www.ditl.org

All of which is why I say that we should us a little common sense.

Think about it. Do you REALLY think the intent of Star Trek is that these ships of the future should be limited to ranges far less than present day weapons? I doubt anybody can honestly say yes to that.

Yes, but if we just assumed that the intention of common sense was behind all the glaring errors or nonsensical bits we see, what would we complain about?

GrahamKennedy wrote:Think about it. Do you REALLY think the intent of Star Trek is that these ships of the future should be limited to ranges far less than present day weapons? I doubt anybody can honestly say yes to that.

I've no doubt that the intention was that they should have spectacular ranges, and be invulnerable to all but the most powerful weapons. What we got was combat at spitting distance and ships in danger of being destroyed by the equivalent of a few kg of HE.

Captain Seafort wrote:I've no doubt that the intention was that they should have spectacular ranges, and be invulnerable to all but the most powerful weapons. What we got was combat at spitting distance and ships in danger of being destroyed by the equivalent of a few kg of HE.

Please remind me to do my own math when I get my own show.

No. I might remind you to your maths though.

Captain Seafort wrote:No. I might remind you to your maths though.

I'm sorry, not being British, I don't do "maths".

I do "math".

Mathematics is plural, therefore its abbreviation must also be plural. Simple grammar.

Oh, but your using common sense. We're using american english...

Nickswitz wrote:Oh, but your using common sense. We're using american english...

You're using American. Whether or not it can be called any form of English is debatable. The English language possesses the letter "u" and is not obsessed with the letter "z".

Nickswitz wrote:Oh, but your using common sense. We're using american english...

Exactly. As stupid as it is, no one over here calls it "doing maths", and they probably never will. *shrug*

Although, in the singular, it's a "mathematical" calculation, which doesn't seem to be plural.

Because a single calculation is (of course) singular. The discipline as a whole covers multiple areas, and so requires the plural.

Right. You remember the letter "u" - where it isn't needed as in "cheque." And you don't obssess over "z" - even where it is indicated, as in "analyse." Yeah, you've got the monopoly on common sense in morphology alright.

Captain Seafort wrote:Because a single calculation is (of course) singular. The discipline as a whole covers multiple areas, and so requires the plural.

Well, since I don't know the whole discipline, and only do singular equations, I stand by my assertion that I do "math".

In spanish you can use singular or plural: matemática or matemáticas. We usually use the singular.

french is plural, les mathématiques or les maths.