tech boom, but was e-mailing people saying the companies he was pushing were "horrible," "a disaster," and "a piece of junk"! There was another example in the Trib (not in this article) where a stock analyst raised the bond ratings in exchange for getting his twins into a better kindergarten...all traceable on e-mail!

Still, with over 20 billion e-mails a day, people are continuing to e-mail, though there seems to be uncertainty about the laws. Where do you think the future will take us with e-mails?

If you have ever been into computer programming, or studied computer programming, you'll have heard of Knuth. He wrote the seminal books of computer programming. He is the one who decided we should say "email", and not "Email", "E-mail", or "e-mail". He said this, and immediately everyone listened, he is that respectable. He also invented Tex, which revolutionized typesetting. Now, getting to the point, I'll refer you to his website.

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html

Read the first line, and yes, that is correct. I think my parents might have just bought our first computer around that time, and we didn't get the internet for 7 years after that.

quote:

He is the one who decided we should say "email", and not "Email", "E-mail", or "e-mail". He said this, and immediately everyone listened, he is that respectable.

Having NOT heard of him, I shall continue to write, "e-mail."

Asa, who must be no-one

quote:

Having NOT heard of him, I shall continue to write, "e-mail."

Bully for you, Asa! But, having heard of Professor Knuth, I shall continue to write email, which co-inky-dinky-ly is homographic to German Email 'enamel'.

[Edited to correct gloss.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Same with French émail - enamel.

I've not heard of him either, and I'd have thought that a hyphen is useful because the 'e' stands for only part of a word. When previously hyphenated words drop the hyphen, they're usually two whole words or a word and a common prefix, aren't they (as in, I'm really not sure)? 'E' is an abbreviation for 'electronic' so maybe it's good that it be punctuated as such.

I don't actually mind which it is (although I prefer the aesthetics of 'e-mail', and it does make it a lot easier to pronounce for people unfamiliar with the term and the language) - but as I don't see many linguists telling computer programmers the rules of programming, maybe the converse should also be true.

Cat, who joins Asa in No-One Land (where it's warm and sunny, unlike the Midlands at the moment).

I'm not sure why the hyphen drops, but the most reasonable thing is that at some point, everyone knows the word, and how it is pronounced, so dropping the hyphen doesn't hurt.

Who are these people who have never heard of email? I was under the impression that with the ubiquity of the internet, it had spread everywhere. I know that they use the term email exclusively in France.

quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan:
I know that they use the term email exclusively in France.

They didn't use to. It's been known as 'courrier électronique', and was even known by a four-letter acronym (that for the life of me I can't remember) before 'e-mail' took hold - much to the chagrin of the Académie Française.

I meant people who might have a different word for it in their language (stranger things have been known to happen). And, of course, some hyphenated words have remained hyphenated, so it's not a consistent rule. My thoughts about the 'e' being only an initial letter still stand, too.

quote:

He is the one who decided we should say "email", and not "Email", "E-mail", or "e-mail".

I will continue to use the hypen, too, because our Style Manual at our company uses it. I don't really think it matters either way, though. It's like the difference between "humor" and "humour" to me. After all, the latter uses an extra keystroke, too, but people in the UK, Canada, and Australia all write it that way. I wonder if Knuth objects to that, too.

While Knuth gave up e-mail in 1990 and Bush gave it up in 2001, I gave up cell phones a few years ago. No one can believe it, and I think Richard thought I was in the dark ages when I visited England. We had a leadership team meeting here where we were all supposed to give our cell numbers, and I said I didn't have one. You'd have thought I had come into the meeting naked! I gave up my cell phone because everyone called me all the time, and I just got sick of it. I don't miss it at all, to be honest. I know...I keep hearing "you don't have to answer every call!" Well, maybe not, but then I'd hear from my family "Where were you? I needed you! Why didn't you pick up the phone?" I'd have all these calls to return from everyone who "needed" me if I didn't answer it, and it was just a huge hassle. I feel so liberated!

quote:

I will continue to use the hypen, too, because our Style Manual at our company uses it. I don't really think it matters either way, though. It's like the difference between "humor" and "humour" to me. After all, the latter uses an extra keystroke, too, but people in the UK, Canada, and Australia all write it that way. I wonder if Knuth objects to that, too.

Brava! This, to my mind, is the difference between a grammar maven / prescriptivist and a good writer. The ability to see that most rules, in the end, are mere conventions, and like other conventions are arbitrary in nature and not worth fighting over.

quote:

I will continue to use the hypen, too, because our Style Manual at our company uses it. I don't really think it matters either way, though.

I prefer "email", but there are times when a hyphen is very useful (for instance, I prefer "co-operative" to "cooperative" because it's much clearer).

quote:

While Knuth gave up e-mail in 1990 and Bush gave it up in 2001, I gave up cell phones a few years ago. No one can believe it, and I think Richard thought I was in the dark ages when I visited England.

I don't have one either. Well, that isn't strictly true because I do have one but it isn't operative.

I bought it a couple of years ago when I was spending a whirlwind two weeks visiting several friends in different parts of the country by train and needed to be able to contact them if I missed a connection because a train was late. After that holiday, I never bothered to pay for more time on it because mobile phones are so expensive and there's no-one I need to phone (or who needs to phone me) with that degree of urgency. If I want to contact someone I pick up my ordinary landline phone or email them.

quote:

I gave up cell phones a few years ago.

I didn't get one until Sunflower and I got together, and I only use it when travelling. It's turned off 99% of the time. It's a good thing to have when travelling and/or in case of emergency, but for general use, I don't want it.

BTW, why do we in the USA call them "cell phones?" "Mobile phone" makes more sense to me. It's NOT organic, after all! Or were they first used here by incarcerated felons?

The term comes from "cellular", the same place we get "cell tower". From wikipedia

quote:

Cell phone or cellular telephone
Term used currently in the United States (and in other countries as well during the 1980s) to refer to most mobile phones. It technically applies specifically to mobile phones which use a cellular network. In developing mobile phone technology, American electrical engineers saw the main technical problem as achieving a smooth handoff from one radio antenna to the next. After they gave the name "cell" to the zone covered by each antenna, it was a natural choice for them to apply the term "cellular" to both the technology and the phones that ran on it.

quote:

I gave up my cell phone because everyone called me all the time, and I just got sick of it.

I wouldn't be without my mobile. If I don't want people to call me on it, then I turn it off - simple really. I have noticed, though, that many women keep their mobiles turned off unless and until they want to call someone - my wife, for one - which I find annoying.

According to Allan Pease, men anmd women use conversation quite differently. Men use conversation to exchange information - which is why they use their mobiles for both ingoing and outgoing calls. Women, though, use conversation as a form of bonding. Information exchange is a secondary function. Think about it - what is the worst threat that a woman can make to another woman? "...I'll never speak to her again...!" But to a man that is a quite inconsequential item. So, don't speak, then. If you've no information to impart then, so be it.

So women don't want to have people call them to exchange information; they want to be able to initiate a social chat - in their own time.

There will always be people who choose not to take advantage of the latest technology and, of course you can do without a mobile - as you could do without a computer, or a car, or electricity - or even a house. Our ancestors managed just fine in caves, after all. But most new inventions eventually get adopted by most people and those who don't have mobiles are now being left out of certain things, as are those who don't have the internet. Their choice, of course.

Anyone who needs to call me has my home phone number and/or my direct line at work. I bought a mobile phone a while back so that I could contact the people at work should I be delayed on my inward journey, but have only used it a few times. Since I knew I'd only be using the phone on rare occasions I signed up for a 'pre-pay' contract, but it contained a clause that I had to make at least one call every two months. Twice I have forgotten and have been cut off. The second time I decided not to get re-connected unless I could find a better supplier.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Anyone who needs to call me has my home phone number and/or my direct line at work. I bought a mobile phone a while back so that I could contact the people at work should I be delayed on my inward journey, but have only used it a few times. Since I knew I'd only be using the phone on rare occasions I signed up for a 'pre-pay' contract, but it contained a clause that I had to make at least one call every two months. Twice I have forgotten and have been cut off. The second time I decided not to get re-connected unless I could find a better supplier.

I'd suggest you do what I did. Take a pay as you go option, stick twenty quid on it and forget about it for six months. I bought mine when I had my first year in Harrow and needed a contact number to give to various places that I had applied for permanent jobs. In the three years that I've had it I've topped up that initial twenty quid twice.

While I agree to a point, Richard, what are all those women doing in business? Were they to use their mobile phones ONLY for bonding, they wouldnt't get any work done and would soon be sacked!

quote:

Anyone who needs to call me has my home phone number and/or my direct line at work.

Remember, people who have a fixed place of work are becoming fewer. Plus those workers - maintenance contractors, deliverymen, police officers, gardeners - who have never had a fixed place of work and you can see why mobiles have become popular.

I have mine on contract and I find it very handy to know that, wherever I am, I am in touch. When you are self-employed, as am I, you don't want to miss a customer.

quote:

Take a pay as you go option, stick twenty quid on it and forget about it for six months.

Unfortunately that's roughly what I did, but it was £10 in my case. However, as I said, I had to make at least one call every two months, and I was cut off because I failed to do that. Who are your suppliers? If they don't have the same rule as mine I'll probably give them a try.

quote:

Remember, people who have a fixed place of work are becoming fewer.

However, Richard, some of us do have home phone numbers, office phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and we just don't need cell phones. Just because some people don't have fixed places of work, doesn't mean we all don't. The beauty of life is that we are all so diverse. For some people a cell phone is an absolute necessity. For others, such as me, it is just a pain to have one.

Let me give you one example. One of my students had failed my course. She, being quite sure that I had miscalculated (as they all are!), called my home on a Saturday. She talked one of my kids into giving her my cell number (I didn't give that out, but it's hard to say no to a crying student!). I answered the call, not recognizing the number. There I was, with a crying student (how could I get off now?!), driving on Sheridan Road in Chicago, trying to console the poor kid, but having absolutely no access to the numbers and no way to help her. Those were the kinds of experiences I had! I don't believe I ever had an emergency in all the years I had my cell phone, and I was one of the first to get one. I only got calls like, "Mom, it's my turn for the TV and David won't let me have it!" I'd forget to turn the stupid thing off during my lectures, and my purse would ring, embarrassing me no end!

No...I am much happier without my phone. I am glad you all enjoy yours.

quote:

and we just don't need cell phones.

As I said, it's not necessarily a question of need, more preference.

Look at Maslow's heirarchy and you'll see that there are very few basic physiological needs - food, drink and sex being the main ones. But the higher-level needs become important as the lower-level ones are met.

Mobile telephones are part of the belonging needs, which needs are still important although less so than the more basic needs. However, if a mobile were the only way in which you could communicate it would become very important; because there are so many other systems open to us in many countries these days, many choose not to bother with another one.

One of the most significant facts about mobile take up is that it is often greatest in countries with less developed fixed communication networks.

Well, that's a new one on me. I've seen Maslow's heirarchy (which I personally think is a crock) used to justify some things but that's the first time I've ever seen it used to justify mobile phone ownership.

Incidentally for those unfamiliar with Maslow here's a link.

quote:

which I personally think is a crock

One (justifiable) criticism of Maslow is that this heirarchy is a hypothesis, not a rule, and is not backed up by research as is, for example, Herzberg's work. However, as there is no comparable work around it is still used, flawed though it might be.

And I think it works very well in "western" civilizations and use it myself in management training courses.

quote:

One of the most significant facts about mobile take up is that it is often greatest in countries with less developed fixed communication networks.

Interesting. I just read an article saying that in the U.S. cell phones are now more frequent than land phones...so perhaps we are one of those "less developed" countries.

quote:

But the higher-level needs become important as the lower-level ones are met.

<frustration>But I don't want a cell phone. It's not a need for me!</frustration>

quote:

o perhaps we are one of those "less developed" countries. Wink

In one way this is true since there are thousands of square miles of the USA that are completely wild and undeveloped. I would imagine that there are many who live in isolated areas who do not have sufficient land lines and the cost of providing a fixed line to one person living in such an area must be far greater than the cost of setting up a relay mast to help hundreds.

And of course, in spite of the density of population in cities, it is usually easier to get a mobile than it would be to get another fixed line.

quote:

But I don't want a cell phone. It's not a need for me!

Many people want things that they don't need - the multifarious extra facilities provided on many mobiles being a good example. However, once people perceive they have a need (as would you for a mobile had you not the ready access to fixed lines that you presently have) then it becomes a want.

You can have want without need but rarely need without want.

In addition to Richard's comments on the ease of acquisition of a cell/mobile phone, there is the fact that most homes have and need only one land line, although of course they might have a number of extensions. Each family member, though, will be likely to have his or her own cell/mobile phone.

The art of modern marketing is to create the perception of a need where no genuine need exists and then to supply something to satisfy that need. The mobile phone is perfect example. Nobody "needs" a mobile phone in any true sense of the word. We need air. We need food. We need water. We need protection from the elements. These are genuine. If we "needed" mobile phones we would have died out long before they were invented.

The perception of a need is not the same as a need.

Moile phones can, I admit, be useful in certain limited circumstances. Where someone is on the move a lot and would like to be contactable (note the careful avoidance of the word "need" there), where a parent wants to give a child the ability to always contact home regardless of the circumstances.

If the people who do need mobiles had them that would be one thing. The simple truth is that most people don't need them. Quite the opposite they are an insidious and intrusive nuisance in most people's lives but the marketing has created an almost universal perception that a mobile phone is an essential part of modern life. It isn't.

In a sense the marketing men have done their job too well because now that everyone has a mobile phone they should in theory be out of a job. That's why phones now are also cameras, radios, entertainment consoles etc etc. It's a desperate attempt to sell people something thay already have and had no need of in the first place.

I originally had my mobile phone so that potential employers could contact me when I was working at Harrow. I keep it now just because I've got it anyway. Right at this moment I'm sitting here typing this and I couldn't tell you where my mobile is. It's probably in the pocket of my jacket or maybe on the shelf in the living room. Don't know, don't care. I have friends who complain that I never answer my mobile phone or that it's usually turned off. My reply is always the same. Ring my home number. Their amazement that I should suggest such an archaic technology is a tribute to the marketing men's skills.

quote:

If we "needed" mobile phones we would have died out long before they were invented.

Only if a mobile were a very basic need (one of Maslow's "physiological needs). I do not accept that a need can only be physiological and I suggested mobile ownership was a "belonging" need, which need level is not essential to survival. I do not myself accept that, to be a "need" a thing needs to be essential to survival.

Malsow's top level needs are not even achieved by many people and, if you prefer, you can call them "wants", rather than needs. I prefer to use Maslow's terms since they are well-accepted by most behaviouralists and, even though there has been much work in this area in the half century since Maslow produced his hypothesis, nobody has yet come up with a better model or even a refutation of Maslow's.

In nursing programs many of our curriculums include a lot of information about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, so I know a little about this theory. I think it ludicrous to include cell phones with that discussion, but that's just my opinion.

quote:

You can have want without need but rarely need without want.

Of course that's true. However, if you read my sentence fully, it also said that I don't want a cell phone. It is as simple as that. I had one for many years, when they first came out, and I have had my fill of them. Perhaps if I had kids in school, it would be different. It has nothing to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or anything else. It only has to do with my personal opinion. If I wanted one, I'd buy one.

quote:

Of course that's true. However, if you read my sentence fully, it also said that I don't want a cell phone

Don't worry, I read it fully and understand that you don't presently want a mobile. You may or may not develop a want and that, will to some extent, depend on whether or not your circumstances change so that you have a need.

If you were running your own business and had no fixed base or assistant then your need would have changed to make a want more likely.

As it presently is you have neither need not want.

And that fact that I used Maslow's heirarchy means only that I think it's a good model to use and is applicable in this instance. I do not myself like academic theories (and there are many) that seem to apply only to academe. Theories that apply to everyday life appeal to me far more!

After all this ranting about not wanting a cell phone, I have this fear that I will get to England for the Wordcrafter's Convention and won't be able to find anyone...because I don't have a cell phone!

Not to worry, Kalleh, we'll probably have to buy or rent some British mobile phones while there. I just tried to call my son who's on holiday in Hawaii and my mobile phone switched to roaming charges. WAAAAY expensive! I hung up!

There are plenty of companies here that hire out mobiles to Americans visiting the UK, since their normal mobile phones won't work over here. Of course, if you get a tri-band model than it'll work in most places.

I changed to one of those a year or so back and it's very handy and not especially expensive. The rental I pay is usually enough to cover all my calls no matter where I am. I used it in Florida and in Barbados and I don;t think I exceeded my "free calls" allowance in either place.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
In nursing programs many of our curriculums

Somehow "curriculums" seems awkward. I'm more drawn to "curricula." Am I alone?

My newspaper this morning mentioned that here in the UK we now have more mobile phones than the population of the country. It also said that the number of land lines in use dropped appreciably in the last year for the first time ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
There are plenty of companies here that hire out mobiles to Americans visiting the UK, since their normal mobile phones won't work over here. Of course, if you get a tri-band model than it'll work in most places.

I only have a cheap pre-pay one that I obtained when Sunflower and I began dating. I keep it only for travelling and emergency, and find no need for a full-blown, all the bells and whistles, half a month's pay to afford it variety. Being impecunious does have its disadvantages, but not having a fancy mobile phone isn't one of them.

I'll likely hire one while there for the same reasons I have one here if it's not too expensive.

I heard yesterday that if one leaves one's mobile phone on, one's location can be traced pretty accurately, much as a GPS does it. Invasion of privacy, or major safety feature?

quote:

ind no need for a full-blown, all the bells and whistles, half a month's pay to afford it variety

It may be different in the USA but contract mobiles over here are generally free with the contract, regardless of the numbers of features. I can update mine every year without charge but I usually do so only if the older one has failed (usually the battery has stopped taking a charge). However, last year I needed to travel to Florida and was able to upgrade to a tri-band model which was free with the contract and also has more features (video, still camera, games, notepad, diary, organiser) than I know what to do with. However, it works just fine as a phone so I'm not bothered.

From memory it costs me about £25 per month (say ten pints of beer), including calls, and I don't think that's especially dear.

quote:

Somehow "curriculums" seems awkward. I'm more drawn to "curricula." Am I alone?

Well I don't know. I thought of that when writing it. Sometimes I learn rules on Wordcraft that people laugh about when I am in the real world. And...I hate to be laughed at! For example, Richard talked me into saying "agendum" instead of "agenda." So, the next time I wrote the agenda for the meeting that I facilitate, I labeled it "Agendum." I was laughed into the ground! My next one read, "Agenda." [However, they still teased me about what happened to "Agendum?" ]

quote:

Agendum

If there was more than one item on your agenda, it should've been plural. If there was only one thing "to do", then agendum, instead of agenda item, would be correct, though most people would still tease you.

And I tease them back!

WordWeb - agendum: A list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting).

An agendum is a list; several such lists are agenda. Sadly few people realise this and the incorrect plural, agendas, is now becoming popular to the extent that many people don't even recognise the correct form.

So far as singular forms are concerned I like agendum; I prefer datum; I insist on criterion. But I accept that others prefer different forms; they can suit themselves; I'll suit myself.

quote:

WordWeb - agendum: A list of matters to be taken up (as at a meeting).

Ye gods! How assinine. Agendum is the singular neuter gerundive (verbal noun) of ago (agere, egi actum) 'to do'. It literally means 'thing (singular) to be done'. But that's Latin and we're talking about English.

The OED 1st edition, which I would rank higher than WordWeb, does not have an entry for agenda or agendum, but does have the obsolete English agend, whose obsolete plural agends, is given before the more common plural agenda. Its meanings:

1. Gen. in pl. Things to be done; matters of practice, as distinguished from matters of belief.

2. Matters of ecclesiastical practice or ritual. Obs.

3. The items of business to be considered at a meeting.

1882. Pall Mall G. 16 Sept. 3 The most important item in the agenda is to discuss the Employers' Liability Act.

4. Coll. sg. A memorandum book (cf. Fr agenda.)

There you have, first modern usage of agenda cited in the OED, which was begun under the reign of the late, great Victoria Regina. If it was good enough for James Murray, the editor of the OED, who most probably wrote this definition, then it is good enough for me. You and others may cling to whatever usage you find comfortable. I shall also strive to use agend as the proper English singular of agenda. Vivat Regina!

I took a look at the supplement of the OED 1st edition. It has entries for agenda and agendum.

Agenda. attr. as agenda-paper. The paper containing the agenda of a meeting.

1887. Westminister Gaz. 10 Dec. 2/5 The next business stated on the agenda paper was to sign a petition (etc.).

Agendum. See agend 3.

1898. Westminister Gaz. 23 Mar. 1/2 A prearranged agendum and precise rules of debate.

NB. Agendum in place of agenda is an innovation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

The OED 1st edition, which I would rank higher than WordWeb

So would I. I guess I deserved to be teased! Oh, well, Richard, we win some, and we lose some.

quote:

The OED 1st edition, which I would rank higher than WordWeb

So would I. But I quoted WordWeb because everyone can use it and thus check. However, the current COED has two definitions:

The first is agenda (pl agendas) a list of items of business to be considered, however the second definition is:

Agenda (sing. agendum)(treated as plural) Items of business to be considered.

WordWeb's definitions (it also has two) are identical to Oxford's.

OED does say, under useage, Agenda is usually treated as a singular noun in sense 1 but goes on to say:

"It is occasionally found in sense 2 (its original sense)meaning items to be considered or things to be done"

So, innovation it might be but it's an innovation that's over a century old and I am one who uses the word in what the current Oxford calls "its original sense" and, if it's good enough for Della Thompson, who probably wrote the current definition, then that's good enough for me :-)

Fowler. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 1st ed. "agenda. If the singular is required (= one item of the agenda) iy is now agendum, the former singular agend being obsolete."

Fowler/Gowers. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 2nd ed. "agenda. What emerged from the Commonwealth Conference was not a cut-and-dried agenda. Although agenda is a plural word, it is pedentry to object to the common and convenient practice of thus treating it as a singular one. If the singular is needed for one itemof the agenda there seems no escape from that rather cu,bersome phrase, agendum is pedantic and agend obsolete."

Meriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Excerpt: "Everyone further agrees that agenda is the plural of agendum in Latin. The use of agendum in English to mean "a list or program" is considered a slip by Evans 1961 and pedantic by a few other commentators. It is considerably less frequent than agenda, but has been in use since 1898 and is entered in standard in the dictionaries."

I see little difference in using agendum to mean agenda than in using agend and agends for item of the agenda and the agenda itself. I guess it all comes down to a matter of personal taste, which means that there are very few "rules" in the language maven's sense of the word, merely preferences.

If, Richard, you are looking for the first use, rather than the accepted use, well "agenda" also wins that race, at least according to the OED. Here is what my online OED says:

"1887 Westmor. Gaz. 10 Dec. 2/5 (Stanf.), The next business stated on the agenda paper was to sign a petition [etc.].


"Agenda" was used as the singular form in 1887, and you cite (and I see your citation in my online OED as well) 1898 for the singular use of "agendum."

As Zmj, says, it is up to the individual, but certainly "agenda" is not incorrect, at least by the evidence that I have found. I wouldn't even call "agendum" pedantic, I don't think, because it wasn't the first use of the singular form of "agenda." It is just another form that developed later.

Of course, I very well may be wrong. Perhaps there is an earlier citation of the use of "agendum" somewhere?