Verdict is in; mouses is correct

[OuTpaTienT]

Direct from the authority's mouth, Richard Lederer (author of books such as "Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay" and other fun ones) comes the answer many of us already knew. He answered my question I emailed to him on a radio show this morning.

When speaking of the mouse as a computer input device, the following is correct grammar:

singular - mouse

plural - mouses

The term mice is incorrect for this usage (psst…but don't tell Microsoft Word that).

uT

ps. But it's still ok to hate mieces to pieces if you must.

[Theophylact]

I like Lederer (he is amusing), and I occasionally hear him on NPR posing as an authority, but he's just another opinion.

[OuTpaTienT]

Maybe to you. But if you want to get technical about it then everybody is just another opinion.

Doctor Lederer has got enough under his belt to impress me.

Richard Lederer, Ph.D., is the author of more than 3,000 books and articles about language and humor, including his bestselling Anguished English series. Dr. Lederer’s syndicated column, "Looking at Language," appears in news-papers and magazines throughout the United States. He hosts a weekly show, A Way With Words, on San Diego Public Radio. He has been elected International Punster of the Year; has been profiled in magazines as diverse as the New Yorker, People, and the National Enquirer; and is the language columnist for the Toastmaster, Pages, and the old Farmer’s Almanac.

Punster of the Year? That gets my respect right there.

I wonder which award show gives out that award? Maybe the Acomedy Awards?

[JacobM5727]

mouses, meeces, i want a mouse to lay gold eggs for easter.. ...wait a sec

OK, but mouses sounds incorrect. Just like plural of fish is fish or fishes, but fish sounds more correct, at least to me.

Just another quirk of the English language.

[osprey4]

I'll use the term "mouses" whenever I want someone to look cockeyed at me.

I'm not saying Richard Lederer is incorrect, but I will say that Richard Lederer is not an authority on technical language matters. The matter of what's correct can only be settled by a consensus and I've yet to hear a consensus on this word's pluralization.

[OuTpaTienT]

If someone is looking at you cockeyed, then ...hey, that's too much information for me. I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that I don't want to know.

----

Actually I believe Lederer IS correct in this case. There is a rule that is somewhat being followed here:

When using an allegorical description, such as when using the term mouse to describe something other than a real mouse, then it's plural form doesn't shift form to encompass a group as a whole, such as you'd normally find with mouse/mice, goose/geese, and other such words in English.

Instead the plural form becomes exactly that, plural of the objects. For example, under a microscope you might study a single louse, but a bunch of them in someone's hair and they are lice. But if you were to allegorically describe Billy as a louse, and consider his best friend Tommy to be a louse as well, then the two of them together would not be lice. They would be louses. Think about it.

The term mouses shouldn't sound incorrect to you, but it does to many and thus they resist. But just think…
- is a mongoose and his mate mongeese? No. Mongooses.
- is a neighborhood filled with hice, heese, or houses?
- does a Mormon have spice, speece, or spouses?

However researching this on the web will lead one to no definite conclusions (or is it conclusi?). But lots and lots of opinions.




Just some of thousands (that were fun or interesting to read):

http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/arc...402-00488.html

http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/2/2-578.html

Some fun banter on the subject here:

http://www.writingthatworks.com/surv...ults.php?cid=1