Re: Table Names: Singular or Plural?

paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm wrote:
>
> As an aside, do all languages have both plural and singular versions
> of (most of) thier nouns?

Assuming you are speaking of natural languages rather than artificial ones (and that you want an earful of possibly off topic linguistics/philosophy) ...

Plurality, as a concept certainly exists in all languages. But how it's broken up depends on the language .e.g. some have singular, dual, and plural nouns rather than just singular and plural. Because of the abstract and historical nature of language, plurality of nouns does not necessarily have a direct relationship with plurality of objects any more than gender of nouns has a necessary relation with physical gender -- how many pants do you put on when you put on your pants? Is a bicycle really feminine, or only to the French?

Languages also make a distinction between countable nouns and uncountable nouns and between singular and plural versions of them. For example "advice" is a singular uncountable noun while "clothes" is a plural uncountable noun. Therefore these are all wrong: 1."I put on my clothe", 2."I listened to your advices", 3."I got 9 advices", 4."I wore 9 clothes". Number 3 is wrong twice ("advice" is not countable and not plural), but number 4 is only wrong once ("clothes" is plural but not countable). Similar differences in countability exist in most languages.

In addition to plurals/countables/uncountables, most (all?) languages have collective terms -- a flock, a herd, etc. But languages differ as to whether they treat the collective term as a single unit or as grouping of individuals: in some languages it is normal to say things like "the herd broke a leg today" when an individual cow is crippled. British and American English differ in whether they treat collective nouns as single unit or as a collection of individuals: "my family is in town" versus "my family are in town".

Making choices about plurality and granularity of data hides information however it is done. If we say "gang violence" we are generalizing the behaviour of individual gang members, foregrounding the group and backgrounding the individual.

So do we call the database table "flock", "geese", or "goose"? That depends on what behaviours and interactions we're interested in -- the flock goes south in the winter, the geese fly in a vee, and, at least in English, it is the individual goose that lays the egg.

Is it a wave, or is it a particle? Could it be both?

I say it again: making choices about plurality and granularity of data hides information however it is done.

-- 
Jeff