Math or Maths

[Alatar]

I don't understand why Americans shorten "Mathematics" to "Math" instead of "Maths", like in the UK and Ireland. Its a plural, right? We say Planes as an abbreviation of Aeroplanes. Is that because we only lost the first part of the word, or is it because we're taking about plurals? Why lose the plural when referring to Mathematics?

Greater minds than mine surely know the answer.

[axordil]

TLDR

[Primula Baggins]

Short answer (for Ax): "Mathematics" isn't plural. It's singular.

Longer answer (tl;dr for Ax): Webster's dates the word to 1573 and says it is plural but usually singular in construction. I think that's Webster's restraint there (their unabridged dictionary says "motherf. . ." is "usually offensive" ). I have never seen the word "mathematic."

There are similar English singular words, such as "politics," that end in "s." The standard usage is "Mathematics is a complex system of knowledge."

So, Americans are just being grammatically consistent by shortening it to "math."

[Faramond]

Griff calls it "maths" too. I think it's cute.

Personally, I think it should be called mathses.

[Primula Baggins]

[yovargas]

Griff calls it "maths" too. I think it's cute.

But you're not biased or anything.


Oddly, both of them sound legitimate to my ear, despite never really hearing 'maths' used.

[Alatar]

Our good friend Wikipedia has the following to say:

Etymology

The word "mathematics" (Greek: μαθηματικά or mathēmatiká) comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science, and additionally came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times. Its adjective is μαθηματικός (mathēmatikós), related to learning, or studious, which likewise further came to mean mathematical. In particular, μαθηματικὴ τέχνη (mathēmatikḗ tékhnē), in Latin ars mathematica, meant the mathematical art. The apparent plural form in English, like the French plural form les mathématiques (and the less commonly used singular derivative la mathématique), goes back to the Latin neuter plural mathematica (Cicero), based on the Greek plural τα μαθηματικά (ta mathēmatiká), used by Aristotle, and meaning roughly "all things mathematical".[7]

Despite the form and etymology, the word mathematics, like the names of arts and sciences in general, is used as a singular mass noun in English today. The colloquial English-language shortened forms perpetuate this singular/plural idiosyncrasy, as the word is shortened to math in North American English, while it is maths elsewhere (including Britain, Ireland, Australia and other non-North American Commonwealth countries).

[vison]

Always said "math". Always will.

Sometimes say "alway", tho'.



North American English is superior to European English as she is spoke in Great Britain. European (Great British) English is an old, tired thing, tottering graveward, longing for peace and rest.

Canuckian and Murcan English are lively, young, energetic and full of zip and zing.

Better in every way.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

It's amusing that mathematicians can't agree if it is singular or plural.

[Griffon64]

*cuddles up to the Faramonster, just because he's mathy and he said Teh Griffon is cute*

I say it should be mathses too. 'tis Teh Evil, precious. Ack Algebra

Of course, in Afrikaans we sidestepped the issue by calling it something sensible ( "Wiskunde", which may be translated directly as "Knowledge about knowing things" - uhm, yes, it does translate to that. Did I say it was called something sensible? My bad! ) that's nice and singular.

"Math" sounds so ... disrespectful. Respect the Maths! It is more mathy than mere Math, see. Maths implies that there's LOTS of stuff in there that's going to tax your brain cellses.

And now, like yov did yesterday with the word "post" in the Parlour, I've used the root word "math" too often. So it now looks all weird to me

[baby tuckoo]

So, simply because bt has a job that does not allow him to be on-line until 4 pm local, he cannot contribute any novelty to this wordish thread.


Bah!

[Primula Baggins]

<Nelson Muntz>

Haha!

</Nelson Muntz>

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Personally, I think it should be called mathses.

Shouldn't that be nassssty mathses?

[Griffon64]

Personally, I think it should be called mathses.

Shouldn't that be nassssty mathses?

That is what I INTENDED to post. I just forgot!

[Faramond]

Maths is nice, not nasty!

[Griffon64]

Sadly, the school system seems to find a way to trample the fragile pleasure and beauty of maths in most young minds. I know I came out of school all bent out of shape in the maths department. My main beef with tests is that there was always trick questions in the ones I took. I came into each test armed with solid knowledge of how to handle the math structures I was supposed to know, and out of each test bloodied and battered by some trick question that made me doubt my faith in what I learned and made me think what I thought was the way to do something, was wrong.

Math tests should be more about positive reinforcement and less about trick questions - that will send more people into the world with a solid working knowledge of math and a non-negative feeling towards it.

Math is nice when you understand it, or when somebody who understands it talks about it to you. It is nasssssty, precious, when your only experience with it is bad test grades

[axordil]

Griff--

The problem is that they don't teach logic in English any more as a rule (nor rhetoric, and barely grammar), so they have to do it in math. That means questions involving logical analysis, aka trick questions. I think that they should be marked as such, however.

[Griffon64]

I personally feel that logic can be taught as its own subject. ( And they can add some common sense to that while they're at it, as in, Not Everything Teh Internets Say Is True And Other Things You Need To Know In Life )

Keep maths purely about solving equations, and about how to solve them, and how to recognize the patterns in the problem sets that help you identify which technique to use to solve them. Keep it straight forward and simple. Lay the foundation strong before building on it. A lot of kids struggle enough with just simple equations.

While this goes on in one subject, do logic in another subject. Use last year's math foundation to build on, maybe, if you need an application field. This way, the student gets to come to grips properly with the material before learning how to apply it in what may seem to them like "advanced" situations.

I say this because I've seen my friends struggle with math, and give up on it and declare themselves "stupid" while they were not, simply because the courses weren't presented that well and it was hard for them to seperate the base material from the "trick questions". Why, I myself kicked the behind of pure theoretical Calculus at the end of the second year of my B degree and took some Applied Mathematics courses instead, which were MUCH easier because they were mostly the "logical analysis" part, without adding new mathematical concepts to it.

Oh, and those courses were fun, too. I couldn't see myself ever needing to know how to do triple integrals ( four-dimensional, anyone? ) but I COULD see how the Pigeon Hole Principle could be a neat party trick, and how knowing how to calculate odds off the top of my head could make me sound smart in meetings where somebody is overestimating a risk

I am not even talking of university-level stuff, though - the math taught in schools already start the "rot".

Or maybe I'm just full of hot air, in which case I humbly apologize

[Primula Baggins]

You're not full of hot air, Griffy. Math is taught poorly here, too.

Part of the problem may be that this is definitely a subject that people learn in different ways. I probably would have understood calculus much better if graphing calculators had existed then; seeing shapes to go with the equations, then seeing what happened when I changed the equations, would've made a huge difference to me. But not everyone is visual that way.

My daughter has to work extremely hard in her algebra class getting through the daily assignments, but she recently found that if she takes a test, then goes in and works through everything she did wrong with the teacher, then retakes the test, she actually masters the material. But there's no time for one teacher to teach forty students (times five classes a day makes two hundred) each in their own best individual way.

Also, math textbooks tend to be written by people who have no trouble understanding math. And we all know from software manuals how useless explanations can be when they come from somebody with a complete intuitive grasp of the material and no idea that anyone else is any different.

[axordil]

And we all know from software manuals how useless explanations can be when they come from somebody with a complete intuitive grasp of the material and no idea that anyone else is any different.

Actually, very few manual writers (in my experience) have that kind of grasp of their material. The coders and developers might, but they're not allowed to attempt things like writing in responsible companies.

Otherwise your point is well-founded. It is one thing to know, and another thing to be able to break down what you know to the point of making it sharable with people not yet at your level.